"God cannot create a square circle"

[Tom Sawyer]

As most coins have: how the coins is circular is obvious, how they are rdctangulare are somewhat harder to see, but look from the side !

And the square circular coin would be as obvious as the circular coin currently is.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Most people are well aware that a circle is an abstract entity.

OK. When somebody says "I just drew a circle" what is it that you think they're saying? I think they're saying that they just drew a circle. You apparently come to a different conclusion and I'm curious what that is.

 

[Juma]

OK. When somebody says "I just drew a circle" what is it that you think they're saying? I think they're saying that they just drew a circle. You apparently come to a different conclusion and I'm curious what that is.

So if a person says "i just drew a house" they mean they created an actual house? Dont think so.

 

[Kharakov]

OK. When somebody says "I just drew a circle" what is it that you think they're saying? I think they're saying that they just drew a circle. You apparently come to a different conclusion and I'm curious what that is.

So if a person says "i just drew a house" they mean they created an actual house? Dont think so.

I just drew a full house, circles and squares.

 

[Kharakov]

It doesn't matter. We can think of it, therefore god can do it. If god cannot do it, then god cannot meet the definition of omnipotence demanded by the theists. Of course a square circle is absurd, but it is absurd because the incoherence of the Abrahamic definition of omnipotence and their insistence that their imaginary friend possesses this incoherent property.

That's bullshit. If a dictator tells you they will grind your balls up with them still attached to your body, and rub Caroline Reaper juice on them if you don't say what they want, you'll call a triangle a square circle.

In fact, the only reason you're saying that there is no such thing as a square circle is that there is no credible threat of permanent damage to you for doing so.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

OK. When somebody says "I just drew a circle" what is it that you think they're saying? I think they're saying that they just drew a circle. You apparently come to a different conclusion and I'm curious what that is.

So if a person says "i just drew a house" they mean they created an actual house? Dont think so.

Wow ... really? That qualifies as an answer?

A single shape is the complete definition of a circle. The analogy would be that if someone builds a house, they created an actual house. Not some abstract concept which represents a house, but an actual house. If they build two houses, they actually have two. If they build two more, they have four - with the exception of reality being warped in such a way that the building of two more leaves you with a total of five houses.

But, just to be clear, because your answer was vague - you are saying that if someone tells you that they drew a circle, they aren't saying that they drew a circle but are actually saying something different. It sounds to me like this is your argument and I want to ensure that I'm not misunderstanding you.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Hi, I finally decided to click on this thread. I read the first few posts, then clicked forward and read the last page. I see we're now on page 59 and are still arguing geometry and the meaning of words. I give you guys kudos for your stamina. I'm out.

 

[Kharakov]

Hi, I finally decided to click on this thread. I read the first few posts, then clicked forward and read the last page. I see we're now on page 59 and are still arguing geometry and the meaning of words. I give you guys kudos for your stamina. I'm out.

The thread is circular. A while ago it was square, but now it's back to the beginning.

 

[Juma]

OK. When somebody says "I just drew a circle" what is it that you think they're saying? I think they're saying that they just drew a circle. You apparently come to a different conclusion and I'm curious what that is.

So if a person says "i just drew a house" they mean they created an actual house? Dont think so.

Wow ... really? That qualifies as an answer?

Yes, and my analogy is perfect.

But note that there is a big difference between houses and circles: there are no real circles. A circle is a relation between points, not a thing.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

OK. When somebody says "I just drew a circle" what is it that you think they're saying? I think they're saying that they just drew a circle. You apparently come to a different conclusion and I'm curious what that is.

So if a person says "i just drew a house" they mean they created an actual house? Dont think so.

Wow ... really? That qualifies as an answer?

Yes, and my analogy is perfect.

But note that there is a big difference between houses and circles: there are no real circles. A circle is a relation between points, not a thing.

OK. A guy draws a circle on a piece of paper. He holds it up and shows it to you and says "Look, I just drew a circle". What is on the paper?

I really fail to see how this question is so difficult that you feel the need to obfuscate in this manner and not provide an answer after being asked multiple times.

 

[Juma]

OK. A guy draws a circle on a piece of paper. He holds it up and shows it to you and says "Look, I just drew a circle". What is on the paper?

You didnt get the analogy, did you? If you draw a house you get a drawing of a house, not a house. If you draw a circle you get a drawing of a circle, not a circle. The ink on the paper is only a very crude representation of a circle. I cannot fathom how you cannot see this.

On the paper is a drawing of a circle.

Have you seen Rene Magrittes painting "ceci ne c'est pas une pipe"?

I really fail to see how this question is so difficult that you feel the need to obfuscate in this manner and not provide an answer after being asked multiple times.

I give you the answer each time. You have a remarkable gift of not noticing it...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You didnt get the analogy, did you? If you draw a house you get a drawing of a house, not a house. If you draw a circle you get a drawing of a circle, not a circle. The ink on the paper is only a very crude representation of a circle. I cannot fathom how you cannot see this.

On the paper is a drawing of a circle.

Have you seen Rene Magrittes painting "ceci ne c'est pas une pipe"?

I really fail to see how this question is so difficult that you feel the need to obfuscate in this manner and not provide an answer after being asked multiple times.

I give you the answer each time. You have a remarkable gift of not noticing it...

Ah. So, you're just being unnecessarily pedantic for no reason other than to increase the level of pedanticness in the conversation. I missed that and thought you were trying to make a point. My apologies.

Now, this drawing of a circle on the paper (which I'll refer to as a circle for the sake of brevity), what's the particular difference between having that and having a drawing of a square circle on a piece of paper in a reality which has been altered by an omnipotent being to allow such a thing?

 

[untermensche]

What? To count things, you simply assign them to the same group, you don't pretend they're identical. If I put my coffee cup and my pen into the same group, I now have two things in that group but I don't in any way assume that those two things are somehow the same - in either abstract or any other terms.

Also, the nature of how we go about counting isn't all that relevant. By whatever process we go about adding two and two, if an omnipotent guy changes the nature of reality so that it ends up equalling five, that process will end up with us arriving at an answer of five.

You have abstracted them.

You abstracted them when you called them "things".

All you keep doing is making a claim. You claim omnipotence means this or that. Yet not once have you bothered to actually demonstrate that it does.

Your claims are noted. If you actually come up with an argument to support them then you will have actually said something.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What? To count things, you simply assign them to the same group, you don't pretend they're identical. If I put my coffee cup and my pen into the same group, I now have two things in that group but I don't in any way assume that those two things are somehow the same - in either abstract or any other terms.

Also, the nature of how we go about counting isn't all that relevant. By whatever process we go about adding two and two, if an omnipotent guy changes the nature of reality so that it ends up equalling five, that process will end up with us arriving at an answer of five.

You have abstracted them.

You abstracted them when you called them "things".

All you keep doing is making a claim. You claim omnipotence means this or that. Yet not once have you bothered to actually demonstrate that it does.

Your claims are noted. If you actually come up with an argument to support them then you will have actually said something.

You're the one trying to put finite limits on infinite and unlimited power. Infinite power means just that. It doesn't mean fairly powerful or really good at a few things. It means that there's nothing he can't do. Warping the rules of reality is as trivial a task as taking a drink of water or crushing a galaxy down to the size of a pea.

If you can ask he question "can he do this?", the answer is always yes.

 

[Learner]

"God cannot create a square circle" If you spin a square at a considerable speed it will become a circle. Errr just kidding.

Square-circle,Living-Not born yet or Gone-Still here . Yes it is difficult to picture or fathom the amazing imaginations of mortal human beings and what questions we ask. These are impossible to answer therefore very difficult indeed to prove.

Unless its one of those questions for example; Is it a wave or particle? Something to ponder on outside the FIXED laws of physics,which to some - is the domain of God.

Very difficult

 

[untermensche]

What? To count things, you simply assign them to the same group, you don't pretend they're identical. If I put my coffee cup and my pen into the same group, I now have two things in that group but I don't in any way assume that those two things are somehow the same - in either abstract or any other terms.

Also, the nature of how we go about counting isn't all that relevant. By whatever process we go about adding two and two, if an omnipotent guy changes the nature of reality so that it ends up equalling five, that process will end up with us arriving at an answer of five.

You have abstracted them.

You abstracted them when you called them "things".

All you keep doing is making a claim. You claim omnipotence means this or that. Yet not once have you bothered to actually demonstrate that it does.

Your claims are noted. If you actually come up with an argument to support them then you will have actually said something.

You're the one trying to put finite limits on infinite and unlimited power. Infinite power means just that. It doesn't mean fairly powerful or really good at a few things. It means that there's nothing he can't do. Warping the rules of reality is as trivial a task as taking a drink of water or crushing a galaxy down to the size of a pea.

If you can ask he question "can he do this?", the answer is always yes.

Power has nothing to do with logic.

You can't force logic to do anything. It is what it is.

Give me an example where some being could use force to change logic. What would that look like?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Power has nothing to do with logic.

You can't force logic to do anything. It is what it is.

Give me an example where some being could use force to change logic. What would that look like?

Exactly. You can't force logic to do anything. It's simply a method of analysis. If what you're analyzing changes, then the analysis leads to different results. It's reality that changes, not the tools you use to model reality.

 

[Kharakov]

Give me an example where some being could use force to change logic. What would that look like?

" ..'ello G I see", said in a menacing cockney accent. G being the freemason letter for God. L O, G I C.

 

[Kharakov]

Exactly. You can't force logic to do anything. It's simply a method of analysis. If what you're analyzing changes, then the analysis leads to different results. It's reality that changes, not the tools you use to model reality.

Wait a second here- what did you use to determine which of the two has changed?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Exactly. You can't force logic to do anything. It's simply a method of analysis. If what you're analyzing changes, then the analysis leads to different results. It's reality that changes, not the tools you use to model reality.

Wait a second here- what did you use to determine which of the two has changed?

Omniscience.

 

[Juma]

Power has nothing to do with logic.

You can't force logic to do anything. It is what it is.

Give me an example where some being could use force to change logic. What would that look like?

Exactly. You can't force logic to do anything. It's simply a method of analysis. If what you're analyzing changes, then the analysis leads to different results. It's reality that changes, not the tools you use to model reality.

And "circle" and "square" are such tools. They will continue to be incompatible whatever reality looks like.