You've left the realm of rationalism and are firmly seated in theology. The correct theological interpretation here isn't that God can't do something illogical, but rather that God can remain strictly logical, and still be God. God isn't constrained by formal logic, but chooses to be because it suits Him. In fact, the entire field of theology is built on this. Theologies are imagined descriptions of God, these imaginations are accepted by God because God wants us to believe in Him.
The problem of evil is the same way, ascribing a kind of logic to God. Theologians think a lot about theodicy, and have broken away from their churches over it.
One interesting way to think about it is that God has three basic attitudes about the things humans do. God either wills a thing, accepts it, or tolerates it. If God wills it, it creates more goodness in the world than it takes away. If God accepts it, then the balance is roughly equal. If He tolerates it, then that means God has to balance the scales personally. This can happen through the mechanism we call karma.
A rationally-aware theologian would state that God accepts any rational regime you want to put on him, and the Book of Job puts this into story form. Just because God is rational and good doesn't mean He's going to appear that way all the time to all the people.
>You've left the realm of rationalism and are firmly seated in theology.
Nope, except in the sense that I'm talking about God. But assuming God exists (or can exist) it's perfectly rational to consider him unbounded by logical or physical constraints.
>The correct theological interpretation here isn't that God can't do something illogical, but rather that God can remain strictly logical, and still be God.
There's no "correct theological interpretation". That's just one interpretation (e.g. augustinian). Orthodox Christianity, for one, as many other religions, doesn't bound God to be "strictly logical".
So, this "God [that] can remain strictly logical, and still be God" is just one constrained conception of God. One can also argue for a God that can be illogical or beyond logic (such us that logical and illogical make no sense as restrictions to him).
> There's no "correct theological interpretation".
Theology is more correct the closer it gets to God. God is the greatest thing imaginable. Theology is an imagination of God. If God is real then there must exist more correct theologies.
So more correct theology will more descriptive of God's greatness. And a God that can be rational is greater than a God that strictly stays outside of rationality.
>Theology is more correct the closer it gets to God.
Only if God wants it so. The "thelema" (will) of God is more important in this regard to what aspirations self-professed thelogicians have. God for one haven't even said that he likes or approves of theologicians! In fact in several religions attempting to get "closer to god" or "learn God's secrets" is a blaspheme.
>And a God that can be rational is greater than a God that strictly stays outside of rationality.
That's just an arbitrary axiom. One could just as easily posit the opposite: "A god that isn't bounded by rationality is greater than a God that strictly stays inside of rationality" (in fact, e.g. the Eastern Orthodox church posits exactly that, and other non-Christian religions as well).
No it's not. It's saying that a God that can do two things, i.e. be rational and be irrational, is greater than a God that can just do one thing, be irrational. Your opposite isn't an actual opposite, it's just a comparison between a God that can do a thing and a God that can do some things but not others.
>No it's not. It's saying that a God that can do two things, i.e. be rational and be irrational, is greater than a God that can just do one thing, be irrational.
Actually, the God that "can do two things, i.e. be rational and be irrational" is my description -- I was supporting that (e.g. see above: "unbounded by logical or physical constraints", "God that can be illogical or beyond logic (such us that logical and illogical make no sense as restrictions to him)", "God created logic and can break it at will" -- which means can also follow it at will, etc.).
You were going by a more restricted God that can only be rational.
Not to mention your own comparison is based on rationality. Even ignoring what I wrote above, from the standpoint of God "a God that can do two things" might not be greater than a "God that can only do one".
God himself defines not just physical laws and logic, but also the very meaning of notions like "greater" (that is, works on a meta level). "More if greater" is our undestanding of what's greater, not necessarily God's (like a child thinks more sugar in food is greater, but a parent knows better). It would be constraining to assume of God the constrains of greatness than we are bound to.
The problem of evil is the same way, ascribing a kind of logic to God. Theologians think a lot about theodicy, and have broken away from their churches over it.
One interesting way to think about it is that God has three basic attitudes about the things humans do. God either wills a thing, accepts it, or tolerates it. If God wills it, it creates more goodness in the world than it takes away. If God accepts it, then the balance is roughly equal. If He tolerates it, then that means God has to balance the scales personally. This can happen through the mechanism we call karma.
A rationally-aware theologian would state that God accepts any rational regime you want to put on him, and the Book of Job puts this into story form. Just because God is rational and good doesn't mean He's going to appear that way all the time to all the people.