What do I believe a god can do?

[Prodigy54321]

I think it seems pretty obvious to most people that God could not create a square circle...or the like...and I hold this opinion (if you don't, feel free to share, I'm sure there is at least a few of you)

EDIT: by "obvious", I don't mean that it is obviously true..just that it seems obvious to most people..whether it is true or not really isn't the issue.

it just doesn't make sense for that to be possible..I don't even know the words I could use to describe what is wrong with the very idea of a square circle..but most of you probably see what the problem seems to be.. (if someone wants to try to explain what is probably in my mind on why this is not possible (or want to share what is in theirs), feel free)

I also hold that this is the same as overcoming logic (I don't say "human logic" because logic seems to me to be a universal thing..not that ew all know the same logic, but that it is essentially universally true..any opinions on this are welcome as well)

EDIT: well, not the "same", but that it seems like it would be just as possible as overcoming the square circle problem..because I can't see how either is more or less "definite" (or able to be broken)

but if I do not accept god's ability to overcome the problem with making a square circle as a live possibility, is there any basis for me to consider god's ability to overcome logic as a live possibility?, or god's ability to overcome the laws of physics?

becuase, I usually think of overcoming the laws of physics, or sometimes overcoming logic as live possibilities..but I'm not sure why /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Also, if you care to make an attempt to draw lines between some of these things and tell why they are not the same thing for our purposes, please do.

[CityFan]

The laws of physics: I think God should be capable of overcoming those. I mean, I see no problem with a god being able to make the earth spin the other way on its axis, or make a penguin appear out of thin air in my living room. Why not?

Logic is another matter though. I mean God could not make 1 + 1 = 3 (1984 again...). He could go around making sure whenever you stuck two of something in close proximity a third one appeared, but that wouldn't be the same.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
The laws of physics: I think God should be capable of overcoming those. I mean, I see no problem with a god being able to make the earth spin the other way on its axis, or make a penguin appear out of thin air in my living room. Why not?

Logic is another matter though. I mean God could not make 1 + 1 = 3 (1984 again...). He could go around making sure whenever you stuck two of something in close proximity a third one appeared, but that wouldn't be the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that as somewhat obvious as well..

but I can't see exactly why it might be true..

I feel like maybe it is the way we have been made to think about the possibility of a god that breaks the laws of physics that is shaping how we look at this..rather than something being inherently different with the two.

[CityFan]

It's hard to get a handle on, I agree. But the whole thing about logic is that things follow "logically" from defintions. Logic ought to be inviolable.

It's like Zeno's paradox (I think that's the right reference...)

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose we agree that A is true, and also "if A is true then B is true" (I'll write A => B for shorthand). Does it follow that B is true?

Zeno says no, because we need an axiom "If A is true and A => B then B is true". We cannot take that for granted.

So we take that axiom and we have

1) A is true
2) A => B
3) If A is true and A => B then B is true

Are we done yet? NO! Zeno says we still can't deduce that B is true. We need another axiom:

4) If A is true, and A => B, and (If A is true and A => B then B is true) then B is true

I think you can see whre this is going...

5) If A is true, and A => B, and (If A is true and A => B then B is true), and [If A is true, and A => B, and (If A is true and A => B then B is true) then B is true]
then B is true


[/ QUOTE ]

According to Zeno, we can never conclude that B is true. We need an infinite number of axioms to ge there.

Zeno's paradox is laughable. We know that if A is true and A => B then B is true. That fact is captured in the very concepts of "true" and "if...then". We don't need the extra axioms, because we understand the concepts we are using.

This is where God comes in. Could God alter logic so that "A is true" and "if A is true then B is true" does NOT mean that B is true?

I say no. God cannot violate logic, and therefore God cannot violate mathematics.

Physics is different because there is no logical reason why the universe MUST obey certain laws. The universe could have a different gravitational constant G, for example, and still exist. It could have all kinds of weird and wonderful laws, with magically appearing penguins and whatnot, and still be logically consistent.

That's how I see it anyway.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it seems pretty obvious to most people that God could not create a square circle...or the like...and I hold this opinion (if you don't, feel free to share, I'm sure there is at least a few of you)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't reject this possibility. It's more that we can't talk about, it's beyond reason and so beyond human contemplation. Our terminology breaks down at both sides, not just the end (square circle) but the beginning (omnipotent being) since rational meaning is entailed by both. It's just gibberish as far as we're concerned - so it may or may not be the case, but we can't know anything about it. Or at the very least, if we can, we don't get there by reason.

[bigpooch]

I agree basically with what you have said. Regardless of
what physical universes exist, logic must hold in that
universe and therefore mathematics.

If one assumes the existence of a being (not necessarily
God) that created the physical cosmos, with its physical
laws, there should be no difficulty that this being
(regardless of it being omnipotent or not!) may sometimes
decide to let certain events occur that contravene those
phsyical laws that normally almost always hold.

In the case of logic and mathematics, NO BEING, including
God, is able to contravene the "laws of logic"; i.e., it is
impossible to:

a) Find positive integers x,y and z such that (x^3)+(y^3)=z^3.
b) Make an absolutely true statement false.
c) Make both a statement S and its negation (not S) true
simultaneously.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">I think it seems pretty obvious to most people that God could not create a square circle... </font>

I never understood this analogy. Things like [square/circles] are bound by vocabulary. Am I too simplistic? Or too profound? If anyone created a square circle it would instantly become a square. Here are some other ridiculous assertions God cannot achieve...

-A 10 ft. tall midget (by earthly standards).
-A 3 ft. tall giant.
-A beautiful ugly sight
-An ugly beautiful sight

So what's the point?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">I think it seems pretty obvious to most people that God could not create a square circle... </font>

I never understood this analogy. Things like [square/circles] are bound by vocabulary. Am I too simplistic? Or too profound? If anyone created a square circle it would instantly become a square. Here are some other ridiculous assertions God cannot achieve...

-A 10 ft. tall midget (by earthly standards).
-A 3 ft. tall giant.
-A beautiful ugly sight
-An ugly beautiful sight

So what's the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

that is the obvious reason..and I agree

my question is..

why is this different from not obeying logic? (is it different?)
or not obeying physical laws?

[John21]

If God created time, and the whole space-time thing is accurate: a circle and a square take up space - therefore if God ended time?

[Prodigy54321]

when we are talking about god disobeying physical laws..we know of no way that physical laws cannot be obeyed..as far as we know, it is impossible to disobey them...

but we admit that god could disobey physical laws...what is the reason for this...

are we admitting that although we know of no possible way that physical laws can be disobeyed, our knowledge must simply be wrong or incomplete...

why not with logic or what we know about geometry?

[Prodigy54321]

simple question..

Why do we consider it possible for god to disobey physical laws?

How is it easier to fathom god disobeying physical laws than god disobeying logic?

from what I know, we don't know of any possible ways to disobey either?..am I right about this?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
If God created time, and the whole space-time thing is accurate: a circle and a square take up space - therefore if God ended time?

[/ QUOTE ]

the question is..can god do things that we don't consider possible?...

if so, wouldn't it mean that our understanding of the subject wasn't complete or correct?

if so, where does this stop and why?

[Prodigy54321]

sorry for my annoying questions that are either very complicated or very simple...

I'm just trying to understand how the differences between these things are significant in the sense that 1: god could disobey some, but not others...and 2: our understanding of some could be incomplete or incorrect, but not others.

[bigpooch]

Well, most mathematicians believe that both a circle and a
square do not take up ANY physical space. Also, if by what
you mean by "circle" and "square", you mean certain common
geometric objects in Euclidean 2-space, which in itself is
not physical, yes, you can define these as specific classes
of subsets of this "space". But just as the entire
"mathematical space" does not exist in physical space, all
of "philosophical space" does not exist in either physical
or mathematical space.

Whether or not God or any being can alter "mathematical
space" or not is probably beyond human grasp; similarly,
for "philosophical space", in which entities such as
"truth", "existence", and "concept" are found.

Nevertheless, it's my view (not an uncommon one) that some
entities and truths must exist necessarily.

[John21]

Maybe God created the laws, so it wouldn't necessarily a violation as much as a rescindment.

Maybe some of the lurkers, who are more up on the Big Bang, can explain how the laws of the universe had to be inherent in the singularity.

[Lestat]

The problem/difference for me is that I can conceive of most physical laws being broken. I can picture the Red sea parting, for instance. I cannot conceive of a square circle. And the reason I can't conceive of such is that this (to me), is nothing more than a contradiction of words. Opposites if you will. Can God create a hot something that is cold? A tall something that is short? Of course not. But I can conceive of Jesus walking on water, or feeding hundreds of people from an endless supply of fish from a small basket, turning water into wine, etc., etc.

The square circle analogy just doesn't work for me. It's like saying can God create an even number that is odd? In my mind, the ability to do anything isn't even the same subject.

[Lestat]

See my post above. I think that explains it. Or at least my view anyway.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe God created the laws, so it wouldn't necessarily a violation as much as a recindment.


[/ QUOTE ]

focus my friends, focus...the question for this and any other opinion about one of them is..

how is this different from the other? or is in the same?

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe God created the laws

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you are talking about physical laws...

could he have created the laws of logic?

also, it doesn't matter what christianity or any other religions says happened..it is, what COULD he do..

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem/difference for me is that I can conceive of most physical laws being broken. I can picture the Red sea parting, for instance. I cannot conceive of a square circle. And the reason I can't conceive of such is that this (to me), is nothing more than a contradiction of words. Opposites if you will. Can God create a hot something that is cold? A tall something that is short? Of course not. But I can conceive of Jesus walking on water, or feeding hundreds of people from an endless supply of fish from a small basket, turning water into wine, etc., etc.

The square circle analogy just doesn't work for me. It's like saying can God create an even number that is odd? In my mind, the ability to do anything isn't even the same subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

questions that just popped into my mind..they may lead somewhere in a moment so bare with me...

you say that something cannot be both hot and cold

so, can something be 30 degrees F and 70 degrees F at the same time?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
so, can something be 30 degrees F and 70 degrees F at the same time?


[/ QUOTE ]

All your questions are implying relatives. Once you say there's an inside you imply an outside.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">so, can something be 30 degrees F and 70 degrees F at the same time? </font>

I'm not sure. I'm just saying I can conceive of many physical laws being broken, but I cannot conceive of a square circle.

[bigpooch]

I think if one admits as axiomatic "God created the heavens
and the earth" (the first verse of the Torah/Pentateuch) and
that this implies "God created the physical cosmos", then
one can think that God was able to choose the physical
laws that govern the physical cosmos, the initial states,
etc.

Now, I might do the same with a very simple "cosmos" that
exists only as bits/bytes in a computer which I decide is
a two dimensional grid of bits that simply follow Conway's
Game of Life. I may start off with some arbitrary initial
state of my own choosing and let a program decide what rules
to follow to generate the next grid based on those rules.

Of course, I may decide to "change the rules", by simply
suspending the program temporarily and toggle some of the
bits of the "cosmos" (=grid). To an analytical being
observing the "cosmos" that might be able to deduce the
rules of Conway's Game of Life, especially if the program
had run for several "generations", that being might deduce
that somehow the rules he discovered were not followed or
that his "instruments" deceived him. Of course, he can
repeat his experiments and find to his satisfaction that
the normal rules seem to be followed except in that rare
observation where events were not as expected and he may
discount it as experimental or observational error.

Another being might observe this and say that it is
conceivable that someone has a "backdoor program" and can
decide to change the rules.

Well, some rules can't be changed, such as a cell has a bit
that is either a "zero" nor a "one" whereas some rules can
be changed for an arbitrary grid-world "cosmos". I could
use different rules for the generation of the next "frame";
perhaps, I could decide that instead of a grid, I would
decide on a 3-dimensional lattice, etc. I might want to use
a general program for determining the next "frame", but I
may also want to be able to sometimes toggle some bits, or
use a slightly different program that operates on a subset
of the grid.

But some things I couldn't change: I couldn't change the
way the computer works, how computer programs work, to make
what already happened "not happen", etc. I couldn't claim
that the "cosmos" did not exist or that it is impossible for
an analytical being to deduce the "rules" if the grid had
evolved for enough generations.

Now, I could be a research student in some department of
computer science, under the supervision of a professor
doing some research and he might want some restricions
about what I could do. I wouldn't exactly be "God" of this
cosmos, but I wouldn't exactly be impotent either, even if
my supervising professor never even came close to the
computer. On the other hand, I could really screw things
up!

Of course, the most interesting thing is that someone who is
simply observing can deduce some of the rules. Many of the
rules may be simple and some of them may be quite profound.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
All your questions are implying relatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

well this leads me to my point that I've really been trying to get to..

is morality or who is right in terms of morality relative?

can it logically not be relative when more than one sentient being is present?

is anything but relative morality logical or does "absolute morality" disobey logic?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">so, can something be 30 degrees F and 70 degrees F at the same time? </font>

I'm not sure. I'm just saying I can conceive of many physical laws being broken, but I cannot conceive of a square circle.

[/ QUOTE ]

would you consider the above to be a question of physics or logic?

[Prodigy54321]

I'm going to sleep...

I think I'm going to try to organize my thoughts and start a new thread some time in the next week...

feel free to ignore ignore all the crap I have said in this thread...

I'm just spewing incoherent babble as usual..

my argument is basically going to be that absolute morality is a logical impossibility, much like some of the logical impossibilities we've discussed here.

but I'm not getting there clearly in this thread..

I'll try again after taking a few days to clear my head

the questions of whether or not logical impossibilities are actually impossible is another issue, but it should wait until after the other thread...I think it will make more sense that way.

[Lestat]

Physics first.