"God cannot create a square circle"

[Eric H]

jonJ;
How come your God's miracles never last any longer than, say, a magic act?

The creation of the universe and life, is a miracle that has been around for a while now.

 

[Atheos]

But if a deity produced something which caused everyone who saw it to say "Hey, that's a square circle!", then they would have produced a square circle, wouldn't they? And that's certainly logically possible. With omnipotence there's no clear boundary here between doing something and making everyone think you've done something. If their thoughts are convincing enough, then you've done it.

Seems like more of a philosophical question than a scientific one, not that science was ever mentioned as a qualification. I tend to disagree with your assessment on the principle that everyone thought the earth was flat until sufficient evidence came to light to demonstrate that the earth was, in fact, spherical. The illusion of a flat earth was completely compelling, but it was false.

I believe that the spirit of the question "Can god create a square circle?" implies that the end result of the satisfied condition is an actual square circle, not merely the illusion that one exists. But that's just me, I don't claim to speak for everyone.

But if your experience of a flat earth included the experience of falling off the edge to one's death, the experience of seeing a disk from space, the experience of a flat horizon, etc, then how would it be an 'illusion'? Faced with an omnipotent God, we're all in the same position as a brain in a jar: whatever experiences he chooses to pipe into us, that's our 'reality'.

An illusion is still an illusion no matter how compelling it is. Yes it might be impossible for us to see past the illusion. I agree that an omnipotent god could play some sort of Jedi mind trick on us to make us believe a square circle exists. But that's not the same thing as actually creating a square circle. That's my only beef with that solution.

 

[Keith&Co.]

jonJ;
How come your God's miracles never last any longer than, say, a magic act?

The creation of the universe and life, is a miracle that has been around for a while now.

So you says. And the reason we should believe you rather than those who say Allah did it? Or Ptah? Or Raven?

 

[Atheos]

jonJ;
How come your God's miracles never last any longer than, say, a magic act?

The creation of the universe and life, is a miracle that has been around for a while now.

Baseless assertions of various origin myths about one or another god or gods creating the universe and life have been around for a long time, that's for sure. Actual evidence that the universe was created or that life is the result of planned creative effort is non-existent.

 

[rhutchin]

jonJ;
How come your God's miracles never last any longer than, say, a magic act?

The creation of the universe and life, is a miracle that has been around for a while now.

Baseless assertions of various origin myths about one or another god or gods creating the universe and life have been around for a long time, that's for sure. Actual evidence that the universe was created or that life is the result of planned creative effort is non-existent.

Let's rephrase the statement by Eric H. to, "The universe and life is a miracle that has been around for a while now." By miracle, we mean only that no one has the evidence to support any theory of the creation of the universe or life so the best that anyone can say is that it is a miracle.

The Bible contains an account of the creation of the universe and life. It says that God did it. So, we have one possibility and it fits the available evidence - scant as that evidence is.

 

[Bronzeage]

Jesus supposedly can walk on water, resurrect people, and most importantly, feed a multitude of people with five loaves of bread and two fish. That's pretty much saying 2+2=5, which would pretty much be just like creating a "square circle". Yet, he cannot create a square circle? What would be so difficult about that?

Who says God can't create a square circle? Have you asked him for one? I think we went through this before at the old place.

A circle is the area swept when the line between two points is rotated 90 degrees around one point, four times in succession. If this same line is rotated 90 degrees by one point once, then 90 degrees by the opposite point, then this done twice again, it sweeps out the plane geometric figure known as a circular square. It's all a matter of following instructions.

If you really won't to challenge the existence of God, you'll need to trisect an angle.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Let's rephrase the statement by Eric H. to, "The universe and life is a miracle that has been around for a while now." By miracle, we mean only that no one has the evidence to support any theory of the creation of the universe or life so the best that anyone can say is that it is a miracle.

I think you'd be better saying 'The Universe and Life are mysteries.' That more closely fits your definition of miracle.

 

[rhutchin]

Let's rephrase the statement by Eric H. to, "The universe and life is a miracle that has been around for a while now." By miracle, we mean only that no one has the evidence to support any theory of the creation of the universe or life so the best that anyone can say is that it is a miracle.

I think you'd be better saying 'The Universe and Life are mysteries.' That more closely fits your definition of miracle.

Mystery is a fine word also. However, whether created by God or by some other means, the universe and life are miracles.

 

[rhutchin]

Who says God can't create a square circle?

The terms, square and circle, were coined to represent specific shapes. They have no meaning apart from that which they represent. One can draw on a piece of paper to show an object with four sides, all equal with ninety degree angles. For purposes of communication, we call it a square. Same with a circle. We do not have anything in language called a "square circle." Technically, a "square circle" can be anything. So, God could just draw on a piece of paper and declare the thing He drew to be a "square circle" and it would be. A "square circle" has nothing to do with a square or a circle. It can be anything a person (or God) wants it to be. God can create a square circle as easily as anyone else can.

Maybe, the challenge would be for God to create a circle that is in the shape of a square. However, a circle in the shape of a square would be a square but we can provide a definition of the term, "circle," such that it can be in the shape of a square. So God, or anyone else, need only add to the definition of the term, "circle," such language as is necessary to encompass the shape of a square.

All this says nothing about God or omnipotence. Generally God's attributes are defined relative to Himself and in contrast to everything else. Thus, to say that God is omnipotent means that (1) God can do anything He wants and nothing can prevent Him doing so, and (2) nothing that exists is more powerful than God (for example, nothing can make a rock too heavy for God to lift).

 

[Bronzeage]

Who says God can't create a square circle?

The terms, square and circle, were coined to represent specific shapes. They have no meaning apart from that which they represent. One can draw on a piece of paper to show an object with four sides, all equal with ninety degree angles. For purposes of communication, we call it a square. Same with a circle. We do not have anything in language called a "square circle." Technically, a "square circle" can be anything. So, God could just draw on a piece of paper and declare the thing He drew to be a "square circle" and it would be. A "square circle" has nothing to do with a square or a circle. It can be anything a person (or God) wants it to be. God can create a square circle as easily as anyone else can.

Maybe, the challenge would be for God to create a circle that is in the shape of a square. However, a circle in the shape of a square would be a square but we can provide a definition of the term, "circle," such that it can be in the shape of a square. So God, or anyone else, need only add to the definition of the term, "circle," such language as is necessary to encompass the shape of a square.

All this says nothing about God or omnipotence. Generally God's attributes are defined relative to Himself and in contrast to everything else. Thus, to say that God is omnipotent means that (1) God can do anything He wants and nothing can prevent Him doing so, and (2) nothing that exists is more powerful than God (for example, nothing can make a rock too heavy for God to lift).

Now, what about trisecting an angel?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Let's rephrase the statement by Eric H. to, "The universe and life is a miracle that has been around for a while now." By miracle, we mean only that no one has the evidence to support any theory of the creation of the universe or life so the best that anyone can say is that it is a miracle.

I think you'd be better saying 'The Universe and Life are mysteries.' That more closely fits your definition of miracle.

Mystery is a fine word also. However, whether created by God or by some other means, the universe and life are miracles.

Words have meanings. Miracles are at the least events that defy known natural laws.
If it's a total mystery, then ignorance is not a reason to suppose that natural laws were broken by the event.
Unless you presuppose that. But that's not the 'best one can say.' That's just what you want to say.

 

[rhutchin]

Let's rephrase the statement by Eric H. to, "The universe and life is a miracle that has been around for a while now." By miracle, we mean only that no one has the evidence to support any theory of the creation of the universe or life so the best that anyone can say is that it is a miracle.

I think you'd be better saying 'The Universe and Life are mysteries.' That more closely fits your definition of miracle.

Mystery is a fine word also. However, whether created by God or by some other means, the universe and life are miracles.

Words have meanings. Miracles are at the least events that defy known natural laws.

Then, the appearance of the universe and life qualify as miracles.

If it's a total mystery, then ignorance is not a reason to suppose that natural laws were broken by the event.
Unless you presuppose that. But that's not the 'best one can say.' That's just what you want to say.

Miracles can be viewed as mysteries.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

This all is part of what I call the problem of super-omnipotence. If God cannot make 2+2=5 or any other state of affairs God desires,God is then obviously limited by a natural existing state of reality that exists trancedentally to God who then obviously does not create the laws, rules, laws or metaphysical necessities of the Universe.

Well, not really. One could easily say that making 2+2=5 would be a nonsense statement and is as irrelevant to his being classified as omnipotent as someone who says "God can't suralfsa a olinagsd, so he's not omnipotent". It's fine calling someone omnipotent if he can do anything that's not nonsense.

No. If 2 + 2 = 4, then why? If not because of God, nor can God change that, Then there must be a reason that has nothing to do
with God.Naturalism, the basic laws and metaphysical necessities of the Universe. God has nothing to do with any of this, and as a necessary entity disappears. The natural laws cannot be argued away to make room for God. THAT is the point. This naturalism must exist, God does not. Nor is there a special logic that applies to God but nobody else to save God from logical paradoxes. No mystery reasons for why things are as they are when discussing God.

Now, how far does this necessary naturalism extend into reality? You will not find theists investigating that. This problem sucks all the air out of the room for theism. Naturalism and its logic and laws must exist, God does not.

2+2=4 is just a description of something - that's all math is. Sort of like how a bachelor is a description of a man who isn't married. Creating a married bachelor is the same as creating a oasldnkasdf. God doesn't become less omnipotent by lack of ability to produce the results of nonsense statements. Four is simply a description we've given to the number of objects one ends up with when we add two sets of two objects together.

Saying that God is less than omnipotent because he can't make 2+2=5 is an example of you saying "Hey, look at me! I have the ability to use clever wordplay!". It's not an example of you making any reference to limitations on omnipotence.

Sighhhhhhhh. 2 + 2 = 4 is a way of saying there is a certain reality we must take understand to understand reality. It is NOT mere human thing, a mere description. Its not like we humans can define 2 + 2 = 5 and have that can be true. This idea that math is a mere human thing is simply false.

What I was writing about is the problem of what does omnipotence mean?


When we consider that question from the point of view of Descartes or William of Okham, the idea that God is truly omnipotent, we find it does not work. It is almost trivial to demonstrate that, which I did. We'd live in a far different Universe. Then where does 2 + 2 = 4 come from. NOT HUMANS. As you seem to claim. NOT GOD. This is not about clever word play. It is about simple basic logic.

Taking claims made by respect theist thinkers to their logical conclusions to see where it all takes us.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

We seem to be having two unrelated conversations with each other.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Miracles are at the least events that defy known natural laws.

Then, the appearance of the universe and life qualify as miracles.

Which most easily can be explained that we're ignorant of the laws that govern the generation. Which would make sense, we only have one example and we weren't paying attention at the start.
It's kinda silly to say 'I don't know how that happened....MAGIC!'

If it's a total mystery, then ignorance is not a reason to suppose that natural laws were broken by the event.
Unless you presuppose that. But that's not the 'best one can say.' That's just what you want to say.

Miracles can be viewed as mysteries.

But not all mysteries can be viewed as miracles.
And your definition of miracle was very careful and only supports: Mystery. Calling it a miracle is presuppositionist.

 

[jonJ]

jonJ;
How come your God's miracles never last any longer than, say, a magic act?

The creation of the universe and life, is a miracle that has been around for a while now.

The creation of the universe took no time at all by modern Christian accounts, and only seven days by the Biblical account, but since no reliable authorities were around to attest to it, we really can't say how long it took. Likewise for the creation of life, assuming either of them occurred at all. But if you're pointing to the universe as it is now as evidence for a miracle that took place back then, you need to explain why hundreds of millions of people don't see it as evidence of a miracle at all, and billions more see it as evidence for some completely different miracle to the one you have in mind.

 

[rhutchin]

Which most easily can be explained that we're ignorant of the laws that govern the generation. Which would make sense, we only have one example and we weren't paying attention at the start.
It's kinda silly to say 'I don't know how that happened....MAGIC!'

But not all mysteries can be viewed as miracles.
And your definition of miracle was very careful and only supports: Mystery. Calling it a miracle is presuppositionist.

The sense of both miracle and mystery is that we don't know how they happened. Miracle suggests that the event occurred contrary to known physical laws and would be a subset of mystery

In searching for an explanation for the mystery/miracle, the Bible provides an explanation for the universe and life.

 

[rhutchin]

jonJ;
How come your God's miracles never last any longer than, say, a magic act?

The creation of the universe and life, is a miracle that has been around for a while now.

The creation of the universe took no time at all by modern Christian accounts, and only seven days by the Biblical account, but since no reliable authorities were around to attest to it, we really can't say how long it took. Likewise for the creation of life, assuming either of them occurred at all.

God would qualify as a reliable authority.

But if you're pointing to the universe as it is now as evidence for a miracle that took place back then, you need to explain why hundreds of millions of people don't see it as evidence of a miracle at all, and billions more see it as evidence for some completely different miracle to the one you have in mind.

Maybe some people don't think much about how the universe or life could have come about. That the universe or life could only result from a miracle seems the view by many.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The sense of both miracle and mystery is that we don't know how they happened. Miracle suggests that the event occurred contrary to known physical laws and would be a subset of mystery

The 'sense' of miracle includes magic. It's not just an observation of ignorance but a claim of divine action. Not useful in this instance.

In searching for an explanation for the mystery/miracle, the Bible provides an explanation for the universe and life.

No, it doesn't explain these things. It attributes life and the universe and evil to a deity. It does not explain how he came to be, nor how he accomplished the tasks of creation.

 

[marine1114]

God is a poor engineer to be putting a playground so close to the sewage system.