"God cannot create a square circle"

[Mageth]

Your citation is NOT "...how the authors of the Noah account viewed the universe..." It is a person's understanding of "...how the authors of the Noah account viewed the universe..."

Do you know why it's that person's understanding of "...how the authors of the Noah account viewed the universe..."? Because it clearly was how the authors of the Noah account viewed the universe.

 

[Kharakov]

The fountains of the deep are from the water supposedly underneath the expanse where God gathered dry land, Earth surrounded by water. That's not a round Earth. Nor the way the planet really is, is it?

We know with absolute certainty that no.one could possibly live outside of the natural system in which we live and have an influence upon it, just like we know with absolute certainty that not one of us have ever altered a simulation, or inserted a code snippet to create something within a simulation from outside of the simulation. You know, because nobody ever updates anything nowadays.

Since no human has done such a thing to a simulation we've created (inserted or altered the simulation without being bound by the rules of the simulation), this means that even if there is a being that created nature, which binds us, that being cannot possibly have the ability to insert, or remove, code from within the natural universe in which we live.

Genesis is a total crock. So is creationism.

That's a very good analogy from the evolutionary perspective- like the crock, they have survived with minimal change while other thought forms less suited to the environment adapted.

Show

By like the crock, I meant "like the lie". I could be lying though, and have noticed the pun afterwards.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

We know with absolute certainty that no.one could possibly live outside of the natural system in which we live and have an influence upon it, just like we know with absolute certainty that not one of us have ever altered a simulation, or inserted a code snippet to create something within a simulation from outside of the simulation. You know, because nobody ever updates anything nowadays.

Since no human has done such a thing to a simulation we've created (inserted or altered the simulation without being bound by the rules of the simulation), this means that even if there is a being that created nature, which binds us, that being cannot possibly have the ability to insert, or remove, code from within the natural universe in which we live.

Genesis is a total crock. So is creationism.

That's a very good analogy from the evolutionary perspective- like the crock, they have survived with minimal change while other thought forms less suited to the environment adapted.

Show

By like the crock, I meant "like the lie". I could be lying though, and have noticed the pun afterwards.

You make less and less sense day by day. When one carefully reads Genesis 1, including scholarly version, not just the KJV, such as the Anchor Bible Commentary on Genesis, the less Genesis 1 - 3 makes sense. Woo-woo babble does not hide that. This is about what Genesis actually says, and is that sensible and possible? No. And Genesis is clear, a solid dome holding back water above, with windows. The supposed situation below the dry (original wording, not dry land) makes little sense. The whole reading is simple wrong having no reasonable resemblance to reality.

And for this we have to eliminate evolution from science classes in our schools to appease idiots?

 

[Kharakov]

You make less and less sense day by day.

So you really have no clue about the various simulation hypotheses? You actually don't understand them, or notice the sarcasm in my posts?

Seriously- the majority of that post was a sarcastic jab at the thought that something can't live outside of the universe and influence events.


But you were probably replying specifically to the Genesis stuff, ehh?

What I said about Genesis was a pun based on the equivocation of crocks (lies) and crocks (crocodiles), related to evolution, and the spirit of the Mark Twain quote "A lie well told is nigh immortal." And yes, the quote is a lie.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

You make less and less sense day by day.

So you really have no clue about the various simulation hypotheses? You actually don't understand them, or notice the sarcasm in my posts?

Seriously- the majority of that post was a sarcastic jab at the thought that something can't live outside of the universe and influence events.


But you were probably replying specifically to the Genesis stuff, ehh?

What I said about Genesis was a pun based on the equivocation of crocks (lies) and crocks (crocodiles), related to evolution, and the spirit of the Mark Twain quote "A lie well told is nigh immortal." And yes, the quote is a lie.

Do leprechauns live outside the Universe and influence events? The Ju-Ju gods? Are we a computer simulation, a brain fart in Ishvara's dreaming mind? A hologram?

 

[Kharakov]

Do leprechauns live outside the Universe and influence events?

I assume this means you understand the following:

Someone who creates a system can exist outside of that system and influence and create events within that system.

You know this because we have created systems that follow certain rules, rules by which we are not bound, systems that we can influence and create within, without following the rules of the system.

hehe.. if a hot chick exists outside of a sis stem, can she influence events within the sis stem? I'm pretty sure she can.

 

[Juma]

Do leprechauns live outside the Universe and influence events?

I assume this means you understand the following:

Someone who creates a system can exist outside of that system and influence and create events within that system.

You know this because we have created systems that follow certain rules, rules by which we are not bound, systems that we can influence and create within, without following the rules of the system.

But you still need to interact, and interaction goes always two ways.

 

[Kharakov]

I am not entirely sure what you mean?

 

[Juma]

I am not entirely sure what you mean?

If something interacts with this universe then this universe interacts with it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

As I have posted several times, a God who creates all, is perfectly morally good and is outside the natural world, and creates all the Universe's laws, rules, metaphysical necessities and logic as per Descartes and Okham perforce would result in a world with no moral evil. Moral evil exists. Either that God does not exist at all or is not outside the naturalistic Universes, which logically must exist. God then is not an explanation for anything. God remains hypothetical, while naturalism is not and is logically necessary. AKA, Stratonician atheism.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

As I have posted several times, a God who creates all, is perfectly morally good and is outside the natural world, and creates all the Universe's laws, rules, metaphysical necessities and logic as per Descartes and Okham perforce would result in a world with no moral evil. Moral evil exists. Either that God does not exist at all or is not outside the naturalistic Universes, which logically must exist. God then is not an explanation for anything. God remains hypothetical, while naturalism is not and is logically necessary. AKA, Stratonician atheism.

You seem to be forgetting the official Christian response to this type of argument:

P1) God exists
P2) Because fuck you
C) Therefore, God exists ... and fuck you

 

[Kharakov]

As I have posted several times, a God who creates all, is perfectly morally good and is outside the natural world, and creates all the Universe's laws, rules, metaphysical necessities and logic as per Descartes and Okham perforce would result in a world with no moral evil. Moral evil exists. Either that God does not exist at all or is not outside the naturalistic Universes, which logically must exist.

Ok, are you talking about a God that can follow the rules of mathematics (2+2=4) and also violate the rules of mathematics (2+2=Bob) at the same time? Just about anyone knows that following specific rules (such as those of mathematics) results in specific outcomes. And not following rules results in other outcomes. Aren't those last 2 sentences almost the essence of morality?

God then is not an explanation for anything. God remains hypothetical, while naturalism is not and is logically necessary. AKA, Stratonician atheism.

Woooaahh buddy. Naturalism, as in natural laws that we observe govern what happens, is not logically necessary. I was just pointing that out in another thread.

There are simple mathematical objects that are generated with an intact, past, present, and future. One can look at any point in time in their existence, or one can view them evolving through time. Their evolution through time follows specific patterns. From the position of an observer, one could propose natural laws that governed the movement of the objects over time, and probably make pretty accurate predictions on certain scales, in certain parts of the object.

HOWEVER... the objects are generated by a generating function, and the natural laws that cause the "evolution" of structures as the object changes through time are caused by the generating function at each point in time. In other words, each point in time has a specific structure due to the generating function, even though the object looks like it evolves according to specific mathematical rules (natural laws) throughout its lifetime.

Since a mathematical object exists that follows "natural laws" over time, even though it is not caused to evolve by the natural "laws", this means that the universe itself could be generated by something that creates natural order, without following natural laws.

There is a MAJOR flaw in any assumption that the appearance of order in the universe indicates that natural laws are causing the order. A simple mathematical equation can generate a whole object, and the assumption of many theists (AFAICT) is that God is a little more complicated than a mathematical equation.

Then again- great complexity arises from VERY simple equations too... so that might mean something entirely different....

 

[untermensche]

God cannot create a square circle

A god need not be able to do all things to be a god.

That's simply one arbitrary definition of god.

The good news for those that want to believe in gods is that the definition of god can be anything.

Unlike the definition of a circle.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

God cannot create a square circle

A god need not be able to do all things to be a god.

That's simply one arbitrary definition of god.

The good news for those that want to believe in gods is that the definition of god can be anything.

Unlike the definition of a circle.

But if you have an omnipotent god, then the definition of a circle can be whatever he wants it to be and if he decides that the word has multiple definitions which all contradict each other and yet are all completely consistent, he can pull that off.

 

[Kharakov]

God cannot create a square circle

A god need not be able to do all things to be a god.

That's simply one arbitrary definition of god.

The good news for those that want to believe in gods is that the definition of god can be anything.

Unlike the definition of a circle.

But if you have an omnipotent god, then the definition of a circle can be whatever he wants it to be and if he decides that the word has multiple definitions which all contradict each other and yet are all completely consistent, he can pull that off.

Reminds me of the  Feynman Point in \(\pi\). I'm relatively sure that its existence at the 762nd decimal place of pi is a deliberate lie. It's like my b-day turning up as part of God's phone number in Bruce Almighty  776-2323 years ago. Who does who think they are bullshitting, and what makes them think they can get away with it?

 

[untermensche]

God cannot create a square circle

A god need not be able to do all things to be a god.

That's simply one arbitrary definition of god.

The good news for those that want to believe in gods is that the definition of god can be anything.

Unlike the definition of a circle.

But if you have an omnipotent god, then the definition of a circle can be whatever he wants it to be and if he decides that the word has multiple definitions which all contradict each other and yet are all completely consistent, he can pull that off.

I don't think so.

The definition of a circle has nothing to do with power or a lack of power.

The definition is arrived at through logic, and the fact that a circle only has one definition says nothing about the power or lack of power of gods.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

God cannot create a square circle

A god need not be able to do all things to be a god.

That's simply one arbitrary definition of god.

The good news for those that want to believe in gods is that the definition of god can be anything.

Unlike the definition of a circle.

But if you have an omnipotent god, then the definition of a circle can be whatever he wants it to be and if he decides that the word has multiple definitions which all contradict each other and yet are all completely consistent, he can pull that off.

I don't think so.

The definition of a circle has nothing to do with power or a lack of power.

The definition is arrived at through logic, and the fact that a circle only has one definition says nothing about the power or lack of power of gods.

Unless reality is clay in your hands and you can change what is or isn't logical on a whim. A limited and finite god would be as constrained by the rules of logic the same as all of the rest of us, but an infinite god bends logic over the table, fucks it up the ass and then has it whip up a square circle while it's making him a sandwich. Logic is an omnipotent god's bitch.

 

[untermensche]

Unless reality is clay in your hands and you can change what is or isn't logical on a whim. A limited and finite god would be as constrained by the rules of logic the same as all of the rest of us, but an infinite god bends logic over the table, fucks it up the ass and then has it whip up a square circle while it's making him a sandwich. Logic is an omnipotent god's bitch.

You can't huff and puff and blow logic away.

It doesn't respond to force. It can't be bent.

The problem is trying to apply this concept of "infinity" to something beyond mathematics. By what logic do we say it can be done?

 

[Juma]

Unless reality is clay in your hands and you can change what is or isn't logical on a whim. A limited and finite god would be as constrained by the rules of logic the same as all of the rest of us, but an infinite god bends logic over the table, fucks it up the ass and then has it whip up a square circle while it's making him a sandwich. Logic is an omnipotent god's bitch.

No. Definitions are not reality. To say that something can bitchslap logic is to say that Harry Potter can change how the pages are numbered in the book..

Really: logic is just how we categorize and order stuff.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

God cannot create a square circle

A god need not be able to do all things to be a god.

That's simply one arbitrary definition of god.

The good news for those that want to believe in gods is that the definition of god can be anything.

Unlike the definition of a circle.

But if you have an omnipotent god, then the definition of a circle can be whatever he wants it to be and if he decides that the word has multiple definitions which all contradict each other and yet are all completely consistent, he can pull that off.

I don't think so.

The definition of a circle has nothing to do with power or a lack of power.

The definition is arrived at through logic, and the fact that a circle only has one definition says nothing about the power or lack of power of gods.

Unless reality is clay in your hands and you can change what is or isn't logical on a whim. A limited and finite god would be as constrained by the rules of logic the same as all of the rest of us, but an infinite god bends logic over the table, fucks it up the ass and then has it whip up a square circle while it's making him a sandwich. Logic is an omnipotent god's bitch.

But a shape is a shape. The ability of a god would be judged if they could turn a circle into a square or vice versa. You can't make a squared circle because they represent two completely different things. Can god have a light be on and off at the same time?