If God cannot create a paradox (a square circle for example) how can He solve all problems?

[Thomas_Jennings]

There’s a Buddhist idea that states all joys, no matter how good in quality, only make us want more. I believe this to be so even if we multiply such ‘goods’ into a god-like infinitude…I don’t think any degree would seem complete. Yet, unlike Buddhists, I think desire can be a good thing and wish to gain perfect joy, despite, paradoxically, thinking that joy is not something that can be satisfied via any amount of it.

Now, you may simply deny the premise of my point (and say there’s no unsolvable paradox here- what we want is an as yet unknown increase that we are yet to have knowledge of). However, if you do see my point, I ask, how can God solve any problem if some problems call for a solution where a thing is had yet not had?

 

[Kount_C]

I think that a square circle for example is a bad idea, as they both have
very specific definitions. A circle is a special case of an eclipse like wise a square is a special case that occurs in rectangles.

I understand the context that is not quite literal that you are implying but, I think that the implications can be very confrontational.

Cheers!

 

[Neofight]

I ask, how can God solve any problem if some problems call for a solution where a thing is had yet not had?

God is pure spirit. He is perfect, without problems, hence without a need for solutions.

Problems are like time.

Time is only a linear earthly frame of reference that man can wrap his head around. Time is the period between the start and the end.

God is not constrained by time. For Him, there is no start or end; He has always been and will always be.

Along the same line, God knowing all, is not limited by problems. A problem is just an earthly frame of reference established by our incomplete understanding. Hence, to solve a problem, the solution lies in the understanding of the problem.

Not an issue God has to be concerned with!

Hope this helps.

Peace and all good!

 

[dshix]

There’s a Buddhist idea that states all joys, no matter how good in quality, only make us want more. I believe this to be so even if we multiply such ‘goods’ into a god-like infinitude…I don’t think any degree would seem complete. Yet, unlike Buddhists, I think desire can be a good thing and wish to gain perfect joy, despite, paradoxically, thinking that joy is not something that can be satisfied via any amount of it.

Now, you may simply deny the premise of my point (and say there’s no unsolvable paradox here- what we want is an as yet unknown increase that we are yet to have knowledge of). However, if you do see my point, I ask, how can God solve any problem if some problems call for a solution where a thing is had yet not had?

You present a problem which you call a paradox. I call it a contradiction. The concept of a square circle is a contradiction in itself, and cannot exist, according to the principle of non-contradiction.

The principle of non-contradiction states that something cannot be or exist and not be or exist in the same respect at the same time. Therefore, I cannot be asleep and not asleep at the same time. Nor can the sun exist and not exist at the same time.

When defining the shape of a figure, this ‘square circle’, there is an inherent contradiction. The very concept of squareness is a different thing than circleness, and thus this thing, which contradicts itself by its very definition, cannot possibly exist.

God, being existence Himself and the source of our existence, does not create contradictions. Contradictions themselves are ‘nothings’; they just don’t exist.

So, in answer to your last sentence, can you think of a single problem which “call for a solution where a thing is had yet not had”?

I can’t. Such a problem does not exist. Such a problem is a contradiction.

 

[JRKH]

There’s a Buddhist idea that states all joys, no matter how good in quality, only make us want more.

Interesting Idea - but not necessarily true depending on how one defines it. For example…I had great joy with my wife. I did not want “more”…I was entirely content. Even when she was ill (Alzheimer’s) I continued to be entirely content. It did not want “more”.
That said, I did want our joy together to continue. Not “more joy” but simply a continuation of the present joy. I would have preferred that she not be sick. I would prefer that she still be with me here on earth, yet I am quite content to know that she is with Jesus.
So - I think that we can say that the idea expressed in your “Buddhist idea” not not take into account the potential for one to be content.

I believe this to be so even if we multiply such ‘goods’ into a god-like infinitude…I don’t think any degree would seem complete.

“Any degree” would necessarily include the possibility of 100% and this, by it’s very nature and definition means that it would be complete.
The problem comes in only if one changes what they consider “complete”.

Yet, unlike Buddhists, I think desire can be a good thing and wish to gain perfect joy, despite, paradoxically, thinking that joy is not something that can be satisfied via any amount of it.

This will depend on how you define it and where you look.

Now, you may simply deny the premise of my point (and say there’s no unsolvable paradox here- what we want is an as yet unknown increase that we are yet to have knowledge of). However, if you do see my point, I ask, how can God solve any problem if some problems call for a solution where a thing is had yet not had?

God has no need to resolve this “paradox” for it is not his…It is yours and you must solve it. God has given us the way - - we need only recognize and embrace it.

Peace
James

 

[Aloysium]

There may be an issue with the translation of the word joy.
My understanding of Buddhism suggests that it refers to pleasure.
But, certainly knowing God makes you want more.
Loving someone, you would wish to love everyone.

As to a circle and a square.
These are two dimensional figures that are one in the 3D form of a cylinder.
I don’t think that is what you were referring to, but paradox solved.