u/Pseudonymitous

God can't create a rock so big he can't lift it, can't create a married bachelor, can't draw a square circle. God is constrained by logic. For decades, I have seen people take issue with something being "more powerful" than God. I have not shared the concern.

Where do the logical constraints come from? I suggest it is a side-effect (of sorts) of the existence of matter.

1. Unlike trad Christianity, we assert that all matter is eternal--it "cannot be created or made." This means all matter in existence has always existed, and had no beginning. Matter's existence is independent of God's power.
2. Physical existence requires properties: perhaps a color, a shape, a relationship to something else, a charge, a behavior--something. Something physical without any properties cannot exist-- a physical thing with no properties is identical to nothing at all.
3. A property is definable. "1 inch tall" must have an objective meaning, or it would be indistinguishable from no property at all.
4. A definition distinguishes something from something that it is not. "1 inch tall" necessarily restricts something from being a height different from 1 inch. If a definition failed to distinguish in any way, it would be indistinguishable from no definition at all. Distinguishing is dictating rules. A proton cannot simultaneously objectively be an electron, unless the properties/definitions of both particles were identical.
5. Logical constraints, then, are baked into existence itself. Things have defined properties that distinguish, and they always have. If there were no logical constraints, there would be no existence.
6. This is true of God as well: if nothing can exist without logical constraint, God cannot exist without logical constraint. Some trad Christian theology tries to resolve this by claiming God is not physical and exists outside of reality itself. This is defining God as existing outside of existence. I might as well tell you a square circle is possible because it exists outside of reality itself. Okay, but... existing outside of reality means it does not exist, by definition. If something can exist outside of reality, then "existence" no longer has any coherent meaning.
7. God is constrained, then, by existence--He is constrained by the set of all properties of all matter that has always existed. Remember, fundamental matter cannot be created or destroyed, so fundamental logic cannot be created or destroyed.

So... why don't you worship existence? Why don't you bow down or pray to the set of all properties of matter that dictate "logic?" May I suggest two reasons?

1. Logic is not more powerful than God. Logic has no independent will, self-awareness, or ability to modify itself or anything else. It is a static concept. God, however, has independent will, the ability to independently act, self-awareness, and can leverage the possibilities logic affords to your benefit.

2. God is omnipotent (i.e., maximally powerful) amongst all that actually exists. Logic is not something that exists independent of physical things--it is a property of each existent thing. All power that is possible to have in existence, God has it. His only constraint isn't some entity called "logic" that combines all of reality together and waves a scepter--it is the self-existent property of a single particle. A single particle could defy God, saying "You can't destroy me!"--and the particle would be correct. But that reality doesn't stop God from being omnipotent.

Who set the rules of logic? Who defined the reality all in existence operates within? It is that molecule of air you just breathed in. It is the photon that just hit your eye. It is the eyelash that fell into the sink. It is me. It is you. These constrainers on God are not more powerful than God, nor are they omnipotent. But God is omnipotent, and leverages logic for our benefit.

Let go of boring questions on how omniscience and free will can reconcile, or how logic can rule over omniscience. Here's the important question: how can anything be funny if everyone is omniscient?

The science of humor tell us that to be "funny," something has to violate an expectation. Think of any joke--if you aren't familiar with the expectations behind it, it doesn't even make sense. It isn't funny.

What if you know everything, including the punchline 100 years before the joke is made? Setting up a joke is a waste of time, as everyone already knows what violation you are setting up. There is no absurdity in comparisons because you understand precisely what makes everything the way it is, and pointing out the obvious is not humorous. Nothing is ironic because there is no false front masking a hidden meaning--all of that is apparent at all times. Anticipation of a punchline no longer makes sense when past, present, and future are continuously before everyone's eyes.

If omniscience is the default state of Celestial beings, Heaven might be humorless.

Hell, on the other hand, is partially defined by less understanding. Citizens of hell can be surprised, suddenly see a connection, notice an apparent absurdity, see unexpected irony, and time a joke perfectly so the build-up provides anticipation.

I have a proposal. If heaven turns out to be joke-free, let's turn some of the omniscience out of doors and make a hell out of it--just enough to get some laughs in.

/s

Edited to Add: I neglected to say I am presenting this as a half-baked opinion and would love to read your thoughtful counters. I am an enthusiast, not an expert.

I believe syncretizing Greek philosophy (GP) was a major cause of corrupted Christian doctrine early on.

• Divine Simplicity: Initially proposed as a way to make Christian doctrine work with GP's claims of "parts require a designer," "there must be an ultimate source--an unmoved mover," "the ultimate source must have no parts," and more.
• Divine Immutability: A way to make Christian teachings about God work with GP's claims of "change implies deficiency," "perfection can never change," and more.
• Creation Ex Nihilo: A way to make Christian doctrine of bodily resurrection make any sense when GP claimed matter was eternally extant and inherently corruptible/undesirable/something less than transcendent.
• Trinitiarianism: An adaptation of GP claims of general vs. personal essential characteristics to reconcile a perceived conflict between God the Father, God the Son, and "there is only one God."

The list goes on. In scripture, new doctrine came ultimately from God. After the Apostles were gone, new doctrine came ultimately from Plato. Rather than starting with scriptures and prophets and figuring out how to adapt philosophy to that standard, Christianity began starting with philosophy and from there figuring out how to best interpret scriptures and prophets.

Nowadays, some Christians point to scriptures and say "the doctrine is right there." But if the doctrine were right there, the earliest Christians would have simply seen it--there should be no need for Aristotle's teachings to help them finally understand what the scripture means.

Doctrines designed to syncretize have become paramount arbiters of truth. Nowadays, most Christians hold to these doctrines rooted in Greek philosophy more tightly than they hold to some of their preferred doctrines such as nature of the atonement, authority of scripture and tradition, salvation by grace, or eschatology. Whether one loves as Jesus loves has become less important to Christianity than whether one believes Jesus shares the same homoousia with the Father.

Well, I think this happens to most of us, including me. We look for answers to matters on which God has chosen to be silent, we see what we want to see, and to us it seems the plain and obvious meaning. The question isn't whether I have it right--the question is whether I am willing to change when it becomes clear I got it wrong. Sometimes that means embracing a different doctrine, but many times it simply means embracing uncertainty. "I know for certain" closes the door to discovery. "I don't know" leaves the door unlocked, and "I am going to try and find out" opens that door wide.

Sometimes, religions are demarcated partly by theological differences that are important, but don't seem to make a practical difference in everyday life.

Other times a theological difference between one religion and the one most similar to it means significantly different everyday behaviors. And of course this can vary from person to person.

It doesn't really matter to me how you define "religion" here, or if you'd rather compare just one sect or denomination to another. How you determine the "most similar" one is obviously very subjective. Regardless of all that, I'm just interested in learning about practical, behavioral differences vs. a point of comparison.

Bonus points if you describe how those specific everyday behaviors seem to change your character over time.