"God cannot create a square circle"

[GenesisNemesis]

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?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Creating a square circle is a doddle. I'd be impressed if he could give the Leafs a decent season.

 

[dockeen]

Just a little bend in space will do it. I remember saying in my believing days that I similarly had no problem with god creating a 17 sided triangle and Self-Mutation went nuts telling me how stupid that was.

Xtians need their omnipotent god to be limited in some ways to provide appropriate excuses for problems in their theology, and real life observations.

 

[Kharakov]

Like dockeen said, creating a square circle is simple with the caveat that one must use higher dimensional mathematics.

But I understand the dilemma you bring up.

If we define 2 objects as the products of mutually exclusive rule sets (the 2 sets of rules that cannot possibly create the same product), then of course no one who follows the rule sets can create something other than what the rule sets entail. This isn't to say that one cannot add additional rules to create a bridge between the mutually exclusive rule sets.

In this specific case, using higher dimensional mathematics, one could create an observer point (or multiple) at which an object is both a square and a circle. The easiest way to picture the object (although it isn't necessarily correct) is as the 2 space + 1 time dimensional transform over time of a square to a circle. The square circle exists as the limit object as transform time elapsed approaches 0.

This is a shady way of doing it- I'd prefer simply being a 4+ dimensional observer looking at a single 2d object in warped space without the idea of an object transform, but this way might make it a bit clearer to people who are unfamiliar with greater than 3 dimensions of space.


Enough of this though. It's pretty obvious that one cannot create certain things following certain rules or laws. It's also pretty obvious that one does not have to know the specific laws that govern beauty and attraction in order to appreciate beauty and feel attraction, or even follow those specific rule sets.

Something very interesting about the circle and the square. Nature is precise in relationship to spheres- exact distances of field strength interactions exist around particles in spherical patterns. The set of reals, on the other hand, has a more precise relationship to squares/cubes.

The infinite nature of Pi's relationship to a sphere or circle's size doesn't allow complete precision in a finite number of digits for the volume of a sphere, area or circumference of a circle. However, in many cases, a square or cubes volume can be very precisely calculated in a finite reality, BUT they cannot be created with infinite precision in nature due to the spherical nature of field strengths of particles. And I've got real work to get done...

Ohh, so I assume that certain rules are all right to break, and certain ones are not.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I'm not saying that I would argue this, but one could argue that God could make whatever he wanted but it would be our limited minds that could not conceive of something as a square circle.

God: "Hey, I just made a square circle, it's not My fault that you can't... oh wait, I guess it is..."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't actually want a square circle and wouldn't take one if God offered it to me. I prefer my circles to consist of cool and interesting people who are more fun to hang out with.

 

[Atheos]

I don't agree that walking on water or raising dead people is the equivalent of 2+2=5. Walking on water could be accomplished with a variety of technologies or tricks. It is also possible that if a more thorough understanding of human anatomy along with commensurate technology were available a dead person could be brought back to life (provided of course that the body had not decomposed beyond the limit of said technology).

The miracles of the loaves and fish on first glance are math-defying miracles. A specific quantity of material is presented (5 loaves, 2 fish). Some of that material is taken away (by being eaten) with the result that a greater quanity of the material remains (12 baskets of uneaten bread and fish). This would be analogous to a square circle if it weren't for the possibility that the performer of this "miraculous" feat had access to technology similar to the transporters on Star Trek that allowed Scotty to beam fresh cooked fish and bread into the baskets as they were being passed around. Once again sufficient technology would be indistinguishable from magic.

But there is no technology available that can produce a 2 dimensional object that is at the same time square and circular. These terms are in their strictest sense limited to 2 dimensions, and for that reason it can be argued that the addition of other dimensions is cheating.

However, IMO the christian doctrine of the monotheistic trinity actually is as paradoxical as a square circle.

 

[jonJ]

But there is no technology available that can produce a 2 dimensional object that is at the same time square and circular. These terms are in their strictest sense limited to 2 dimensions, and for that reason it can be argued that the addition of other dimensions is cheating.

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.

 

[Syed]

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?

god is like a engineer, a engineer can not create a car without wheel, so god cannot create a square circle

god cannot create a human without brain etc

 

[Underseer]

Some days, I have to agree with igtheism.

The problem here, of course, is the definition of omnipotent. It's fucking incoherent nonsense that leaves itself open to childish nonsense like this. God can't create a square circle? Then he's not omnipotent. God can't create a married bachelor? Then he's not omnipotent. God can't create a rock so big that even god can't lift it? No matter how the question gets answered, he's not omnipotent.

Some of the other attributes of god become contradictory when combined with other attributes, but omnipotence creates contradictions all by itself.

Why do they even claim such a stupid property for their magic, imaginary friend? I'm assuming it was so that they could claim that their god could beat up everyone else's god like 8 year old nerds arguing about which comic book character would win in a fight. By making him omnipotent, then no one else can possibly think of a god more powerful than theirs.

 

[Atheos]

But there is no technology available that can produce a 2 dimensional object that is at the same time square and circular. These terms are in their strictest sense limited to 2 dimensions, and for that reason it can be argued that the addition of other dimensions is cheating.

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.

 

[Kharakov]

But there is no technology available that can produce a 2 dimensional object that is at the same time square and circular.

Because of minute perturbations in spacetime, I doubt that any (non mathematical) object produced by man would ever be a perfect square or circle. Of course, perhaps certain fields in nature are perfectly circular on certain scales, but Man does not produce these fields (unless the field of mathematical thought is considered a field).

These terms are in their strictest sense limited to 2 dimensions, and for that reason it can be argued that the addition of other dimensions is cheating.

No it can't. They are 2 dimensional objects (defined as such), but this does not mean they cannot exist in a higher dimensional geometry (circles obviously exist in certain 3 dimensional geometries, not to mention many 4d+ geometries as well).

However, IMO the christian doctrine of the monotheistic trinity actually is as paradoxical as a square circle.

How many quarks in a proton? Do they exist independently of one another?

 

[Syed]

Some days, I have to agree with igtheism.

The problem here, of course, is the definition of omnipotent. It's fucking incoherent nonsense that leaves itself open to childish nonsense like this. God can't create a square circle? Then he's not omnipotent. God can't create a married bachelor? Then he's not omnipotent. God can't create a rock so big that even god can't lift it? No matter how the question gets answered, he's not omnipotent.

Some of the other attributes of god become contradictory when combined with other attributes, but omnipotence creates contradictions all by itself.

Why do they even claim such a stupid property for their magic, imaginary friend? I'm assuming it was so that they could claim that their god could beat up everyone else's god like 8 year old nerds arguing about which comic book character would win in a fight. By making him omnipotent, then no one else can possibly think of a god more powerful than theirs.

you just misunderstood definition of omnipotent

we dont say god can die or god can have sex with ant

 

[steve_bnk]

Using his Holy Topology why not?

A circle is just a square without corners.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Some days, I have to agree with igtheism.

The problem here, of course, is the definition of omnipotent. It's fucking incoherent nonsense that leaves itself open to childish nonsense like this. God can't create a square circle? Then he's not omnipotent. God can't create a married bachelor? Then he's not omnipotent. God can't create a rock so big that even god can't lift it? No matter how the question gets answered, he's not omnipotent.

Some of the other attributes of god become contradictory when combined with other attributes, but omnipotence creates contradictions all by itself.

Why do they even claim such a stupid property for their magic, imaginary friend? I'm assuming it was so that they could claim that their god could beat up everyone else's god like 8 year old nerds arguing about which comic book character would win in a fight. By making him omnipotent, then no one else can possibly think of a god more powerful than theirs.

you just misunderstood definition of omnipotent

we dont say god can die or god can have sex with ant

Wait. Why can't God have sex with an ant? That seems fairly trivial next to creating an entire universe.

 

[Keith&Co.]

god cannot create a human without brain etc

I actually saw a kid born without a brain. He was in the NICU next to my premature twins. He just wasn't there for long... Very sad.
So you're saying he wasn't human? well, that clears up a lot of things.
So if we abort before the structure of the brain even starts, they're not human, so abortion at that stage isn't murder.
Does it have to be a full brain? Can it be half-way developed? When exactly does a brain become crucial to the definition of human, Syed? And how do you know? This would clear up a lot of confusion about abortion rights and moral codes.

 

[Underseer]

Some days, I have to agree with igtheism.

The problem here, of course, is the definition of omnipotent. It's fucking incoherent nonsense that leaves itself open to childish nonsense like this. God can't create a square circle? Then he's not omnipotent. God can't create a married bachelor? Then he's not omnipotent. God can't create a rock so big that even god can't lift it? No matter how the question gets answered, he's not omnipotent.

Some of the other attributes of god become contradictory when combined with other attributes, but omnipotence creates contradictions all by itself.

Why do they even claim such a stupid property for their magic, imaginary friend? I'm assuming it was so that they could claim that their god could beat up everyone else's god like 8 year old nerds arguing about which comic book character would win in a fight. By making him omnipotent, then no one else can possibly think of a god more powerful than theirs.

you just misunderstood definition of omnipotent

we dont say god can die or god can have sex with ant

If there are things god can't do, then we are lying when we say god can do anything imaginable, hence you do not believe that god is omnipotent.

 

[Kharakov]

Many worlds God. In other words, every possible thing is true- a rock exists that God can and cannot lift. Not that this rock is useful- it's good to cut off the unproductive "limbs" of reality that hinder us, thus the whole "toss into hell those things which would drag you down to hell" and "discipline (mercifully) those beings that annoy you like hell" things.

Although maybe make a rock that you can't lift, but don't prevent your creations from lifting it. Give them something to do by setting that limit so they can actually do good intentionally and contribute (remind you of moving rocks to the corner of the yard and back???).

 

[jonJ]

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'.

 

[Eric H]

GenesisNemesis;
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".

What would be the greater sign to five thousand hungry people? Being fed by five loaves and two fish, or being presented with a square circle, if that is possible?