|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:56 am
Among many Common ways to present a "God Paradox" is the idea of a "square Circle".
Can god make one. It seems Logically impossible no?
There are Two Possible answers to this common Defense:
1) God certainly can do so, the issue is if we as Beings of Limited perspective can perceive such an item.
2) one that i just recently conceptualize and and working on to make it verified fact:
Yes, and I can too. If we apply the qualities and principles of a Tesseract and change the shape to include an inner square and an outer Circle we have indeed made a Square circle.(or possibly reverse: Outer Square, inner Circle)
So here is the Topic:
What are common God Paradox's you run into, and how do you solve them.?
(I hope to make this a collection of answers to God Paradox so that we as Theistic Gaians can have a compendium of responses when we argue against atheist who resort to such things.)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:44 am
Yes, within the context of an omnipotent being, logically, such a being would not b dependant upon reality, but reality dependant upon him. Since, as per the definition of omnipotence, that being could alter reality itself.
Thereby, an omnipotent being could completely rewrite reality as we know it and make a square circle, a concept impossible in our current reality.
The same idea goes for the heavy rock bit, an omnipotent being could, in one instant create a rock that he could not lift, and for that time he could not lift it, however, he could alter reality and logical rules again, to be capable of lifting it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:47 am
I'm sorry, Square Circle?
I don't understand what it is. Are we actually talking about a Circle that's square, or vice versa, or is it more complicated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:06 pm
Stxitxchxes Yes, within the context of an omnipotent being, logically, such a being would not b dependant upon reality, but reality dependant upon him. Since, as per the definition of omnipotence, that being could alter reality itself. Thereby, an omnipotent being could completely rewrite reality as we know it and make a square circle, a concept impossible in our current reality. The same idea goes for the heavy rock bit, an omnipotent being could, in one instant create a rock that he could not lift, and for that time he could not lift it, however, he could alter reality and logical rules again, to be capable of lifting it.
But I feel this is sort of...silly. The idea is: Can god create something that would be eternaly incapable of being overcome by god's own powers. So altering again simply removes the entire point. It is no longer the unliftable rock and ceases to even matter.
I also would like to ask how something can exist without being subject to the rules of existance. How can it be real and yet not within reality?
I think that seems inherently wrong. It gets to the point were I feel like someone is trying to explain how santa can deliver gifts so quick. He can't and he doesn't.
As for the answer to the square circle...You circle though contained/involved with the square...is not square. The circel itself is not the square, and even if you spin the square, it's still a spinning square with a circular line of travel. The square isa square the circle is a circle. If it becomes somethign else it is no longer itself. The point is that it obviously is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:17 pm
Quote: I also would like to ask how something can exist without being subject to the rules of existance. How can it be real and yet not within reality? I think that seems inherently wrong. It gets to the point were I feel like someone is trying to explain how santa can deliver gifts so quick. He can't and he doesn't This is an Opinion I am quite Adamant about. Something can EXIST, but not be Real. I.e: what is Real can only be Defined as that which is contained within 3 spatial planes, and one temporal plane. But, if it were to exist in an extra spatial plane or extra temporal plane....it be comes beyond our limits of perception. Thus it is an Existing thing but not a Real thing(or a thing of Reality). Quote: As for the answer to the square circle...You circle though contained/involved with the square...is not square. The circel itself is not the square, and even if you spin the square, it's still a spinning square with a circular line of travel. The square isa square the circle is a circle. If it becomes somethign else it is no longer itself. The point is that it obviously is impossible. I'm thinking that if I were to draw such a figure (a tesseract with a circle) that your opinion would be different. Is a Tesseract(simple) nothing but a cube?....or is it classified as a Hyper cube. Also: My first answer to the Paradox stands even if the Tesseract model fails. God Obviously CAN make a Square-Circle. That's not the question, the question is...would we (being of limited perspective) be able to see/understand/Perceive it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:36 pm
Rookherst[KOS] Quote: I also would like to ask how something can exist without being subject to the rules of existance. How can it be real and yet not within reality? I think that seems inherently wrong. It gets to the point were I feel like someone is trying to explain how santa can deliver gifts so quick. He can't and he doesn't This is an Opinion I am quite Adamant about. Something can EXIST, but not be Real. I.e: what is Real can only be Defined as that which is contained within 3 spatial planes, and one temporal plane. But, if it were to exist in an extra spatial plane or extra temporal plane....it be comes beyond our limits of perception. Thus it is an Existing thing but not a Real thing(or a thing of Reality). Quote: As for the answer to the square circle...You circle though contained/involved with the square...is not square. The circel itself is not the square, and even if you spin the square, it's still a spinning square with a circular line of travel. The square isa square the circle is a circle. If it becomes somethign else it is no longer itself. The point is that it obviously is impossible. I'm thinking that if I were to draw such a figure (a tesseract with a circle) that your opinion would be different. Is a Tesseract(simple) nothing but a cube?....or is it classified as a Hyper cube. Also: My first answer to the Paradox stands even if the Tesseract model fails. God Obviously CAN make a Square-Circle. That's not the question, the question is...would we (being of limited perspective) be able to see/understand/Perceive it.
This to me is an excuse not to explain things.
How can we even come up with an idea we are incapable of comprehending?
EXPLAIN how we wouldn't be able to percieve something WE CAME UP WITH. If it exists within our existance we certainly SHOULD be able to percieve it.
We can percieve atoms, albiet with aid from an electron-microscope, but we CAN.
How about make a cubic sphere or a spheric cube? Or better yet, count to the end of infinity?
How simplistic to say "it cannot be understood" because that just excuses yourself from having to explain it. You can present no contradiction to the omnipotent paradox, or else IT WOULD NOT REMAIN A PARADOX.
Capitolized with emphasis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:21 pm
Moonlite Symphony Stxitxchxes Yes, within the context of an omnipotent being, logically, such a being would not b dependant upon reality, but reality dependant upon him. Since, as per the definition of omnipotence, that being could alter reality itself. Thereby, an omnipotent being could completely rewrite reality as we know it and make a square circle, a concept impossible in our current reality. The same idea goes for the heavy rock bit, an omnipotent being could, in one instant create a rock that he could not lift, and for that time he could not lift it, however, he could alter reality and logical rules again, to be capable of lifting it.
But I feel this is sort of...silly. The idea is: Can god create something that would be eternaly incapable of being overcome by god's own powers. So altering again simply removes the entire point. It is no longer the unliftable rock and ceases to even matter.
I also would like to ask how something can exist without being subject to the rules of existance. How can it be real and yet not within reality?
I think that seems inherently wrong. It gets to the point were I feel like someone is trying to explain how santa can deliver gifts so quick. He can't and he doesn't.
As for the answer to the square circle...You circle though contained/involved with the square...is not square. The circel itself is not the square, and even if you spin the square, it's still a spinning square with a circular line of travel. The square isa square the circle is a circle. If it becomes somethign else it is no longer itself. The point is that it obviously is impossible.The argument itself is silly, and prompted often by pubescant rebellious children who want to think that they're so smart that they can disprove thousands of years of debate. And again, by the definition of an omnipotent being, an omnipotent being is not subject to reality, reality is subject to him. This whole argument is circular, as is the nature of a paradox. Why would G-d make a square circle? He likely has no reason to, but the point is is that, if he willed it, he could. I also find your analogy of G-d to Santa mildly insulting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:10 pm
Moonlite Symphony
This to me is an excuse not to explain things.
How can we even come up with an idea we are incapable of comprehending? There is a diffrence between Conceptualizing, and Realizing... Quote: EXPLAIN how we wouldn't be able to percieve something WE CAME UP WITH. If it exists within our existance we certainly SHOULD be able to percieve it. Perhaps you should re examine what I said, and not take it off in to the land of Star men? Quote: We can percieve atoms, albiet with aid from an electron-microscope, but we CAN. How about make a cubic sphere or a spheric cube? Or better yet, count to the end of infinity? All of these exist within a Finite 3 Spatial dimension Reality. Now add a 4th Spatial Dimension. Is that Dimension perceivable by you? by nature; No. Does this make it any less Existing? no. Also the Example of Infinity works in my Favor. The concept of Infinity is something we can grasp, but the Realization of Infinity is beyond our perception. Can you perceive Infinity in it's totality? Quote: How simplistic to say "it cannot be understood" because that just excuses yourself from having to explain it. I never said "it can't be Understood". Take down your Straw Men. I asked if such a thing cold be perceived by our limited minds. Quote: You can present no contradiction to the omnipotent paradox, or else IT WOULD NOT REMAIN A PARADOX. Zeno's Paradox remains a Paradox, yet it is contradicted by the mathematical fact that .999repeating = 1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:18 pm
Stxitxchxes Moonlite Symphony Stxitxchxes Yes, within the context of an omnipotent being, logically, such a being would not b dependant upon reality, but reality dependant upon him. Since, as per the definition of omnipotence, that being could alter reality itself. Thereby, an omnipotent being could completely rewrite reality as we know it and make a square circle, a concept impossible in our current reality. The same idea goes for the heavy rock bit, an omnipotent being could, in one instant create a rock that he could not lift, and for that time he could not lift it, however, he could alter reality and logical rules again, to be capable of lifting it.
But I feel this is sort of...silly. The idea is: Can god create something that would be eternaly incapable of being overcome by god's own powers. So altering again simply removes the entire point. It is no longer the unliftable rock and ceases to even matter.
I also would like to ask how something can exist without being subject to the rules of existance. How can it be real and yet not within reality?
I think that seems inherently wrong. It gets to the point were I feel like someone is trying to explain how santa can deliver gifts so quick. He can't and he doesn't.
As for the answer to the square circle...You circle though contained/involved with the square...is not square. The circel itself is not the square, and even if you spin the square, it's still a spinning square with a circular line of travel. The square isa square the circle is a circle. If it becomes somethign else it is no longer itself. The point is that it obviously is impossible.The argument itself is silly, and prompted often by pubescant rebellious children who want to think that they're so smart that they can disprove thousands of years of debate. And again, by the definition of an omnipotent being, an omnipotent being is not subject to reality, reality is subject to him. This whole argument is circular, as is the nature of a paradox. Why would G-d make a square circle? He likely has no reason to, but the point is is that, if he willed it, he could. I also find your analogy of G-d to Santa mildly insulting.
and why do people remove the O from god. It's like removing the I from s**t, you still know it's the same word. It still has the same meaning, and it's read exactly the same way. It's like pretending that changes it.
And to Rocokherst:
Decent enough points. I don't claim to be any special authority on the subject, and I don't very well have a great deal of sources of study. So It's fairly likely I'll run to the limits of my ability to argue a point.
The point of infinity is obviously that it never ends.
I suppose I percieve it in that I make fractal artwork. I play with infinites all the time. But there is a limit to which we are cabable of I suppose...seeing it. Like the atoms, we live in a world built of them. We see the combination of atoms, not the atoms themselves, if our vision could become so greatly focused on sucha small thing than certainly we could. With infinity we are simply stuck with the limitation that it will never be CAPABLE of being seen in totality.
NOTHING can see the end of infinity simply because it never ends, which is my point. We're human, and we have limits...OBVIOUSLY we can't. But nothing else can either. So maybe it works for your arguement, but it stills works for mine. God cannot find the end of infinity, or else it wouldn't be infinite would it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:42 pm
/exec flame.cfg Moonlite Symphony Stxitxchxes Moonlite Symphony Stxitxchxes Yes, within the context of an omnipotent being, logically, such a being would not b dependant upon reality, but reality dependant upon him. Since, as per the definition of omnipotence, that being could alter reality itself. Thereby, an omnipotent being could completely rewrite reality as we know it and make a square circle, a concept impossible in our current reality. The same idea goes for the heavy rock bit, an omnipotent being could, in one instant create a rock that he could not lift, and for that time he could not lift it, however, he could alter reality and logical rules again, to be capable of lifting it.
But I feel this is sort of...silly. The idea is: Can god create something that would be eternaly incapable of being overcome by god's own powers. So altering again simply removes the entire point. It is no longer the unliftable rock and ceases to even matter.
I also would like to ask how something can exist without being subject to the rules of existance. How can it be real and yet not within reality?
I think that seems inherently wrong. It gets to the point were I feel like someone is trying to explain how santa can deliver gifts so quick. He can't and he doesn't.
As for the answer to the square circle...You circle though contained/involved with the square...is not square. The circel itself is not the square, and even if you spin the square, it's still a spinning square with a circular line of travel. The square isa square the circle is a circle. If it becomes somethign else it is no longer itself. The point is that it obviously is impossible.The argument itself is silly, and prompted often by pubescant rebellious children who want to think that they're so smart that they can disprove thousands of years of debate. And again, by the definition of an omnipotent being, an omnipotent being is not subject to reality, reality is subject to him. This whole argument is circular, as is the nature of a paradox. Why would G-d make a square circle? He likely has no reason to, but the point is is that, if he willed it, he could. I also find your analogy of G-d to Santa mildly insulting. Very well then, I hereby call a beginning to the hostilities. We can start by a direct attack on the nature of your presence in a theological forum, in actioning a logical attack on the existance of G-d (theology is not a secular science) via an analogous likeness to Santa on the basis of evidence. Quote: and why do people remove the O from god. It's like removing the I from s**t, you still know it's the same word. It still has the same meaning, and it's read exactly the same way. It's like pretending that changes it. My second attack will be on this vitriol-filled and condescending nonsense. If you had bothered to be culturally sensitive, you'd know that Jews (and there's a fair few of us in this here guild) don't write G-d's name down (this includes typing - a virtual 'writing'), curturally, as Jews have largely been centered in a non-Hebraic environment for about two thousand years now, we take a step not to write out his common English moniker. Quote: And to Rocokherst: Decent enough points. I don't claim to be any special authority on the subject, and I don't very well have a great deal of sources of study. So It's fairly likely I'll run to the limits of my ability to argue a point. By concession to Rookherst's point, you give concession to my points, thank you. The point standing on the nature of reality and omnipotence, as previously established, is that while an omnipotent being defines reality, reality defines a non-omnipotent being. Thereby, a non-omnipotent being's perception is limited by that which he is dependant upon. Moving further, given that reality is dependant upon an omnipotent being, non-omnipotent beings are incapable of understanding the logic and extra-reality of an omnipotent being. Our reality is but play-doh to an omnipotent being, and thus our understanding of this reality is at the whim of said omnipotent being. Cave theory, biotch. Quote: The point of infinity is obviously that it never ends. Wrong. The essence of infinity, as a philosophically defined concept, is that it is both without beginning and without end. Quote: I suppose I percieve it in that I make fractal artwork. I play with infinites all the time. But there is a limit to which we are cabable of I suppose...seeing it. Like the atoms, we live in a world built of them. We see the combination of atoms, not the atoms themselves, if our vision could become so greatly focused on sucha small thing than certainly we could. With infinity we are simply stuck with the limitation that it will never be CAPABLE of being seen in totality. NOTHING can see the end of infinity simply because it never ends, which is my point. We're human, and we have limits...OBVIOUSLY we can't. But nothing else can either. So maybe it works for your arguement, but it stills works for mine. God cannot find the end of infinity, or else it wouldn't be infinite would it? A being existing outside of our reality and which defines our reality defines reality (as it defines infinity itself) in a way it sees fit, thereby shaping our reality's definitino of infinity. For example, in logical philosophy there is the notion of a Chaosium, a reality devoid of logic, in such a theoretical place, infinity would have a very different meaning and definition, one different from ours. Edit: Moreover, in addressing the question 'Can G-d make a square circle?', the logical assumption in an arena inherant to that question is that G-d is assumed to exist. Arguing against that in the context is illogical. Therefore, you're talking out your a**.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:44 pm
I suppose that this shall be my first discussion here. I am in agreement with Moonlite Symphony when she said that the square is a square, and the circle is a circle. If one thing becomes another, it is no longer the previous thing. Suppose another question: Can God taste green? Green is a color, not a taste. It is for sight, not tasting. Things that are green can have taste. But, those two types of greens are different. One is a color, the other is a food, which possesses the quality of the color. mrgreen Rookherst[KOS] 1) God certainly can do so, the issue is if we as Beings of Limited perspective can perceive such an item. Is it God's nature to do so? How do we know if it's contrary to His nature? Rookherst[KOS] Yes, and I can too. If we apply the qualities and principles of a Tesseract and change the shape to include an inner square and an outer Circle we have indeed made a Square circle.(or possibly reverse: Outer Square, inner Circle) However, if I am reading this right, the square is not the circle, and the circle is not the square. It's simply that the circle is within the square. Therefore, you've not made a "circle-square." And again, if you were to actually alter the square and the circle, it'd no longer be a "circle-square," but something different. If God can make a "circle-square," it's probably radically different than we think, and it's probably under a different name. Rookherst[KOS] So here is the Topic:
What are common God Paradox's you run into, and how do you solve them.?(I hope to make this a collection of answers to God Paradox so that we as Theistic Gaians can have a compendium of responses when we argue against atheist who resort to such things.) The things I run into aren't really problems. They're just incomprehensible (not to be confused with "a mystery"). Ask yourself, Can God create and not create a universe? He either does one or the other. But He does not do both. If God so wills to not create a universe, then He will not. But if He so wills to, He will. The matter here is that if God does one thing, the other must be discarded, because God has willed it according to His good pleasure. So, if one says, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it? If He can, then He's not omnipotent. If He cannot, then He's not omnipotent," I'll simply state that such question is tautological in the rhetorical sense. Why, what I've said above in regards to "a circle being a circle" is also tautological. So, the question on God being capable of lifting or not lifting a rock so heavy is actually a foolish question. If we are to regard "omnipotence" as being able to do anything, or as infinite, then the question is self-defeating. God then would be capable of lifting and not lifting a rock so heavy, if He chose to do so. And because God is infinite, then it would be ridiculous to say that He could make a rock so heavy, since He is intrinsically infinite, and the rock is not. So, regardless of whether or not God did this, God would never be capable of not lifting the rock. One might say that God can will Himself to not be infinite. But, then how would God will Himself to be infinite again, let alone, create a rock that is more infinite than He? This is nothing but frivolous thought used against theists so that their God may be disproven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:59 pm
John Calvin I suppose that this shall be my first discussion here. I am in agreement with Moonlite Symphony when she said that the square is a square, and the circle is a circle. If one thing becomes another, it is no longer the previous thing. Suppose another question: Can God taste green? Green is a color, not a taste. It is for sight, not tasting. Things that are green can have taste. But, those two types of greens are different. One is a color, the other is a food, which possesses the quality of the color. mrgreen Rookherst[KOS] 1) God certainly can do so, the issue is if we as Beings of Limited perspective can perceive such an item. Is it God's nature to do so? How do we know if it's contrary to His nature? Rookherst[KOS] Yes, and I can too. If we apply the qualities and principles of a Tesseract and change the shape to include an inner square and an outer Circle we have indeed made a Square circle.(or possibly reverse: Outer Square, inner Circle) However, if I am reading this right, the square is not the circle, and the circle is not the square. It's simply that the circle is within the square. Therefore, you've not made a "circle-square." And again, if you were to actually alter the square and the circle, it'd no longer be a "circle-square," but something different. If God can make a "circle-square," it's probably radically different than we think, and it's probably under a different name. Rookherst[KOS] So here is the Topic:
What are common God Paradox's you run into, and how do you solve them.?(I hope to make this a collection of answers to God Paradox so that we as Theistic Gaians can have a compendium of responses when we argue against atheist who resort to such things.) The things I run into aren't really problems. They're just incomprehensible (not to be confused with "a mystery"). Ask yourself, Can God create and not create a universe? He either does one or the other. But He does not do both. If God so wills to not create a universe, then He will not. But if He so wills to, He will. The matter here is that if God does one thing, the other must be discarded, because God has willed it according to His good pleasure. So, if one says, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it? If He can, then He's not omnipotent. If He cannot, then He's not omnipotent," I'll simply state that such question is tautological in the rhetorical sense. Why, what I've said above in regards to "a circle being a circle" is also tautological. So, the question on God being capable of lifting or not lifting a rock so heavy is actually a foolish question. If we are to regard "omnipotence" as being able to do anything, or as infinite, then the question is self-defeating. God then would be capable of lifting and not lifting a rock so heavy, if He chose to do so. And because God is infinite, then it would be ridiculous to say that He could make a rock so heavy, since He is intrinsically infinite, and the rock is not. So, regardless of whether or not God did this, God would never be capable of not lifting the rock. One might say that God can will Himself to not be infinite. But, then how would God will Himself to be infinite again, let alone, create a rock that is more infinite than He? This is nothing but frivolous thought used against theists so that their God may be disproven. I'll sum all that hot air up in one line: "This is all hypothetical, we've got to prove G-d's omnipotence or disprove it." Which is great, except that it's assumed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:31 pm
Moonlite Symphony
This to me is an excuse not to explain things.
How can we even come up with an idea we are incapable of comprehending?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:36 pm
Moonlite Symphony Honestly you can find it insulting but there is no more reason to believe in one than the other. They both have just as much proof to them. I appologize if it offends you, but it isn't my problem.
and why do people remove the O from god. It's like removing the I from s**t, you still know it's the same word. It still has the same meaning, and it's read exactly the same way. It's like pretending that changes it.
By the way, Orthodox Jews do not pronounce the name of God out of respect, because it's holy, therefore the word "God" is written without the vowel. It's done this way in the Hebrew as well (if I'm not mistaken?)
It is your responsibility to understand other people's faiths and be respectful towards them. If you cannot manage to do this, you will be banned. The fact that you would mock the very existence of God in a guild for theological discussion astounds me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:37 pm
Stxitxchxes I'll sum all that hot air up in one line: "This is all hypothetical, we've got to prove G-d's omnipotence or disprove it." Which is great, except that it's assumed. One does not necessarily have to prove or disprove God's omnipotency. It just needs to be defined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Rookherst[KOS]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/1c/32/2b1f6af436321c_flip.png?t=1193918574_6.00_11)
Reply
