The Logic of God

M. Heller
{"title":"The Logic of God","authors":"M. Heller","doi":"10.14394/edufil.2019.0023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"be subordinated. The fact that this question remains unanswered forces us to face the problem of plurality of logics. Usually, it is tacitly assumed that the role of “superlogic” is played by classical logic with its non-contradiction law as the most obvious tautology. We briefly discuss paraconsistent logic as an example of a logical system in which contradictions are allowed, albeit under the condition that they do not make the system to explode, i.e. that they do not spill over the whole system. Such logic is an internal logic in categories called cotopoi (or complement topoi). I refer to some theological discussions, both present and from the past, that associate “God’s logic” with classical logic, in particular with the non-contradiction principle. However, we argue that this principle should not be absolutized. The only thing we can, with some certainty, assert on “God’s logic” is that it is not an exploding logic, i.e. that it is not an “anything goes logic”. God is a Source-of-All-Rationality but His rationality need not to conform to our standards of what is rational. This “principle of logical apophaticism” is formulated and briefly discussed. In the history of theology at least one attempt is known to reconstruct the “process of God’s thinking”, namely Leibniz’s idea of God’s selecting the best world to be created from among all possible worlds. Some modifications are sug-gested which we believe Leibniz would have introduced in his reconstruction, if he knew present developments in categorical logic.","PeriodicalId":365492,"journal":{"name":"Edukacja Filozoficzna","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Edukacja Filozoficzna","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14394/edufil.2019.0023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

be subordinated. The fact that this question remains unanswered forces us to face the problem of plurality of logics. Usually, it is tacitly assumed that the role of “superlogic” is played by classical logic with its non-contradiction law as the most obvious tautology. We briefly discuss paraconsistent logic as an example of a logical system in which contradictions are allowed, albeit under the condition that they do not make the system to explode, i.e. that they do not spill over the whole system. Such logic is an internal logic in categories called cotopoi (or complement topoi). I refer to some theological discussions, both present and from the past, that associate “God’s logic” with classical logic, in particular with the non-contradiction principle. However, we argue that this principle should not be absolutized. The only thing we can, with some certainty, assert on “God’s logic” is that it is not an exploding logic, i.e. that it is not an “anything goes logic”. God is a Source-of-All-Rationality but His rationality need not to conform to our standards of what is rational. This “principle of logical apophaticism” is formulated and briefly discussed. In the history of theology at least one attempt is known to reconstruct the “process of God’s thinking”, namely Leibniz’s idea of God’s selecting the best world to be created from among all possible worlds. Some modifications are sug-gested which we believe Leibniz would have introduced in his reconstruction, if he knew present developments in categorical logic.
上帝的逻辑
次级。这个问题没有得到解答的事实迫使我们面对逻辑的多元性问题。通常,人们默认“超逻辑”的角色是由经典逻辑扮演的,经典逻辑的非矛盾律是最明显的同义性。我们简要地讨论了副协调逻辑作为一个逻辑系统的例子,在这个逻辑系统中,矛盾是允许的,尽管在它们不会使系统爆炸的条件下,也就是说,它们不会溢出整个系统。这种逻辑是称为协拓扑(或补拓扑)类别中的内部逻辑。我指的是一些神学讨论,无论是现在的还是过去的,都将“上帝的逻辑”与经典逻辑,特别是与非矛盾性原则联系在一起。然而,我们认为这一原则不应被绝对化。关于“上帝的逻辑”,我们唯一可以肯定的是,它不是一个爆炸的逻辑,也就是说,它不是一个“一切皆有可能”的逻辑。上帝是一切理性的源头,但他的理性不需要符合我们的理性标准。本文阐述并简要讨论了这一“逻辑回避原则”。在神学的历史上,至少有一次试图重建“上帝的思维过程”,即莱布尼茨关于上帝从所有可能的世界中选择最好的世界来创造的想法。一些修改建议,我们相信莱布尼茨会引入他的重建,如果他知道目前的发展直言逻辑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信