A question for all skeptics

[Frank Merton]

There is physics, where it would make sense for God to be able to "make the rules" in designing the universe.

Then there are mathematics, logic, geometry (the last two are generally seen as divisions of mathematics but I list them separately because they have their unique issues) and there is ethics. These it makes no sense to assert that they can be different from what they are. They are not inferred, they are deduced.

[+Link of Hyrule]

There is such a thing as a square circle. It's a nickname for a boxing or wrestling structure. It's square shaped, but it's called a "ring". Ring's are generally circular, so a boxing/wrestling ring is quite succinctly a square circle.

Just sayin',

[eight bits]

PA

Just sayin'

Just said:

Like any other string, I can define an oxymoron to mean something, like "jumbo shrimp" or "colossal olive" or "anarchist law and order."

Just sayin' again

[White Crane Feather]

I got it!!!!

Take a square image that you can stretch and manipulate into a circle. Then view it and the action from a higher dimension outside of time. You will have a square circle, I have no idea what it would look like but humans look like long worm slug things that are very ghastly.

[Frank Merton]

Just viewing the process outside of time should be enough if I get your drift correctly.

I would tend to say that you have a square and you have a circle and you have a changing-from-square-to-circle thingy, three different objects. While the square is not being distorted, it is a square; while it is being distorted it is that thingy; after it has been distorted it is a circle. It is never both a square and a circle.

[Leonardo]

I got it!!!!

Take a square image that you can stretch and manipulate into a circle.

So, it starts as a square (not a circle) then is manipulated (neither a square nor a circle) until it becomes a circle (not a square). At no time is the object you describe a 'square circle'.

Then view it and the action from a higher dimension outside of time.

Here is another oxymoron. How can there be action "outside" of time?

And how can time have an 'inside/outside' component when it is only a perception of a rate of change? No entity can be "outside" its own perception.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Leonardo

[+Liquid Gardens]

I wonder if in Liquid Garden's world God could trisect angles or square a circle or provide a fractional value for the square root of two.

I don't know, I can't say that God can do something that is gibberish and has no meaning. God is omnipotent is the only response I can give you, and for the same reason I can't know whether God can do this we also can't say that God cannot do this.

[Leonardo]

I don't know, I can't say that God can do something that is gibberish and has no meaning. God is omnipotent is the only response I can give you, and for the same reason I can't know whether God can do this we also can't say that God cannot do this.

And I believe this underlines a problem in understanding omnipotence. As I said in an earlier post, omnipotence does not mean "can do anything", it means "can do anything that can be done". Those things "that can be done" fall within the boundaries of logic. An omnipotent being cannot do things which defy logic (are oxymoronic) - such as create a square circle.

The argument you present simply misrepresents omnipotence.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Leonardo

[+Liquid Gardens]

And I believe this underlines a problem in understanding omnipotence. As I said in an earlier post, omnipotence does not mean "can do anything", it means "can do anything that can be done".

This doesn't help, it doesn't really provide any more meaningful information because I disagree that you can know for sure what can and cannot be done.

Those things "that can be done" fall within the boundaries of logic. An omnipotent being cannot do things which defy logic (are oxymoronic) - such as create a square circle.

Given our definitions and understanding. If God creates a square circle and shows it to you and you prefer to define that as a 'squircle' because it doesn't meet your criteria about what a circle can be, that's fine, but it doesn't have any truth except in relation to your own definitions. If God tells me he creates six-legged horses, I can similarly say that those aren't horses, horses only have four legs, someone else may say those are horses though and update their definition of 'horses' to include the six-legged kind. But I'm making the mistake again of talking about 'square circles', which I thought we just concluded doesn't mean anything; if it doesn't mean anything then you are no more saying that anything when you say God cannot create them than when we say that God can create them; there is no 'them' that we can comprehend to evaluate.

The argument you present simply misrepresents omnipotence.

Correction, it misrepresents your definition of omnipotence.

[Leonardo]

This doesn't help, it doesn't really provide any more meaningful information because I disagree that you can know for sure what can and cannot be done.

Given our definitions and understanding. If God creates a square circle and shows it to you and you prefer to define that as a 'squircle' because it doesn't meet your criteria about what a circle can be, that's fine, but it doesn't have any truth except in relation to your own definitions. If God tells me he creates six-legged horses, I can similarly say that those aren't horses, horses only have four legs, someone else may say those are horses though and update their definition of 'horses' to include the six-legged kind. But I'm making the mistake again of talking about 'square circles', which I thought we just concluded doesn't mean anything; if it doesn't mean anything then you are no more saying that anything when you say God cannot create them than when we say that God can create them; there is no 'them' that we can comprehend to evaluate.

Correction, it misrepresents your definition of omnipotence.

LG,

If you wish to use a definition for omnipotence that includes the capacity for defying logic, then nothing in an argument you base on that definition is meaningful to anyone. You are suggesting there are no rules and language is useless for communicating concepts, so you may as well be talking gibberish.

Communication (the exchange of information) can only happen when the language being used includes shared concepts of agreed definitions.

[Rlyeh]

I got it!!!!

Take a square image that you can stretch and manipulate into a circle. Then view it and the action from a higher dimension outside of time. You will have a square circle, I have no idea what it would look like but humans look like long worm slug things that are very ghastly.

And no longer a 2 dimensional shape.

[Rlyeh]

Given our definitions and understanding. If God creates a square circle and shows it to you and you prefer to define that as a 'squircle' because it doesn't meet your criteria about what a circle can be, that's fine, but it doesn't have any truth except in relation to your own definitions.

Actually circles and squares are well defined geometric shapes. If anyone including God gives a shape that does not have the properties of a circle then it's obviously not a circle.

[+Liquid Gardens]

LG,

If you wish to use a definition for omnipotence that includes the capacity for defying logic, then nothing in an argument you base on that definition is meaningful to anyone. You are suggesting there are no rules and language is useless for communicating concepts, so you may as well be talking gibberish.

Communication (the exchange of information) can only happen when the language being used includes shared concepts of agreed definitions.

My definition of omnipotence does not exclude the ability to violate logic, as yours does, I'm trying to treat it as an unknown and I didn't say it necessarily included it (now, I've recently revised this position) and I'm trying not to make any arguments now that rely on including that ability. You said that God cannot make square circles as if 'square circles' has meaning (again, I have done the same, I'm not knocking you) which would be required to base some argument concerning it. I cannot have an opinion on 'violating logic', neither of us can understand it, it doesn't make sense to us, without that I can't say yea or nay. The difference is that you are asserting that God cannot violate logic because he cannot, I'll admit I'm still having trouble seeing that as anything but a bald assertion or as true merely because of how you are defining 'logic' which would presume that our understanding of logic is complete; again we can just define 'logic' as something that God cannot violate by definition, but that doesn't say much. I am saying that we can't say anything about God's ability to do something we cannot make sense of. Thus the only basis upon which I can say that he cannot violate 'logic', according to his complete understanding of it that I can have no confidence that we share, is because God cannot do something that makes no sense to us, which to me is counter to the definition of God; he is beyond our understanding and knows things beyond our understanding, and I have no idea if it makes sense to him. I think I'm being properly skeptical given the unknowns that are implicit in 'God'.

[Leonardo]

My definition of omnipotence does not exclude the ability to violate logic, as yours does, I'm trying to treat it as an unknown and I didn't say it necessarily included it (now, I've recently revised this position) and I'm trying not to make any arguments now that rely on including that ability. You said that God cannot make square circles as if 'square circles' has meaning (again, I have done the same, I'm not knocking you) which would be required to base some argument concerning it. I cannot have an opinion on 'violating logic', neither of us can understand it, it doesn't make sense to us, without that I can't say yea or nay. The difference is that you are asserting that God cannot violate logic because he cannot, I'll admit I'm still having trouble seeing that as anything but a bald assertion or as true merely because of how you are defining 'logic' which would presume that our understanding of logic is complete; again we can just define 'logic' as something that God cannot violate by definition, but that doesn't say much. I am saying that we can't say anything about God's ability to do something we cannot make sense of. Thus the only basis upon which I can say that he cannot violate 'logic', according to his complete understanding of it that I can have no confidence that we share, is because God cannot do something that makes no sense to us, which to me is counter to the definition of God; he is beyond our understanding and knows things beyond our understanding, and I have no idea if it makes sense to him. I think I'm being properly skeptical given the unknowns that are implicit in 'God'.

Logic is not something we have defined, it is something we have understood. There is no basis for the assumption that another entity's comprehension of logic would be any more complete than our own. As for the "unknowns implicit in God", if God is omnipotent it is not unknown that God cannot do that which cannot be done.

My definition of omnipotence does not exclude the ability to violate logic...

And so it is meaningless, because without a common basis for communication, you can impart no information about what an omnipotent being can, or cannot, do.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Logic is not something we have defined, it is something we have understood.

Fine, but you don't know if what we've 'understood' is 100% complete and correct.

There is no basis for the assumption that another entity's comprehension of logic would be any more complete than our own.

You mean except the definition of 'God' and 'human'? We know that God completely understands it, and I'm unaware of any assurances under any religion that he has communicated some indication that our understanding of nearly anything is complete. There is definitely no basis for the assumption that our comprehension of logic is complete, which is IMO required in order to say that it cannot be violated; you can't rule out that logic cannot be violated as we may not fully understand it as God does. It's not that I'm assuming it, I'm leaving the possibility open and trying to come to conclusions accordingly, because I have nothing upon which to base the notion that our understanding logic applies to everything.

As for the "unknowns implicit in God", if God is omnipotent it is not unknown that God cannot do that which cannot be done.

Which is fine but meaningless until we find some reliable way of what can and cannot be done outside of our universe. God cannot do what God cannot do, that's self evident; the problem is we don't know if 'what God cannot do' is an empty set. We can say that there are things that we cannot comprehend how they can be done, something fully expected given our non-omniscience. It is correct to say that God can't do that which cannot be done, obviously; it is not correct to say that God can't do that which we think cannot be done, he already has, and is himself under the most prevalent definition (the Trinity), in the major religions.

And so it is meaningless, because without a common basis for communication, you can impart no information about what an omnipotent being can, or cannot, do.

Agreed, so why are you then saying God cannot do something that is meaningless, wouldn't you have to know what that thing is, 'violating logic', in order to say he cannot do it? It sounds like you're agreeing with me.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Liquid Gardens

[Leonardo]

Fine, but you don't know if what we've 'understood' is 100% complete and correct.

You mean except the definition of 'God' and 'human'? We know that God completely understands it [logic]...

No, we don't know that, you are assuming that as part of your argument. We also do not know if our own understanding of logic is any less than Gods, again this is just another assumption you have made to fit your argument.

You are assuming many things about God, then arguing as if those things were fact and understood by all to be as you assume them to be. They are not.

...what can and cannot be done outside of our universe.

Another assumption without meaning. Is there an "outside of our universe"? You seem to take is as fact there is, and that this 'outside' is totally unlike our universe. Neither of these assumptions have any basis upon which to claim such certainty as you do.

...we don't know if 'what God cannot do' is an empty set.

We do know that, and the answer is the set of what "God [an omnipotent being] cannot do" is not empty. While we might not know all that God cannot do, we do know that God cannot do that which is not 'doable' - i.e. defies logic. And this is according to our understanding of logic - God cannot do what we understand cannot be done.

It sounds like you're agreeing with me.

No, I am not, and you have misunderstood what I wrote - but I appreciate it might not have been clear. What I am saying is your argument conveys no information, because it is based on assumptions without any meaning. You are not communicating in the same language as everyone else, but are trying to redefine circles, squares and logic. Your argument is nonsense - noise.

[White Crane Feather]

So, it starts as a square (not a circle) then is manipulated (neither a square nor a circle) until it becomes a circle (not a square). At no time is the object you describe a 'square circle'.

Here is another oxymoron. How can there be action "outside" of time?

And how can time have an 'inside/outside' component when it is only a perception of a rate of change? No entity can be "outside" its own perception.

Well it's certainly hypothetical. But if you viewed ( could view) an object from a place in which all it's changes are viewed simultaneously and this object changed from a square to a circle, well you would simultaneously be viewing it as both a square and a circle. Something only possible from a higher dimensional perspective. Of course.. I don't think time is really a dimension... But if it were and something could observe from a higher perspective a square circle could exist. Classifying it as one or the other would not be possible though be cause it would quite literally be both.

I'm just having fun anyway, I thought it a challenge to find a way for a square circle to exist

[Tiggs]

Here is another oxymoron. How can there be action "outside" of time?

And how can time have an 'inside/outside' component when it is only a perception of a rate of change? No entity can be "outside" its own perception.

Here's one answer - when the rate of change varies from system to system.

Imagine a turn based computer game. External to that game, events in the "real world" can take place in less than the smallest measurable unit of time (planck time) within the game - i.e. a turn.

[Leonardo]

Here's one answer - when the rate of change varies from system to system.

Imagine a turn based computer game. External to that game, events in the "real world" can take place in less than the smallest measurable unit of time (planck time) within the game - i.e. a turn.

External to that game, the observer noting the 'game time' is still experiencing their own 'time'. They are not outside their own perception. You cannot be "outside time" and be able to observe anything.

[Leonardo]

Well it's certainly hypothetical. But if you viewed ( could view) an object from a place in which all it's changes are viewed simultaneously and this object changed from a square to a circle, well you would simultaneously be viewing it as both a square and a circle.

No, you wouldn't. Because if this was all happening simultaneously nothing is changing. Change depends on there being a duration in which that change to happen. The shape you would be observing would be either a square if the circle was smaller than the square, or a circle if the square was smaller than the circle, or a odd-shape if there was some overlap in dimensions. It would not ever be a 'square circle'.

[Beckys_Mom]

Yes I would ask them to proove it

I managed a quick break..Just a quick question ref to part of your post - Why would any firm believer in God need to ask God to prove it?

In general, a lot of firm believers will gladly believe in god from reading mere words in a holy book,taking it as gods true word and they ask for NO proof... Many will say - "No proof is required, my faith is that strong".. etc etc...So if they were to hear a voice in their heads claiming to be their god, then, why would they ask him to prove it? Irony would be all over that...

For Christians to ask god to prove himself,I think that would be wrong....I am nearly sure their bible says it is wrong to try and tempt thy God...

On a fun note, I did come across these once and I thought it would be fun to share them...

Things kids would ask God...

This last one made me laugh...

Kids, they say the darnedest things

Source - http://www.funnymail...uestions-to-god

Edited September 26, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[Tiggs]

External to that game, the observer noting the 'game time' is still experiencing their own 'time'. They are not outside their own perception. You cannot be "outside time" and be able to observe anything.

Sure - but they can be outside time as it applies to within the game, however.

[Leonardo]

Sure - but they can be outside time as it applies to within the game, however.

I would suggest the observer is not "outside game-time" either. The observer is subject to two different perspectives, and within each perspective, of time simultaneously. Neither perspective is "outside" the other.

[SpiritWriter]

I managed a quick break..Just a quick question ref to part of your post - Why would any firm believer in God need to ask God to prove it?

In general, a lot of firm believers will gladly believe in god from reading mere words in a holy book,taking it as gods true word and they ask for NO proof... Many will say - "No proof is required, my faith is that strong".. etc etc...So if they were to hear a voice in their heads claiming to be their god, then, why would they ask him to prove it? Irony would be all over that...

For Christians to ask god to prove himself,I think that would be wrong....I am nearly sure their bible says it is wrong to try and tempt thy God...

On a fun note, I did come across these once and I thought it would be fun to share them...

Things kids would ask God...

This last one made me laugh...

Kids, they say the darnedest things

Source - http://www.funnymail...uestions-to-god

The question was if we heard a voice speak to us which called itself God would we ask the speaker of the voice proove it. I said I would because although, yes I am a firm believer in God, im not going to trust any voice I hear claiming to be God just because they claim to be God. I also believe in other spirits that do not necessarily have the best intentions at heart and woyld hate to be following the wrong voice. This actually happens to people, I wouldn't want to be one of them. But if the spirit did proove to be God or at least of God, I might be a little shocked but it would be something I could better roll with.

[+Liquid Gardens]

No, we don't know that, you are assuming that as part of your argument. We also do not know if our own understanding of logic is any less than Gods, again this is just another assumption you have made to fit your argument.

You are assuming many things about God, then arguing as if those things were fact and understood by all to be as you assume them to be. They are not.

Another assumption without meaning. Is there an "outside of our universe"? You seem to take is as fact there is, and that this 'outside' is totally unlike our universe. Neither of these assumptions have any basis upon which to claim such certainty as you do.

We do know that, and the answer is the set of what "God [an omnipotent being] cannot do" is not empty. While we might not know all that God cannot do, we do know that God cannot do that which is not 'doable' - i.e. defies logic. And this is according to our understanding of logic - God cannot do what we understand cannot be done.

No, I am not, and you have misunderstood what I wrote - but I appreciate it might not have been clear. What I am saying is your argument conveys no information, because it is based on assumptions without any meaning. You are not communicating in the same language as everyone else, but are trying to redefine circles, squares and logic. Your argument is nonsense - noise.

Perhaps if you reiterate in detail what you believe my argument to be it might help clear this up, and then what assumptions I'm making to make that argument; to me I'm disagreeing with the assumptions that you are making, that we know logic, not just as we understand it but as we it completely is, cannot be violated by God. I'm not assuming our understanding of logic is not complete and fully aligned with God's perfect understanding of it, I'm saying that we do not know that and one reason to question it is that we know we are not omniscient, unlike God.

My argument right now is that you cannot say that God can't do something that is nonsense to us any more than you can say that God can do something that is nonsense to us. I'm using the general definition of God as he is defined by the majority of theists so he bares a remarkable resemblance to the Abrahamic God, creator of our universe and everything else, although I'm trying to stay away from specific religious doctrines except as examples. Feel free to provide your own definition; if your definition does not include omniscience which includes completely understanding logic, then I don't think we're discussing the same god.

The issue I have with what you and eight are saying is this assumption, that defying logic is not 'doable'; how can you evaluate that if it contains no sense to humans? I think I'm being skeptical when I take the position that defying logic at best does not make sense to us so we really can't say much about it, but until you provide some evidence or basis for thinking our understanding of logic is complete, i.e. that we are omniscient, I don't understand on what basis you are making a positive statement concerning it. Eight has analogized these contradictory statements to his 'apple sideswipe pancake wrong...' statement, so why then does this substitution not hold when you make claims that defying logic is not doable, why isn't that also, 'apple sideswipe pancake wrong is not doable'? I agree, if it were to exist an illogical universe doesn't mean anything to us right now; that is not God's problem, anymore than an ant's inability to comprehend 'love' is our problem nor change reality.