"God cannot create a square circle"

[Tom Sawyer]

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?

If you're omnipotent, you can huff and puff and blow logic away as easily as you can do anything else. You're the irresistable force and everything else is a less-than-immovable object. If you decide on a whim that two plus two also equals five, then when you add two and two together, you get both four and five at the same time in a completely consistent and logical way simply because that's how you've decided that reality functions.

Logic is essentially just a methodology for discovering proofs of how it is that the universe works. If someone, in his infinite power, changes the way that the universe works then the logical proofs which are built off of how the universe currently works will change along with it. If God decides that two plus two equals five and you sit there trying to get to four by putting two groups of two things together, you're going to fail everytime and you'd need to split one of those groups in half and add one and three together if you wanted to get to four, since it doesn't work with two and two anymore. You could fume about how you think that's illogical all you like, but observation beats theory every time and you'd be championing an invalid logical proof which doesn't match up to what empirical reality has now become.

 

[Kharakov]

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?

 Many worlds interpretation of  quantum mechanics.

Then again, you could reframe the question to be: Can God have a light be on and off in the same timeline? A zombie cat steps out of Schrödinger's box, glances over at Rod Serling and says "got a light?".

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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?

If he wants to. Deciding that on and off are the exact same thing while remaining exactly opposite is as trivial an activity as for someone with infinite power as flicking a light switch is for him.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?

If he wants to. Deciding that on and off are the exact same thing while remaining exactly opposite is as trivial an activity as for someone with infinite power as flicking a light switch is for him.

But if he changes the meaning, it doesn't actually achieve the goal.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But if he changes the meaning, it doesn't actually achieve the goal.

Why not? A circle is just as much of a circle as it was before - it's a two-dimensional shape where the curve of the line is always the same distance from the center. A square is just as much of a square as it was before - it's a four-sided flat shape with straight sides where all sides have an equal length and every angle is a right angle.

Now there's just this new shape which combines both of those properties in a logical and consistent manner because the nature of the universe is now such that there's nothing illogical or inconsistent about such a shape and any attempts at logical proofs which demonstrate anything different fail in a test against empirical reality where these square circles exist without any trouble. He acheived the goal of creating such a shape in the same easy way that he achieves every other goal which he wants to achieve because unlimited power doesn't mean power that has limits.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Words like squre and circle, logic arguments, are inventions of mankind trying to understand the universe, to put labels on reality so our brains can manipulate them.

If a being of sufficient power can alter the very nature of reality, then we would expect that our language, that grew up with certain things being 'real,' could no longer adequately describe the new reality.
Imagine if the ship's main sensor transmitted information to the central computer by analog signals. If they upgrade the sensor array to transmit information in digital code, then the computer servos would be unable to adequately use the new information. And there's no surprise, there.

But just because the computer's final output says: The Array is sending us gibberish, that's not going to turn out to be a limitation on the sensor array's actual functions.

if our logic can't adequately describe God's new circle-square, that has little or nothing to do with whether or not God can craft one.

 

[untermensche]

If you're omnipotent, you can huff and puff and blow logic away as easily as you can do anything else.

Logic does not respond in any way to blowing or force of any kind. Simply saying it can does not make it so and is no argument worth consideration.

Logic is essentially just a methodology for discovering proofs of how it is that the universe works.

Logic is many things.

But if I walk outside and see that the streets are wet it is logical to conclude it had rained.

And no god, by any force, can make that not a logical conclusion.

If God decides that two plus two equals five...

That's not something effected by any decision.

Take two apples and place them next to two apples and you will always get four apples. And like logic, there is no force capable of changing that. Thinking that it is something that can be effected by force is simply to think illogically. You must first prove it is something that can be changed by force before claiming it is. Again, simply saying that any force is capable of changing it is not an argument worth consideration.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Take two apples and place them next to two apples and you will always get four apples. And like logic, there is no force capable of changing that. Thinking that it is something that can be effected by force is simply to think illogically. You must first prove it is something that can be changed by force before claiming it is. Again, simply saying that any force is capable of changing it is not an argument worth consideration.

Exactly my point. Logic simply describes the nature of reality. If I have a logical proof that 2+2=5, it doesn't matter how clever it is or how valid I believe my arguments are, somebody simply putting two sets of two together and counting them to get four invalidates my argument.

If the nature of reality changes because an omnipotent entity decides that it does, then if I have a logical proof that 2+2=4, it doesn't matter how clever it is or how valid I believe my arguments are, somebody simply putting two sets of two together and counting them to get five (as is now the case) invalidates my argument.

 

[Juma]

Logic simply describes the nature of reality. .

No, it doesnt. It describes how we order what we experience.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Logic simply describes the nature of reality. .

No, it doesnt. It describes how we order what we experience.

And, in the cases in question, what we experience is the nature of reality. If you add two and two, you get four. An object can either have the properties of a square or those of a circle but not both. If either of those things change, what we experience would change along with them.

 

[untermensche]

Exactly my point. Logic simply describes the nature of reality.

No.

We abstract from reality to get quantities.

There are no two identical objects. We pretend that one orange is exactly like another when we say there are two oranges.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Exactly my point. Logic simply describes the nature of reality.

No.

We abstract from reality to get quantities.

There are no two identical objects. We pretend that one orange is exactly like another when we say there are two oranges.

No we don't. Nobody ever pretends that that two things are identical when they add them together. Even if we did and God changed reality, then we'd pretend that we had five identical things after adding two and two instead of pretending that we had four.

 

[untermensche]

Exactly my point. Logic simply describes the nature of reality.

No.

We abstract from reality to get quantities.

There are no two identical objects. We pretend that one orange is exactly like another when we say there are two oranges.

No we don't. Nobody ever pretends that that two things are identical when they add them together. Even if we did and God changed reality, then we'd pretend that we had five identical things after adding two and two instead of pretending that we had four.

If you don't pretend they are identical then you can never have a quantity.

You will have one orange with a green spot on the side and a slightly elongated shape and one orange with a dent on the top and a round shape.

But if you abstract (and we do this without thinking about it), you can have two oranges. Even though the two things in your hand are not the same thing.

None of this is as straightforward as you believe.

 

[Kharakov]

So the integer "1" and another integer "1" are not the same thing? I suppose if you are adding 1 to 1, you must have 2 1s, ehh? Interesting how easy it is to create 1s.. 1111!!!111!!111¡¡¡1¡¡¡!!¡¡¡111oneoneone!!11oneone11!!1¡¡¡ One.

 

[Juma]

And, in the cases in question, what we experience is the nature of reality. If you add two and two, you get four.

Numbers are not "nature of reality". It is the human nervous system that represents features of sensory input as discrete objects. "1" is a feature of the mind, not reality.

An object can either have the properties of a square or those of a circle but not both. If either of those things change, what we experience would change along with them.

Yes, but the definitions of circle and a square doesnt refer to real stuff. Real stuff can be represented as a square ot a circle and some things are both (for example coins) but cicles and squares are not real.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Huh? While the concept of a circle isn't real anymore than the concept of a dog or the concept of a pillow aren't real, there are real things which match the properties we have assigned to those generic concepts. When you have one of those real things which are represented by a circle, that's what everyone is talking about when they use the word circle.

It would be no different with a square circle. There would be real things which can be represented as that - for instance a round coin with four corners.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Exactly my point. Logic simply describes the nature of reality.

No.

We abstract from reality to get quantities.

There are no two identical objects. We pretend that one orange is exactly like another when we say there are two oranges.

No we don't. Nobody ever pretends that that two things are identical when they add them together. Even if we did and God changed reality, then we'd pretend that we had five identical things after adding two and two instead of pretending that we had four.

If you don't pretend they are identical then you can never have a quantity.

You will have one orange with a green spot on the side and a slightly elongated shape and one orange with a dent on the top and a round shape.

But if you abstract (and we do this without thinking about it), you can have two oranges. Even though the two things in your hand are not the same thing.

None of this is as straightforward as you believe.

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.

 

[Underseer]

Numbers are not "nature of reality". It is the human nervous system that represents features of sensory input as discrete objects. "1" is a feature of the mind, not reality.

An object can either have the properties of a square or those of a circle but not both. If either of those things change, what we experience would change along with them.

Yes, but the definitions of circle and a square doesnt refer to real stuff. Real stuff can be represented as a square ot a circle and some things are both (for example coins) but cicles and squares are not real.

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.

 

[Juma]

Do we have access to mathematical concepts themselves?

Yes. Of course. We define them.

 

[Juma]

Huh? While the concept of a circle isn't real anymore than the concept of a dog or the concept of a pillow aren't real, there are real things which match the properties we have assigned to those generic concepts. When you have one of those real things which are represented by a circle, that's what everyone is talking about when they use the word circle.

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

It would be no different with a square circle. There would be real things which can be represented as that - for instance a round coin with four corners.

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 !