Thanks for the response! I think that you might have misunderstood my intent... which could very easily have been my fault. I wasn't proposing any sort of argument or statement about the eixstence of God. I was responding to what I understood to be a logical problem presented by Fido. On reading it again, I'm not sure I fully understood his intent...
Anyway, about my questions... I was pondering the nature of logic and how it would apply or not apply to the omiscient, self-existant, prime-reality God represented in Christianity. If such a God existed, how would He relate to logic... As I understand it, logic is one way in which we attempt to understand what is true. But if God would know everything at all times, simply by His nature, He would not need logic to understand it, right? And if such a God did exist, and all that exists exists through Him, then to know what is true in any give situation (the purpose of logic?) would be to know what God is doing. Given the fact that such a God could change even the nature of the physical universe at any given moment, we would have no way of knowing absolutely what is true (including the causes) without knowing His thoughts and actions. Which of course would not be fully possible as long as we have finit minds.
Just some rambling thoughts really. Nothing very consequential IMO one way or the other.
I cannot see how, if we know that water is H20, or that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, is to know what God is doing. And, even if God can change the state of the universe at any give moment, that does not mean that at this moment, water is not H20. After all, we would have no reason to think that God had, in fact, changed that. And, if he did not, then we would still know it. Perhaps you mean that we could not be absolutely certain that water is H20 because we might be mistaken. And that is true. But, after all, that we might
be mistaken does not mean that we are
mistaken. And if we might be mistake, we might be correct too. And then we would know. I suspect that you mean by "knowing absolutely" infallible certainty. And, I think that human beings are not infallible. "To err is human". But we should not expect to be infallibly certain (absolutely know) about anything. One thing we have, I think, learned from the rise of empirical science, is that although we do know a lot of things, we can be certain of relatively nothing, since no one can predict when new evidence may not overturn what we think we know. But, then, of course, equally that may not happen. And, in that case, what we think we know we really do know.