I think that's a pretty important consequence, — Amalac

So what difference will it make to what you do? Apart from posts to philosophy forums, that is.

God can't be "bound" by logic; logic is just formal grammar - how we can say things. But that 's the point; in his absence, we can't really say anything about him. And in his presence, nothing would need saying.

"God does not reveal himself" (Wittgenstein) — Mr.S

The full statement is:

How things are in the world is a matter of complete indifference for what is higher. God does not reveal himself in the world.
— T 6.432

That statement follows this one:

Propositions can express nothing that is higher.
— T 6.42

T = Tractatus

With regard to the existential relationship:

Being happy means being in agreement with the world (NB 8.7.16)

Living in agreement with the world is living in accord with one’s conscience, which is the voice of God.

I am then, so to speak, in agreement with that alien will on which I appear dependent. That is to say: “I am doing the will of God” (NB 8.7.16)

NB = Notebooks

God is outside the logical relationships of things in the world. What is or is not logically possible has nothing to do with God.

Since propositions can express nothing higher, talk of God is without sense. What does make sense is what refers to the logical relationships within the world. To what is the case. To facts.

So what difference will it make to what you do? Apart from posts to philosophy forums, that is. — Banno

By that criterion, you could ask the same about almost all philosophy.

God can't be "bound" by logic; logic is just formal grammar - how we can say things — Banno

Could God, if he exists, make something that both is and is not a tree, in the same sense and at the same time? Could he make an object that was both round and triangular?

If your answer to those questions is yes, then you are right that we should stay silent.

But it's still important in my opinion, because if this proof (Mr.S') were valid, then many philosophers could just stop wasting their time in building complicated systems based on a God that cannot do what is logically impossible, and use that time for more fruitful endeavors.

By that criterion, you could ask the same about almost all philosophy. — Amalac

Yep.

Could God, if he exists, make something that both is and is not a tree, in the same sense and at the same time? Could he make an object that was both round and triangular? — Amalac

If he exists, he made something that is both a particle and a wave; and to account for it we simply changed the description to one of mathematics. We choose the logic - the grammar - to match what is before us.

God is outside the logical relationships of things in the world. What is or is not logically possible has nothing to do with God. — Fooloso4

Are you sure about that?:

It used to be said that God could create anything except what would be contrary to the laws of logic. The truth is that we could not say what an "illogical" world would look like. — Wittgenstein

How would you interpret that passage? Many philosophers in the past and still now hold that God is constrained by logic, so it's still important to show why they are wrong, if indeed they are wrong.

Anyway, like I said before, we shouldn't focus on whether Mr's arguments are wholly consistent with Wittgenstein's philosophy, rather we should focus on the arguments for their own sake.

If he exists, he made something that is both a particle and a wave; and to account for it we simply changed the description to one of mathematics. We choose the logic - the grammar - to match what is before us. — Banno

That doesn't answer my questions (unless in your sentence particle means exactly, and without equivocation, “not a wave”, is that what you are saying?), just answer “yes” or “no”:

Could God, if he exists, make something that both is and is not a tree, in the same sense and at the same time? Could he make an object that was both round and triangular? — Amalac

Yep.

Ok then, let's just follow Wittgenstein's advice and stay silent!

Good plan.

Are you sure about that?: — Amalac

If you are asking about Wittgenstein then yes, I am quite sure. If you are talking about theology then in my opinion God is ineffable and theologians are always in one way or another always trying to eff him.

How would you interpret that passage? — Amalac

He is taking you to task. Trying to get you to think. Can you say what an illogical world would look like? Do you not see the problems?

... so it's still important to show why they are wrong, if indeed they are wrong. — Amalac

Why is it important? You can create any God you want, one that is and one or more that is not constrained by logic.

the arguments for their own sake. — Amalac

The argument is in my opinion not worth talking about. You obviously see things differently.

The argument is in my opinion not worth talking about. — Fooloso4

Odd thing is, you and I both came here to point out how the argument is not worth talking about... :lol:

There's the real problem with philosophy; our inability to remain silent.

If you are asking about Wittgenstein then yes, I am quite sure. If you are talking about theology then in my opinion God is ineffable and theologians are always in one way or another always trying to eff him. — Fooloso4

Ok then.

He is taking you to task. Trying to get you to think. Can you say what an illogical world would look like? Do you not see the problems? — Fooloso4

Right, and so one possible interpretation is that an “illogical” world is simply impossible, therefore even God cannot do what is logically impossible. I can't imagine X, therefore X is impossible. What's wrong with that interpretation?

Why is it important? You can create any God you want, one that is and one or more that is not constrained by logic. — Fooloso4

Because if, for instance, you showed a theologian a conclusive refutation of that God's existence (one bound by logic), then there would be no point in them thinking about what consequences could be derived from a philosophical system which falsely assumed that such a God can exist. And so, they could instead spend time on something more worthwhile.
It's opportunity cost, as economists say.

The argument is in my opinion not worth talking about. You obviously see things differently. — Fooloso4

Well, nothing to do about that I guess.

Calculus uses infinite points to describe something that is also finite in the exact same respect. Lots of things in modern mathematics seems to contradict Aristotle's law from one side, but humans surmount it from another. When you should back on contradictions after surmounting them they look different. Another better law is that a human cannot name something in particular he knows for sure is impossible.

Calculus uses infinite points to describe something that is also finite in the exact same respect. — Gregory

Infinite parts ≠ infinite extension. So no, it's not the “exact same respect”.

For instance: 1= 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+... even though 1 is a finite number, it has infinitely many parts.

We can divide a square in half, and then its half in half, and so on forever. And yet the square is obviously finite in extension.

Lots of things in modern mathematics seems to contradict Aristotle's law from one side — Gregory

Such as?

Another better law is that a human cannot name something in particular he knows for sure is impossible. — Gregory

Why not?

But anyway, as you said, let's not get off topic.

There's the real problem with philosophy; our inability to remain silent. — Banno

Some days here I feel like I am about to be cured of that affliction.

How would you interpret that passage? Many philosophers in the past and still now hold that God is constrained by logic, so it's still important to show why they are wrong, if indeed they are wrong.

Anyway, like I said before, we shouldn't focus on whether Mr's arguments are wholly consistent with Wittgenstein's philosophy, rather we should focus on the arguments for their own sake. — Amalac

Quick digression with apology. I am always curious that people want to work so hard to incorporate a version of God into their world. Why? Why not wait until death to find out?

Is not everything relating to the God idea man-made, fumbling mythos and speculation? The idea of God is ineffable - without words. Would it not be better to move on?

I suspect that when people don't move on it is because the romantic associations of the God idea have taken a hold of them and they are trying to fit a version of theism into their lives no matter what it takes.

The analogies used, lack enough similarity to draw a better understanding.

Truly, the best analogies, are the universes of computer games. They have their own laws of physics, times lines, land masses etc.

The developers are quite literally the AIs gods. All the problems we have of understanding why God can not reveal himself to us, are made clear by this analogy. A creator is all powerful and omnipotent, yet unable to show their face to the AI.

I put a lot of thought into this analogy, and go into great depth here.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10019/gods-existence-and-amorality-analogy

I posted, hoping to face up to challenging scrutiny. I was dissapointed in the lack of challenge but at the same time my belief is reaffirmed.

The developers are quite literally the AIs gods. All the problems we have of understanding why God can not reveal himself to us, are made clear by this analogy. A creator is all powerful and omnipotent, yet unable to show their face to the AI. — Edy

That's another way of putting it, yes.

But the point seems to be the same: the non-physical cannot mix with the physical without ceasing to be non-physical. Or if it could, it seems hard to imagine how such a thing is possible (and how could we identify something non-physical in the physical world?)

On the other hand, both the developers and the game are physical, so the former have no problem creating the latter.

With God however, the matter is different: Assuming God did exist then how did he, a non-physical entity, create the physical universe? That seems inconceivable, to say the least.

So I think your analogy is not quite adequate in that respect.

You don't seem to see the world with mystical eyes