On the omniscience of God

[Clete]

I'm not sure which statements of mine you're arguing against here. I haven't ever claimed that "reason doesn't work" or that "logic doesn't apply to God". God's reason/logic is supreme. I've always maintained that. It's mankind who has a limitation on his own reasoning abilites. God has no such limitation.

To whatever degree you undermine our ability to use reason is the degree to which you hobble our ability to tell right from wrong and truth from error. To whatever degree you believe we are incapable of using reason is the degree to which you are arguing that we are amoral and, as a consequence, to whatever degree God holds us responsible for our unavoidable errors in reason, is the degree to which He is unjust.

You keep poking around the edges of the concept of "human reason" as apposed to "God's reason" and I'm telling you that the only degree to which any such thing exists, is the degree to which humans screw up the use of reason, which, more often than not, is done intentionally. Which is to say that there is plenty of room for people to make mistakes in their thought process but that most of the important errors in human history don't have anything to do with unintentional mistakes nor some innate inability on our part as humans to properly use sound reason but rather have to do with an intentional perversion of reason.

You don't consider Eve's false reasoning to be lesser than God's?

This question makes no sense to me. Reason is absolute and is not effected by someone's use or misuse of it.
Eve's reasoning was wrong but it wasn't because of some different KIND of reasoning. The premise(s) that lead to Eve's decision were faulty and her conclusion was obvious wrong but that doesn't imply that she was using some different kind of reasoning faculty. On the contrary, it is precisely because reason works that her false premises lead to her false conclusion. Not only that, but it is precisely reason that permits you and I to know that what she did was wrong. Moreover, it is also reason and Eve's ability to use it properly that condemns her action. In other words, she should have known better and the reason she should have known better is precisely because she had the ability to think properly.

It seems to me that your answer is in your own question. Please explain, because in my understanding, false reasoning is lesser than true reasoning.

Explain?
How?
Which sort of reason should I use; the lesser sort of reason that we humans are capable of or would you prefer true reasoning?

"In your understanding"?
Is that understanding the process of the lesser form of reason that we humans are capable of?
If so, how can you trust it and by what means would I ever be able to explain it away by use of the same lesser form of reason?

Do you see my point here?

There isn't any such thing as "lesser reasoning" in the sense in which you mean it. If there were, you'd have no way of knowing that it exists, never mind correcting it. What you are doing, without realizing it, is trapping yourself inside a world that is hopelessly subjective; where there could be no such thing as objective truth. You can know right from wrong and truth from error in an ABSOLUTE way because and only because of sound reason - period. Indeed, it goes further than that! Sound reason is the only reason you can know ANYTHING AT ALL. The extent of your knowledge or lack thereof has nothing to do with the veracity or effectiveness of reason itself.

 

[Derf]

Right. My point was simply that we don't apply faulty reasoning intentionally. It's often because we are limited in knowledge and understanding that makes our reasoning faulty. But poor reasoning certainly doesn't justify disobedience.

If we apply perfect reasoning to faulty premises, we get a faulty result. You keep calling it faulty or poor reasoning, and it is, but not because we are incapable of the reasoning process. Adam and Eve had faulty reasoning because they thought they knew everything they needed to know--a faulty premise--and because they had a new advisor that confirmed their faulty premises for them.

We must base our reasoning on our perceptions, IMO. That's all we have.

That may be all we have sometimes, but usually not. In Adam and Eve's case, they had more but refused to accept what their perceptions told them.

God created us with the ability to perceive the world around us. That is our only window to life. Now, as we study the Bible and pray, our perceptions generally become more accurate because our perceptions are constantly changing as we receive new information. Therefore our level of reasoning changes. Not God's reasoning - ours. You're right, God's reasoning is the standard and it's "outside of" our own. But we grow closer to it as we improve our perception of who he is and what he's done.

You seem to be justifying sin based on a lack of information. I don't think that is true most of the time.

Our station as lesser beings determines our reasoning ability. We can't reason as perfectly as God. That's the gist of my claim.

As stated, our reasoning isn't usually the problem. Adam and Eve reasoned well--but they ignored some inconvenient information.

If I'm trying to figure out why my '73 J10 won't run, I use my reasoning abilities to approach the problem. But that reasoning ability is completely governed by my knowledge and understanding of how the engine and its components are supposed to operate, along with my understanding of physics, mathematics, etc. Same goes for anything in life. It's not an attack on reason in general, only a critique of my personal abilites. God's abilities are way above my own. He wouldn't have to scratch his head over the J10 because his reasoning is perfect.

No, it's because His knowledge and His ability to search out a problem are perfect.

It seems you agree that we have lesser reasoning than God? That's all I'm saying.

I'm not sure if it is "lesser" reasoning. I think it is sometimes reasoning based on less info, including setting aside info that has been made available. Consider Richard Dawkins, an ardent atheist. He has been given information about God, but he refuses to accept and use that information.

Because we choose to disobey. Not because God asks us to do the impossible. He doesn't make us one way, and then punish us for being that way. That would be unjust. His mercy is so amazing because, even though we consciously choose to go astray, he makes a way for us to be reconciled to him again - if we choose to repent. Otherwise, it wouldn't be mercy. It would be him making up for his previous unjust action and expectation.

I agree. But if we choose based on the faulty or poor reasoning you say God gave us, then we aren't culpable.

This takes us directly into a discussion of freewill vs determinism, which would be a YUGE rabbit trail.

That's what this forum is here for.

 

[Clete]

It seems that you and I don't define reason the same way. It appears that you believe someone either has reason or he doesn't have reason. Black or white. On or off. Binary. Only two possibilities. Please correct me if that is not your view.

Consider yourself corrected.

Rather, I believe that reasoning ability is on a scale.

Ability?

Of course. One's skill in the use of sound reason is very definitely on a scale. No question about it. It's a skill like any other. Someone who spends hours a day in the water is going to be a better swimmer than someone who spends all his time behind a desk. That doesn't change the nature of water.

God is at the top of the scale and has perfect reasoning. We are somewhere lower on that scale.

Well, yes, except that God is more than just super skilled at using reason, He IS Reason. He is the very Fountainhead of thought itself.

In the same sense that God is Love, God is also Reason (John 1:1-14). In the same sort of sense, we can also say that God is Justice, God is Kindness, God is Righteousness, etc. And what I'm trying to get you to see is that just as there is no "lesser" kind of righteousness, there is no "lesser" kind of reason. Just as a law is either just or unjust, so a thought is either rational or it is irrational, a claim is either true or it is false. To suggest otherwise is a tacit rejection of the law of excluded middle and therefore of reason altogether.

Animals are even lower.

Yes, humans must choose to think in order to survive, whereas animals operate much more on instinct.
Animals have no ability to choose to pervert reason but they do use reason. Obviously, animals do not think in words, but, if they did, one thought an animal might have is "I'm hungry. Therefore, I'm going to catch and eat that yummy looking thing over there." It's not complex but it is rational. A plants or animal will act automatically to further its life, it cannot volitionally act for its own destruction and therein lies the real difference between what plants and animals and other lower life forms do vs. what human beings do. People have no automatic code of survival. Their particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice.
That isn't to say that animals have no ability to make choices. They clearly do. A female bird chooses her mate, for example. But what animals have no ability to choose is to perform an act that has as it's motive the animal's own destruction. They may destroy themselves accidentally or they may fail in an effort to survive but only people can choose to act for their own destruction.

Let's start there because I think that's the crux of our disagreement. And it may just be that we're both looking at the same thing from two different angles.

The clearest way that I can think of to express what I am trying to say is that reason is what it is. There aren't various kinds of reason. Just as a moral act is either righteous or evil; just as a verdict is either just or unjust; just as a claim is either true or it is false; so also is a line of reasoning either rational or irrational.

This MUST be so because, otherwise, knowledge itself is impossible and the very declaration that it isn't so would be a conclusion that was impossible to establish.

It might also be helpful for you to read the following article...

The Nature & Necessity of Logic by Craig S. Hawkins from which I quote...

"We are created in the imago Dei--the image of God. This includes, among other attributes, the ability to reason. This entails the value of evidence and reason. As Charles Hodge informs us:​

"If the contents of the Bible did not correspond with the truths which God has revealed in his external works and the constitution of our nature, it could not be received as coming from Him, for God cannot contradict himself. Nothing, therefore, can be more derogatory to the Bible than the assertion that its doctrines are contrary to reason. The assumption that reason and faith are incompatible; that we must become irrational in order to become believers is, however it may be intended, the language of infidelity; for faith in the irrational is of necessity itself irrational....We can believe only what we know, i.e., what we intelligently apprehend.""​

​

And while I understand that you do not deny the veracity of logic and reason per se, my point is that you at least seem to be undermining it to one extent or another and that doing so is wrong for the essentially the same reasons that someone who was outright denying the veracity of reason is wrong. Those who think that logic doesn't work must use logic to even make that claim and thus they defeat themselves by opening their mouths. Your error is similar in that to whatever degree you claim that man's ability to use reason is somehow deficient, you undermine your own ability to know that it's deficient.

Clete

 

[Idolater]

The Nature & Necessity of Logic by Craig S. Hawkins from which I quote...

"We are created in the imago Dei--the image of God. This includes, among other attributes, the ability to reason. This entails the value of evidence and reason. As Charles Hodge informs us:​

"If the contents of the Bible did not correspond with the truths which God has revealed in his external works and the constitution of our nature, it could not be received as coming from Him, for God cannot contradict himself. Nothing, therefore, can be more derogatory to the Bible than the assertion that its doctrines are contrary to reason. The assumption that reason and faith are incompatible; that we must become irrational in order to become believers is, however it may be intended, the language of infidelity; for faith in the irrational is of necessity itself irrational....We can believe only what we know, i.e., what we intelligently apprehend.""​

​

I never thought we'd see the day you'd quote a Calvinist non-ironically to support your view Clete, but, here we are.

 

[Clete]

I never thought we'd see the day you'd quote a Calvinist non-ironically to support your view Clete, but, here we are.

I've quoted Calvinists on this topic in a view notable places. This is just one prominent example. Another is in my essay, "Our Moral God" where I quote Gordon H. Clark's "God And Logic".

Calvinists aren't wrong because they're stupid. They're wrong because they choose to be. They will use logic so long as it suits their doctrinal needs and will play any irrational trick in the book when it doesn't, not the least of which is the appeal to "mystery" and/or "antinomy" when logic fails them entirely as well as their intentional redefinition of nearly every word in the English language that pertains to Christian doctrine.

 

[Psychlo]

If we apply perfect reasoning to faulty premises, we get a faulty result. You keep calling it faulty or poor reasoning, and it is, but not because we are incapable of the reasoning process. Adam and Eve had faulty reasoning because they thought they knew everything they needed to know--a faulty premise--and because they had a new advisor that confirmed their faulty premises for them.

This is true. And also, if we apply substandard reasoning to a perfect premise, we get a faulty result. It works both ways. Imperfect reasoning isn't the only way we get into trouble, but it's not uncommon. That's what happens when we're duped or tricked into doing dumb things, like signing up for a ponzi scheme that seemed like a really good idea. We were given all the facts and it made complete "sense" at the time. Then we suffer the consequences.

That may be all we have sometimes, but usually not. In Adam and Eve's case, they had more but refused to accept what their perceptions told them.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here. What else do we have other than our senses to perceive the world around us? Are you talking about conscience, or the spirit, or...?

You seem to be justifying sin based on a lack of information. I don't think that is true most of the time.

Not at all. There is no way to justify sinning. Sin is caused by disobedience to God's will, whether we understand it or not. God has given us freewill to choose what level of reason to use, whether to use our full capacity to reason or none at all. But it seems evident to me that God's capacity to reason exceeds our own.

As stated, our reasoning isn't usually the problem. Adam and Eve reasoned well--but they ignored some inconvenient information.

I agree that it isn't usually the problem. But it is sometimes. We reason imperfectly. And sometimes it trips us up.

Eve relied on her imperfect reasoning ability instead of obeying the command. My conjecture: If she had reasoned perfectly, she would have gone further and reasoned that God, the creator, was more likely to be right and more trustworthy than this serpent. She had no "reasonable" excuse to choose the serpent's word over God's. Yet she did it. She was deceived. Her imperfect reasoning was preyed upon and taken advantage of by the serpent.

No, it's because His knowledge and His ability to search out a problem are perfect.

I'm not sure which part you're saying no to. Do you not think that God's "ability to seach out a problem" is his reason? That's how we solve problems in life. We use our reason. But we fail sometimes because our reasoning capability is imperfect. This in no way detracts from God's reasoning capabilities. Nor does it absolve us of culpability. We have everything we require to please God. Only our own self-centeredness prevents us from doing so completely.

I'm not sure if it is "lesser" reasoning. I think it is sometimes reasoning based on less info, including setting aside info that has been made available. Consider Richard Dawkins, an ardent atheist. He has been given information about God, but he refuses to accept and use that information.

What makes the idea of "lesser" reasoning a difficult notion to accept? We accept it with all manner of other concepts. God is love. Yet we have varying degrees of how much love we exhibit. Indeed, if we loved perfectly, we would never sin. That doesn't detract from God's love, nor does it undermine the concept of love. We have a lesser love ability than God. We are made in his image, but not perfectly. Why is reason different?

I totally agree that Dawkins has all the information he needs to be saved. So why does he reject it? He reasons differently in all his debates and in his books. He uses argument after argument to prove that God doesn't and can't exist. It's faulty reasoning. But not all of it. Much of what he says is accurate. But he mixes sound reason with unsound. It's like the expression "Every lie has a little bit of truth to it". That's how deception works. I believe that Dawkins and others like him are not using the reasoning ability God gave them to it's fullest extent. They hamstring themselves by letting emotion obscure their reasoning. By the way, that happens with Christians all too often as well. I am emabarrassed when I look back at times I've been guilty of holding to a certain theological or doctrinal position vehemently, and then finding out later that I was wrong. I was emotionally tied to an idea and I didn't even realize it. I thought I was being so logical and consistent in my analysis of the scriptures and their exegesis. Yet I failed. But that's called being human. Our faulty reasoning often leads us to improper conclusions.

I agree. But if we choose based on the faulty or poor reasoning you say God gave us, then we aren't culpable.

As explained above, I don't think culpability is infringed upon at all. Just like we don't get a pass for lacking wisdom, knowledge, understanding, or courage, we're not off the hook if we use poor reasoning either. When it comes to sin, we choose to either obey or disobey.

That's what this forum is here for.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Eve relied on her imperfect reasoning ability

Are you actually asserting that Eve was flawed in some way, against the fact that God called everything He had made, including Eve, "very good"?

 

[Clete]

But it seems evident to me that God's capacity to reason exceeds our own.

Evident?

What evidence do you have that God's CAPACITY to reason exceeds our own.

Define your terms and explain what evidence you have that our capacity to reason diminished?

You seem to be talking about something other than an ability to think properly. You seem to be talking about intelligence or degrees of knowledge. Reason is not information nor is it knowledge, neither is it wisdom. These things speak to what one chooses to think about but reason is simply one's ability to think in a non-contradictory manner. It is the act of limiting one's mind to the boundries of what is real. One can either do it, or they cannot. We are either rational beings or we are not.

 

[Derf]

This is true. And also, if we apply substandard reasoning to a perfect premise, we get a faulty result. It works both ways. Imperfect reasoning isn't the only way we get into trouble, but it's not uncommon. That's what happens when we're duped or tricked into doing dumb things, like signing up for a ponzi scheme that seemed like a really good idea. We were given all the facts and it made complete "sense" at the time. Then we suffer the consequences.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here. What else do we have other than our senses to perceive the world around us? Are you talking about conscience, or the spirit, or...?

Not at all. There is no way to justify sinning. Sin is caused by disobedience to God's will, whether we understand it or not. God has given us freewill to choose what level of reason to use, whether to use our full capacity to reason or none at all. But it seems evident to me that God's capacity to reason exceeds our own.

I agree that it isn't usually the problem. But it is sometimes. We reason imperfectly. And sometimes it trips us up.

Eve relied on her imperfect reasoning ability instead of obeying the command. My conjecture: If she had reasoned perfectly, she would have gone further and reasoned that God, the creator, was more likely to be right and more trustworthy than this serpent. She had no "reasonable" excuse to choose the serpent's word over God's. Yet she did it. She was deceived. Her imperfect reasoning was preyed upon and taken advantage of by the serpent.

I'm not sure which part you're saying no to. Do you not think that God's "ability to seach out a problem" is his reason? That's how we solve problems in life. We use our reason. But we fail sometimes because our reasoning capability is imperfect. This in no way detracts from God's reasoning capabilities. Nor does it absolve us of culpability. We have everything we require to please God. Only our own self-centeredness prevents us from doing so completely.

What makes the idea of "lesser" reasoning a difficult notion to accept? We accept it with all manner of other concepts. God is love. Yet we have varying degrees of how much love we exhibit. Indeed, if we loved perfectly, we would never sin. That doesn't detract from God's love, nor does it undermine the concept of love. We have a lesser love ability than God. We are made in his image, but not perfectly. Why is reason different?

I totally agree that Dawkins has all the information he needs to be saved. So why does he reject it? He reasons differently in all his debates and in his books. He uses argument after argument to prove that God doesn't and can't exist. It's faulty reasoning. But not all of it. Much of what he says is accurate. But he mixes sound reason with unsound. It's like the expression "Every lie has a little bit of truth to it". That's how deception works. I believe that Dawkins and others like him are not using the reasoning ability God gave them to it's fullest extent. They hamstring themselves by letting emotion obscure their reasoning. By the way, that happens with Christians all too often as well. I am emabarrassed when I look back at times I've been guilty of holding to a certain theological or doctrinal position vehemently, and then finding out later that I was wrong. I was emotionally tied to an idea and I didn't even realize it. I thought I was being so logical and consistent in my analysis of the scriptures and their exegesis. Yet I failed. But that's called being human. Our faulty reasoning often leads us to improper conclusions.

As explained above, I don't think culpability is infringed upon at all. Just like we don't get a pass for lacking wisdom, knowledge, understanding, or courage, we're not off the hook if we use poor reasoning either. When it comes to sin, we choose to either obey or disobey.

My concern over faulty or poor reasoning is that you say God gave it to us. He also gives us information. And if what God gave us is not sufficient to come to the right conclusion, then we aren't culpable, because with chosen, as you say, without all the means necessary to choose correctly. Going back to your illustration of the little kid. If he chooses wrongly, it's not as big a deal precisely because he is still being taught the information and reasoning skills that will be necessary. Adam and Eve already had enough information and reasoning ability to make the decision, else they weren't culpable--just like little Billy. The command was the information the rejected. As long as the command, along with the consequence, isn't in play, they made a logical decision with the information they had been given, some of which was false. They were culpable, and we all suffer for it, because they had the right amount of reasoning ability for the task God gave them.

 

[Psychlo]

Are you actually asserting that Eve was flawed in some way, against the fact that God called everything He had made, including Eve, "very good"?

"Very good" is not the same thing as perfect. Would you disagree? That raises even bigger issues if Adam and Eve were perfect, not to mention all of creation.

 

[Psychlo]

Evident?

What evidence do you have that God's CAPACITY to reason exceeds our own.

Define your terms and explain what evidence you have that our capacity to reason diminished?

You seem to be talking about something other than an ability to think properly. You seem to be talking about intelligence or degrees of knowledge. Reason is not information nor is it knowledge, neither is it wisdom. These things speak to what one chooses to think about but reason is simply one's ability to think in a non-contradictory manner. It is the act of limiting one's mind to the boundries of what is real. One can either do it, or they cannot. We are either rational beings or we are not.

Are you saying that it's impossible to mix poor reasoning with good reasoning? It has to be all or nothing? If you could break our thinking down into tiny incremental tidbits, maybe you could say each tidbit is either 100% reason or 0% reason, but I'm not even sure that is accurate. Even so, our thoughts are a massive composite of those tidbits. So our total reasoning ability will be somewhere between 0% and 100%, right? We are the sum of our parts.

The evidence is simply that I see people using poor reasoning all the time. People even self-contradict. And I don't believe God does that.

If you give two people a cognitive puzzle to figure out, they take different approaches to the problem. And one guy will solve it quicker. Because they reason differently. One guy may have better reasoning abilities than the other. It's not a "flaw". It's just human nature. God gave us the abilities we need to do his will. Claiming that we can partially reason doesn't detract from reason as an idea, nor does it say anything one way or another about God's reasoning.

Besides, you're begging the question. You're asking me to prove your assertion false. You have repeatedly made the claim that our reasoning is on par with God's (forgive me, I don't recall your exact words). I believe He has superior abilities to us in pretty much everything, including reasoning ability. We make mistakes, I don't think He does. Gen 6 is a possible exception, depending on the definition of mistake. But generally, He doesn't; generally, we do.

People often behave irrationally, regardless of intelligence or knowledge. Would you agree?

 

[Clete]

"Very good" is not the same thing as perfect. Would you disagree? That raises even bigger issues if Adam and Eve were perfect, not to mention all of creation.

Issues like what?

 

[Clete]

Are you saying that it's impossible to mix poor reasoning with good reasoning? It has to be all or nothing?

I'm saying that this question makes no sense given the topic of discussion.

Replace "reasoning" with something else and maybe the point will be more clear. Say, riding a bicycle, for example. Some people are better at it than others. You seem to be suggesting that we are born with one leg 20 inches shorter than the other and are force to power the bike in some hobbled manner but that somehow SEEMS perfectly smooth and normal to us such that we cannot tell that we're hobbled.

If you could break our thinking down into tiny incremental tidbits, maybe you could say each tidbit is either 100% reason or 0% reason, but I'm not even sure that is accurate. Even so, our thoughts are a massive composite of those tidbits. So our total reasoning ability will be somewhere between 0% and 100%, right? We are the sum of our parts.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.

What function of your mind is it that you believe to be outside the realm of reason? Reason is all your mind is capable to doing. Every idea in your head, every feeling in your heart, every belief you hold, every word you speak both to others and to yourself are all products of reason. This is one MAJOR aspect of what it means for us to be made in the image and likeness of Logos!

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”​

​

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logos (i.e. Logic), and Logos was with God, and Logos was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men (i.e. not physical light but the light of mind - reason!). 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.​

The evidence is simply that I see people using poor reasoning all the time. People even self-contradict. And I don't believe God does that.

The fact that YOU can detect their contradiction is proof that THEY are capable of not contradicting themselves, right?

Reason is the mental faculty that identifies and integrates perceived information. Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level to the conceptual level. The method which reason employs in this process is logic and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. Reason is man’s only means of grasping reality and of acquiring knowledge and, therefore, the rejection of reason, whether done outright or by matters of degree, means that men either should act, or is doomed to act, in contradiction to the facts of reality. (a modified quote of Ayn Rand)

If you give two people a cognitive puzzle to figure out, they take different approaches to the problem. And one guy will solve it quicker. Because they reason differently.

NO! Look, I really don't think we are very far apart here. You are simply talking about something else.

The two do not have precisely the same thoughts, and their minds find different pathways to the same goal but they are both using reason. There are close to 9 billion people on planet Earth and no two of them have ever had the same set of thoughts in their head. That doesn't mean that there are 9 billion different kinds of reason!

Let's look at a specific example that I remember reading about in a book called "Can Man Live Without God" by Ravi Zacharias. Ravi is from India where there are all kinds of goofy ways that people think, almost all of which are irrational, by the way. One prominent difference in the way many easterners think is what might be termed "both / and" logic as apposed to the "either / or" logic of the west. For the easterner, it isn't either Yin or Yang, its both Yin and Yang. A claim doesn't have to be either right or wrong, it can be both true and false, it can both be and not be.
Ravi tells a story in the book where his friend is trying to convince him that "both / and" is superior and "either / or" logic is misguided. Ravi ends the debate by asking his friend, "Are you telling me that I have to choose between EITHER "Both / and" OR "either / or" logic?" His more honest than usual friend responds to the question by saying that ""Either / or" does seem to emerge!"

The point there being that something is either rationally sound or it isn't. There is NO THIRD OPTION!

That is just so critical for you to grasp!

There cannot be an alternative to reason because A is A. Reality exists and it is what it is. If one's thinking is consistent with both itself and reality, it is rationally sound and, conversely, if one's thinking contradicts either itself or reality then it is irrational - by definition. It is "yes" or it is "no". It is "right" or it is "wrong". There is no in between!

One guy may have better reasoning abilities than the other. It's not a "flaw". It's just human nature. God gave us the abilities we need to do his will. Claiming that we can partially reason doesn't detract from reason as an idea, nor does it say anything one way or another about God's reasoning.

Okay, now take this comment and apply it to itself....

If man's reasoning is flawed in some inherent way. How would you ever be able to tell whether what you just said is true?

Do you see how your own position is self-defeating?

Besides, you're begging the question. You're asking me to prove your assertion false.

No, I'm not!

First of all, that wouldn't be begging the question in the first place. One of us IS right (i.e. there is no rational possibility that we are both wrong). If you prove your position, you'll have proven mine to be false and, conversely, proving my position true will accomplish the feat of proving your position false.

More importantly, you've missed my point. I am not asking you to prove my position false, I'm telling you that there can be no proof of anything if your position is true. That goes for your position as well! If you're right then there'd be no way for you to know that you were right.

You have repeatedly made the claim that our reasoning is on par with God's (forgive me, I don't recall your exact words).

No, not in the way you are meaning it here. Again, I really doubt that we are as far apart as it might feel like right now. You are talking about something different.

I believe He has superior abilities to us in pretty much everything, including reasoning ability.

How about love?

Are humans fundamentally hobbled in our ability to love our family?

Sure, there are lots of people who don't love their family at all but I very literally would not hesitate for any length of time at all to die for either of my two daughters or anyone of several other members of my family.

Do I love them as much as God does? Certainly not. God's love is more consistent than mine in that He never does anything that even remotely harms them and God knows them better than I do and so has different facets of His love for them that I have, but does that mean that God is doing something OTHER than what I'm doing?

We make mistakes, I don't think He does. Gen 6 is a possible exception, depending on the definition of mistake. But generally, He doesn't; generally, we do.

What I'm trying desperately to get you to see is that if our ability to reason was hobbled in some fundamental way, there'd be no way for you to know whether you or anyone else had ever made a mistake.

Take drunk people, for example. If a man is drunk, his mind doesn't work right and he is quite incapable of doing anything about it. There's no telling what sort of stupidity he's going to think, say or do. The only reason he's even culpable for anything he says or does while drunk is because he chose to drink. His irrational behavior began with the sober choice to abdicate his ability to reason. What it seems to me that you're suggesting is that the entire human race is drunk, only not by choice, but by nature.

People often behave irrationally, regardless of intelligence or knowledge. Would you agree?

Of course!

It is our ability to reason soundly that gives us the ability to detect when someone is behaving irrationally and if you and I can do it, so can everyone else. Would you agree?

I want to close by directly quoting something from Ayn Rand, who, while hating God and utterly despising what she thought was Christianity, said the most Christian like things....

"To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living." - Ayn Rand “What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,​

Clete

 

[Psychlo]

My concern over faulty or poor reasoning is that you say God gave it to us. He also gives us information. And if what God gave us is not sufficient to come to the right conclusion, then we aren't culpable, because with chosen, as you say, without all the means necessary to choose correctly. Going back to your illustration of the little kid. If he chooses wrongly, it's not as big a deal precisely because he is still being taught the information and reasoning skills that will be necessary. Adam and Eve already had enough information and reasoning ability to make the decision, else they weren't culpable--just like little Billy. The command was the information the rejected. As long as the command, along with the consequence, isn't in play, they made a logical decision with the information they had been given, some of which was false. They were culpable, and we all suffer for it, because they had the right amount of reasoning ability for the task God gave them.

I think you and I are in total agreement on this part. Adam and Eve had every bit of ability they required to make the right choice. And they chose wrong. Eve, because she was deceived. Adam, for other undisclosed reasons (See 1 Tim 2:14). It wasn't because they lacked reasoning skills or information. It was because they chose to disobey. Remember, sin isn't in the action, but in the heart. The action is simply the evidence of the heart. Sin comes from the will.

One point: I do think reason and knowledge are connected in that, as we acquire more knowledge, our reasoning ability increases. That's why we get better at logic puzzles the more we practice them. I think Adam and Eve continued to grow in knowledge and reasoning just like we do, particularly after they ate the fruit. But it's not relevant to their culpability because God judges us based upon what we are able. He is just.

As far as God giving us faulty reasoning.... I don't look at it like that. God gave us freewill. He didn't give us sin. Sin is the result of our free to choice to disobey. He didn't give us poor reasoning, either. He gives us the choice to use as much or little reason as we want, within limits. Our limitation is like any other limitation (love, hope, understanding, knowledge, etc.) we have. We can improve these abilities as we grow in each area.

 

[Psychlo]

Issues like what?

Well, if everything was perfect, there would have never been sin, or rebellion, or disobedience of any kind. A finite being with freewill can't be perfect, IMO. God made the creation "perfect" for its intended purpose, but not perfect in the absolute sense. "Very good" simply means it was made just right for God's intention for it. Remember, there was also a "not good" (Gen 2:18). This doesn't imply God made an error, rather He just wasn't finished creating yet.

When Paul compares Adam to Christ, he makes it abundantly clear that the first Adam, being natural, was inadequate for perfection, whereas the second Adam, being spiritual, was not limited in such a way.

 

[Clete]

I think you and I are in total agreement on this part. Adam and Eve had every bit of ability they required to make the right choice. And they chose wrong. Eve, because she was deceived. Adam, for other undisclosed reasons (See 1 Tim 2:14). It wasn't because they lacked reasoning skills or information. It was because they chose to disobey. Remember, sin isn't in the action, but in the heart. The action is simply the evidence of the heart. Sin comes from the will.

One point: I do think reason and knowledge are connected in that, as we acquire more knowledge, our reasoning ability increases. That's why we get better at logic puzzles the more we practice them. I think Adam and Eve continued to grow in knowledge and reasoning just like we do, particularly after they ate the fruit. But it's not relevant to their culpability because God judges us based upon what we are able. He is just.

As far as God giving us faulty reasoning.... I don't look at it like that. God gave us freewill. He didn't give us sin. Sin is the result of our free to choice to disobey. He didn't give us poor reasoning, either. He gives us the choice to use as much or little reason as we want, within limits. Our limitation is like any other limitation (love, hope, understanding, knowledge, etc.) we have. We can improve these abilities as we grow in each area.

This is further evidence that we are not as far apart as it may seem!

One thing, however...

I think you overstated things when you said "sin isn't in the action, but in the heart."

There are dozens of scriptures along these lines but here's just a few....

​

Proverbs 24:12 If you say, “Surely we did not know this,” Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?​

​

Isaiah 59:18 According to their deeds, accordingly He will repay, Fury to His adversaries, Recompense to His enemies; The coastlands He will fully repay.​

​

Romans 2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.​

Sins happen in the form of thought, word and deed. Praise God that all our sin, regardless of form, frequency or severity, has been paid for by the death that Christ, our Creator, endured at Calvary.


Clete

 

[Psychlo]

I'm saying that this question makes no sense given the topic of discussion.

Replace "reasoning" with something else and maybe the point will be more clear. Say, riding a bicycle, for example. Some people are better at it than others. You seem to be suggesting that we are born with one leg 20 inches shorter than the other and are force to power the bike in some hobbled manner but that somehow SEEMS perfectly smooth and normal to us such that we cannot tell that we're hobbled.


That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.

What function of your mind is it that you believe to be outside the realm of reason? Reason is all your mind is capable to doing. Every idea in your head, every feeling in your heart, every belief you hold, every word you speak both to others and to yourself are all products of reason. This is one MAJOR aspect of what it means for us to be made in the image and likeness of Logos!

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”​

​

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logos (i.e. Logic), and Logos was with God, and Logos was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men (i.e. not physical light but the light of mind - reason!). 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.​

The fact that YOU can detect their contradiction is proof that THEY are capable of not contradicting themselves, right?

Reason is the mental faculty that identifies and integrates perceived information. Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level to the conceptual level. The method which reason employs in this process is logic and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. Reason is man’s only means of grasping reality and of acquiring knowledge and, therefore, the rejection of reason, whether done outright or by matters of degree, means that men either should act, or is doomed to act, in contradiction to the facts of reality. (a modified quote of Ayn Rand)


NO! Look, I really don't think we are very far apart here. You are simply talking about something else.

The two do not have precisely the same thoughts, and their minds find different pathways to the same goal but they are both using reason. There are close to 9 billion people on planet Earth and no two of them have ever had the same set of thoughts in their head. That doesn't mean that there are 9 billion different kinds of reason!

Let's look at a specific example that I remember reading about in a book called "Can Man Live Without God" by Ravi Zacharias. Ravi is from India where there are all kinds of goofy ways that people think, almost all of which are irrational, by the way. One prominent difference in the way many easterners think is what might be termed "both / and" logic as apposed to the "either / or" logic of the west. For the easterner, it isn't either Yin or Yang, its both Yin and Yang. A claim doesn't have to be either right or wrong, it can be both true and false, it can both be and not be.
Ravi tells a story in the book where his friend is trying to convince him that "both / and" is superior and "either / or" logic is misguided. Ravi ends the debate by asking his friend, "Are you telling me that I have to choose between EITHER "Both / and" OR "either / or" logic?" His more honest than usual friend responds to the question by saying that ""Either / or" does seem to emerge!"

The point there being that something is either rationally sound or it isn't. There is NO THIRD OPTION!

That is just so critical for you to grasp!

There cannot be an alternative to reason because A is A. Reality exists and it is what it is. If one's thinking is consistent with both itself and reality, it is rationally sound and, conversely, if one's thinking contradicts either itself or reality then it is irrational - by definition. It is "yes" or it is "no". It is "right" or it is "wrong". There is no in between!


Okay, now take this comment and apply it to itself....

If man's reasoning is flawed in some inherent way. How would you ever be able to tell whether what you just said is true?

Do you see how your own position is self-defeating?


No, I'm not!

First of all, that wouldn't be begging the question in the first place. One of us IS right (i.e. there is no rational possibility that we are both wrong). If you prove your position, you'll have proven mine to be false and, conversely, proving my position false will accomplish the feat of proving your position true.

More importantly, you've missed my point. I am not asking you to prove my position false, I'm telling you that there can be no proof of anything if your position is true. That goes for your position as well! If you're right then there'd be no way for you to know that you were right.


No, not in the way you are meaning it here. Again, I really doubt that we are as far apart as it might feel like right now. You are talking about something different.


How about love?

Are humans fundamentally hobbled in our ability to love our family?

Sure, there are lots of people who don't love their family at all but I very literally would not hesitate for any length of time at all to die for either of my two daughters or anyone of several other members of my family.

Do I love them as much as God does? Certainly not. God's love is more consistent than mine in that He never does anything that even remotely harms them and God knows them better than I do and so has different facets of His love for them that I have, but does that mean that God is doing something OTHER than what I'm doing?


What I'm trying desperately to get you to see is that if our ability to reason was hobbled in some fundamental way, there'd be no way for you to know whether you or anyone else had ever made a mistake.

Take drunk people, for example. If a man is drunk, his mind doesn't work right and he is quite incapable of doing anything about it. There's no telling what sort of stupidity he's going to think, say or do. The only reason he's even culpable for anything he says or does while drunk is because he chose to drink. His irrational behavior began with the sober choice to abdicate his ability to reason. What it seems to me that you're suggesting is that the entire human race is drunk, only not by choice, but by nature.


Of course!

It is our ability to reason soundly that gives us the ability to detect when someone is behaving irrationally and if you and I can do it, so can everyone else. Would you agree?

I want to close by directly quoting something from Ayn Rand, who, while hating God and utterly despising what she thought was Christianity, said the most Christian like things....

"To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living." - Ayn Rand “What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,​

Clete

I agree that we're very close. And I see that we keep unintentionally misrepresenting each other's positions and/or statements. So it's just a matter of finding the harmony.

Let's try this....

Would you agree that there are not different types of reason, but rather we are able to access and implement it to different degrees? Do you believe we can improve upon our reasoning ability and prowess?

 

[Clete]

Well, if everything was perfect, there would have never been sin, or rebellion, or disobedience of any kind.

This is just so wrong, it's hard to even put into words!

I'd love to know by what process of thought you came to such a conclusion.

A finite being with freewill can't be perfect, IMO.

Define "perfect"?

Perfect, by what standard?

God made the creation "perfect" for its intended purpose, but not perfect in the absolute sense.

Define "perfect" in the absolute sense.

"Very good" simply means it was made just right for God's intention for it. Remember, there was also a "not good" (Gen 2:18). This doesn't imply God made an error, rather He just wasn't finished creating yet.

Exactly! He wasn't finished!

Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”​

​

But then after He made Eve, He was finished and it was EXACTLY the way it should be and they were perfect just as we will be perfect on that Great Day.

Matthew 5:48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.​

And that is in spite of man being finite. Every man has a beginning and so, by definition, is a finite creature and yet we shall be perfect just as He is perfect.

Further, the scripture indicates that Lucifer, another finite being, was "perfect in all his ways"....

Ezekiel 28:12b “You were the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The sardius, topaz, and diamond,
Beryl, onyx, and jasper,
Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.
The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes
Was prepared for you on the day you were created.​

​

14 “You were the anointed cherub who covers;
I established you;
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you.​

​

16 “By the abundance of your trading
You became filled with violence within,
And you sinned;
Therefore I cast you as a profane thing
Out of the mountain of God;
And I destroyed you, O covering cherub,
From the midst of the fiery stones.​

When Paul compares Adam to Christ, he makes it abundantly clear that the first Adam, being natural, was inadequate for perfection, whereas the second Adam, being spiritual, was not limited in such a way.

Again, you need to define what you're talking about here because if by "inadequate for perfection" you're talking about moral perfection, then you are saying that Adam and Eve were made immoral - by God!

Clete

 

[Psychlo]

This is further evidence that we are not as far apart as it may seem!

One thing, however...

I think you overstated things when you said "sin isn't in the action, but in the heart."

There are dozens of scriptures along these lines but here's just a few....

​

Proverbs 24:12 If you say, “Surely we did not know this,” Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?​

​

Isaiah 59:18 According to their deeds, accordingly He will repay, Fury to His adversaries, Recompense to His enemies; The coastlands He will fully repay.​

​

Romans 2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.​

Sins happen in the form of thought, word and deed. Praise God that all our sin, regardless of form, frequency or severity, has been paid for by the death that Christ, our Creator, endured at Calvary.


Clete

I don't disagree with anything here. However, I do believe all sin comes from the heart. The actions that spring forth form the heart are the evidence. That's the difference between cold-blooded murder and self-defense manslaughter. It's the same action but with different motives.

Same is true if you're forced or tricked into a "sinful act". If it wasn't your intention, you are not culpable.

Thought experiment:

 

[Psychlo]

I don't disagree with anything here. However, I do believe all sin comes from the heart. The actions that spring forth form the heart are the evidence. That's the difference between cold-blooded murder and self-defense manslaughter. It's the same action but with different motives.

Same is true if you're forced or tricked into a "sinful act". If it wasn't your intention, you are not culpable.

Thought experiment:

Oops, I didn't mean to post that yet!

Continuing on....

Thought experiment:
If, after eating the fruit, Eve had disguised the fruit and tricked Adam into eating it (maybe she mixed it in with some other frutits or berries), would Adam be culpable? I don't thnk so. Even though technically, he ate the very thing he was commanded not to.