Return to Answer

Logic isn't a thing that can be violated. It's a tool for understanding and explaining things. It's not a property of the world.

Just like something can't violate the scientific method. At most there can be a flaw in how we apply the scientific method to that thing or that thing could violate incorrect conclusions we've previously drawn by using the scientific method (which the scientific method is capable of dealing with). You similarly also can't say something violates semantics as a concept (the idea of defining words to represent things). At most it can expose a flaw in a particular definition of a word.

If we say "God knows everything" and there's something God doesn't appear to know for any reason, then we wouldn't say logic is violated, we'd simply say our premise appears to be false.

Even if something were completely illogical / random, logic still wouldn't be violated. You just wouldn't be able to reason about it logically (beyond coming to the logical conclusion that you're unable to understand it using logical reasoning at this time, which may mean it's illogical or random, or that you simply don't understand it well enough). Although illogical and random aren't really the properties you'd want your god to have, because that might mean random punishments, commandments that contradict one another and therefore can't all be followed, and rewards you can't be sure you'll get.

To say that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent is to say that God will act in a way consistent with those attributes. If God doesn't appear to act in a way consistent with those attributes, we're logically left with these options:

• God doesn't actually possess 1 or more of those attributes.
• One of the other premises that led to the conclusion that God isn't acting in a way consistent with those attributes can be shown to be false.
• There's a flaw in our logical reasoning. This is probably the closest you'll get to "violating logic". But it doesn't really violate logic at all: we have many logical fallacies which represent flaws in logical reasoning. The problem with trying to say this would be that the burden of proof will be on you to show what the flaw is, and the flaw would similarly exist for things other than God.
• We're incapable of understanding how the acts of God are consistent with those attributes (God is beyond understanding). This is a common rebuttal from theists (and it's an unsatisfying rebuttal, because it allows a theist to only use logic in as far as it supports their argument, and basically prevents anyone from countering their argument using logic).

The idea that God can't be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient if evil exists (which appears to be the argument you're referencing) is known as the problem of evil, which is quite a popular point of debate.

Logic isn't a thing that can be violated. It's a tool for understanding and explaining things. It's not a property of the world.

Just like something can't violate the scientific method. At most there can be a flaw in how we apply the scientific method to that thing or that thing could violate incorrect conclusions we've previously drawn by using the scientific method (which the scientific method is capable of dealing with). You similarly also can't say something violates semantics as a concept (the idea of defining words to represent things). At most it can expose a flaw in a particular definition of a word.

If we say "God knows everything" and there's something God doesn't appear to know for any reason, then we wouldn't say logic is violated, we'd simply say our premise appears to be false.

Even if something were completely illogical / random, logic still wouldn't be violated. You just wouldn't be able to reason about it logically (beyond coming to the logical conclusion that you're unable to understand it using logical reasoning at this time, which may mean it's illogical or random, or that you simply don't understand it well enough). Although illogical and random aren't really the properties you'd want your god to have, because that might mean random punishments, commandments that contradict one another and therefore can't all be followed, and rewards you can't be sure you'll get.

To say that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent is to say that God will act in a way consistent with those attributes. If God doesn't appear to act in a way consistent with those attributes, we're logically left with these options:

• God doesn't actually possess 1 or more of those attributes.
• One of the other premises that led to the conclusion that God isn't acting in a way consistent with those attributes can be shown to be false.
• There's a flaw in our logical reasoning. This is probably the closest you'll get to "violating logic". But it doesn't really violate logic at all: we have many logical fallacies which represent flaws in logical reasoning. The problem with trying to say this would be that the burden of proof will be on you to show what the flaw is, and the flaw would similarly exist for things other than God.
• We're incapable of understanding how the acts of God are consistent with those attributes (God is beyond understanding). This is a common rebuttal from theists (and it's an unsatisfying rebuttal, because it allows a theist to only use logic in as far as it supports their argument, and basically prevents anyone from countering their argument using logic).

The idea that God can't be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient if evil exists (which appears to be the argument you're referencing) is known as the problem of evil, which is quite a popular point of debate. That is: as a serious argument, not as a tool for showing the limitations of logical arguments.

Logic isn't a thing that can be violated. It's a tool for understanding and explaining things. It's not a property of the world.

Just like something can't violate the scientific method. At most there can be a flaw in how we apply the scientific method to that thing or that thing could violate incorrect conclusions we've previously drawn by using the scientific method (which the scientific method is capable of dealing with). You similarly also can't say something violates semantics as a concept (the idea of defining words to represent things). At most it can expose a flaw in a particular definition of a word.

If we say "God knows everything" and there's something God doesn't appear to know for any reason, then we wouldn't say logic is violated, we'd simply say our premise appears to be false.

Even if something were completely illogical / random, logic still wouldn't be violated. You just wouldn't be able to reason about it logically (beyond coming to the logical conclusion that you're unable to understand it using logical reasoning at this time, which may mean it's illogical or random, or that you simply don't understand it well enough). Although illogical and random aren't really the properties you'd want your god to have, because that might mean random punishments, commandments that contradict one another and therefore can't all be followed, and rewards you can't be sure you'll get.

To say that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent is to say that God will act in a way consistent with those attributes. If God doesn't appear to act in a way consistent with those attributes, we're logically left with these options:

• God doesn't actually possess 1 or more of those attributes.
• One of the other premises that led to the conclusion that God isn't acting in a way consistent with those attributes can be shown to be false.
• There's a flaw in our logical reasoning. This is probably the closest you'll get to "violating logic". But it doesn't really violate logic at all: we have many logical fallacies which represent flaws in logical reasoning. The problem with trying to say this would be that the burden of proof will be on you to show what the flaw is, and the flaw would similarly exist for things other than God.
• We're incapable of understanding how the acts of God are consistent with those attributes (God is beyond understanding). This is a common rebuttal from theists (and it's an unsatisfying rebuttal, because it allows a theist to only use logic in as far as it supports their argument, and basically prevents anyone from countering their argument using logic).

The idea that God can't be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient if evil exists is known as the problem of evil, which is quite a popular point of debate.

Logic isn't a thing that can be violated. It's a tool for understanding and explaining things. It's not a property of the world.

Just like something can't violate the scientific method. At most there can be a flaw in how we apply the scientific method to that thing or that thing could violate incorrect conclusions we've previously drawn by using the scientific method (which the scientific method is capable of dealing with). You similarly also can't say something violates semantics as a concept (the idea of defining words to represent things). At most it can expose a flaw in a particular definition of a word.

If we say "God knows everything" and there's something God doesn't appear to know for any reason, then we wouldn't say logic is violated, we'd simply say our premise appears to be false.

Even if something were completely illogical / random, logic still wouldn't be violated. You just wouldn't be able to reason about it logically (beyond coming to the logical conclusion that you're unable to understand it using logical reasoning at this time, which may mean it's illogical or random, or that you simply don't understand it well enough). Although illogical and random aren't really the properties you'd want your god to have, because that might mean random punishments, commandments that contradict one another and therefore can't all be followed, and rewards you can't be sure you'll get.

To say that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent is to say that God will act in a way consistent with those attributes. If God doesn't appear to act in a way consistent with those attributes, we're logically left with these options:

• God doesn't actually possess 1 or more of those attributes.
• One of the other premises that led to the conclusion that God isn't acting in a way consistent with those attributes can be shown to be false.
• There's a flaw in our logical reasoning. This is probably the closest you'll get to "violating logic". But it doesn't really violate logic at all: we have many logical fallacies which represent flaws in logical reasoning. The problem with trying to say this would be that the burden of proof will be on you to show what the flaw is, and the flaw would similarly exist for things other than God.
• We're incapable of understanding how the acts of God are consistent with those attributes (God is beyond understanding). This is a common rebuttal from theists (and it's an unsatisfying rebuttal, because it allows a theist to only use logic in as far as it supports their argument, and basically prevents anyone from countering their argument using logic).

The idea that God can't be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient if evil exists (which appears to be the argument you're referencing) is known as the problem of evil, which is quite a popular point of debate.

Logic isn't a thing that can be violated. It's a tool for understanding and explaining things. It's not a property of the world.

Just like something can't violate the scientific method. At most there can be a flaw in how we apply the scientific method to that thing or that thing could violate incorrect conclusions we've previously drawn by using the scientific method (which the scientific method is capable of dealing with). You similarly also can't say something violates semantics as a concept (the idea of defining words to represent things). At most it can expose a flaw in a particular definition of a word.

If we say "God knows everything" and there's something God doesn't appear to know for any reason, then we wouldn't say logic is violated, we'd simply say our premise appears to be false.

Even if something were completely illogical / random, logic still wouldn't be violated. You just wouldn't be able to reason about it logically (beyond coming to the logical conclusion that it's illogical or random).

To say that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent is to say that God will act in a way consistent with those attributes. If God doesn't appear to act in a way consistent with those attributes, we're logically left with these options:

• God doesn't actually possess 1 or more of those attributes.
• One of the other premises that led to the conclusion that God isn't acting in a way consistent with those attributes can be shown to be false.
• There's a flaw in our logical reasoning. This is probably the closest you'll get to "violating logic". But it doesn't really violate logic at all: we have many logical fallacies which represent flaws in logical reasoning. The problem with trying to say this would be that the burden of proof will be on you to show what the flaw is, and the flaw would similarly exist for things other than God.
• We're incapable of understanding how the acts of God are consistent with those attributes (God is beyond understanding). This is a common rebuttal from theists (and it's an unsatisfying rebuttal, because it allows a theist to only use logic in as far as it supports their argument, and basically prevents anyone from countering their argument using logic).

Logic isn't a thing that can be violated. It's a tool for understanding and explaining things. It's not a property of the world.

Just like something can't violate the scientific method. At most there can be a flaw in how we apply the scientific method to that thing or that thing could violate incorrect conclusions we've previously drawn by using the scientific method (which the scientific method is capable of dealing with). You similarly also can't say something violates semantics as a concept (the idea of defining words to represent things). At most it can expose a flaw in a particular definition of a word.

If we say "God knows everything" and there's something God doesn't appear to know for any reason, then we wouldn't say logic is violated, we'd simply say our premise appears to be false.

Even if something were completely illogical / random, logic still wouldn't be violated. You just wouldn't be able to reason about it logically (beyond coming to the logical conclusion that you're unable to understand it using logical reasoning at this time, which may mean it's illogical or random, or that you simply don't understand it well enough). Although illogical and random aren't really the properties you'd want your god to have, because that might mean random punishments, commandments that contradict one another and therefore can't all be followed, and rewards you can't be sure you'll get.

To say that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent is to say that God will act in a way consistent with those attributes. If God doesn't appear to act in a way consistent with those attributes, we're logically left with these options:

• God doesn't actually possess 1 or more of those attributes.
• One of the other premises that led to the conclusion that God isn't acting in a way consistent with those attributes can be shown to be false.
• There's a flaw in our logical reasoning. This is probably the closest you'll get to "violating logic". But it doesn't really violate logic at all: we have many logical fallacies which represent flaws in logical reasoning. The problem with trying to say this would be that the burden of proof will be on you to show what the flaw is, and the flaw would similarly exist for things other than God.
• We're incapable of understanding how the acts of God are consistent with those attributes (God is beyond understanding). This is a common rebuttal from theists (and it's an unsatisfying rebuttal, because it allows a theist to only use logic in as far as it supports their argument, and basically prevents anyone from countering their argument using logic).

The idea that God can't be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient if evil exists is known as the problem of evil, which is quite a popular point of debate.