God and Logic
APPEALING TO GOD AS AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY:
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy that follows a form similar to such:
Person A is proposed to be an authority on Subject X.
Person A makes a statement (Claim Z) that is about Subject X.
Therefore, Claim Z is true.
The fallacy occurs when, in fact, Person A is not an authority on Subject X at all.
I quote the above to show what an appeal to authority is. Since any reading of Scripture follows the assumption that the creator God is the real and living God of the Universe, then we must maintain that assumption so as to pick apart Scripture adequately.
Therefore, it is no longer personal opinions that matter in the effort to understand Scripture (as not to commit all kinds of other fallacies - such as eisegesis like reading our own ideas into Scripture) - but the opinions of Scripture itself.
It is evident then, that basing it on the Scriptural position of the existence and personality of the creator God, that the omnipotence of God would show that appealing to Him as authority in ANYTHING would not be fallacious.
He knows all things, He created all things - "the wisdom of man is the foolishness of God" - and then when God speaks of anything we should expect it to be true.
"May God be true and every man a liar".
SPECIAL PLEADING AND GOD OR CHRIST:
Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.
Therefore, on the definition above... what is adequate justification for special pleading?
Certainly going on the base assumption that God is real then, special pleading would not be a fallacy for things that are not under the other common laws/rules of the universe.
Since only things in observable in the universe can be adequately weighed, certainly things like supernatural phenomena or a Spirit would be excused from regular laws on earth - such as the law of gravity.
It is not stated that ALL THINGS PERIOD fall under the laws of logic or gravity... but certain things that must be defined as a whole or individually (that can be observable).
Since God is not observable, such as the law of logic, thermodynamics and gravity - it would be necessary to infer that God cannot go under the fallacy of special pleading.
God is an exception to the rule - as only observable people (things and animals) are under this rule.
Since God can not possibly be subject to the laws of logic, then it is not "special pleading" to infer that He is exempt from the laws of logic (in fact it is the obvious inference).
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy that follows a form similar to such:
Person A is proposed to be an authority on Subject X.
Person A makes a statement (Claim Z) that is about Subject X.
Therefore, Claim Z is true.
The fallacy occurs when, in fact, Person A is not an authority on Subject X at all.
I quote the above to show what an appeal to authority is. Since any reading of Scripture follows the assumption that the creator God is the real and living God of the Universe, then we must maintain that assumption so as to pick apart Scripture adequately.
Therefore, it is no longer personal opinions that matter in the effort to understand Scripture (as not to commit all kinds of other fallacies - such as eisegesis like reading our own ideas into Scripture) - but the opinions of Scripture itself.
It is evident then, that basing it on the Scriptural position of the existence and personality of the creator God, that the omnipotence of God would show that appealing to Him as authority in ANYTHING would not be fallacious.
He knows all things, He created all things - "the wisdom of man is the foolishness of God" - and then when God speaks of anything we should expect it to be true.
"May God be true and every man a liar".
SPECIAL PLEADING AND GOD OR CHRIST:
Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.
Therefore, on the definition above... what is adequate justification for special pleading?
Certainly going on the base assumption that God is real then, special pleading would not be a fallacy for things that are not under the other common laws/rules of the universe.
Since only things in observable in the universe can be adequately weighed, certainly things like supernatural phenomena or a Spirit would be excused from regular laws on earth - such as the law of gravity.
It is not stated that ALL THINGS PERIOD fall under the laws of logic or gravity... but certain things that must be defined as a whole or individually (that can be observable).
Since God is not observable, such as the law of logic, thermodynamics and gravity - it would be necessary to infer that God cannot go under the fallacy of special pleading.
God is an exception to the rule - as only observable people (things and animals) are under this rule.
Since God can not possibly be subject to the laws of logic, then it is not "special pleading" to infer that He is exempt from the laws of logic (in fact it is the obvious inference).