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 [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

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?