If something is inconceivable, does that make it false?

[Ben_Sinner]

For example, many will say there can be no such thing as a squared circle, a married bachelor, etc. because it is impossible to conceive.

BUT…don’t we also believe that the Trinity is impossible to conceive, God is impossible to conceive.

So my question is, what is the difference between a squared circle being false because it’s inconceivable, but the Trinity is not false even though that is inconceivable as well?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

For example, many will say there can be no such thing as a squared circle, a married bachelor, etc. because it is impossible to conceive.

BUT…don’t we also believe that the Trinity is impossible to conceive, God is impossible to conceive.

So my question is, what is the difference between a squared circle being false because it’s inconceivable, but the Trinity is not false even though that is inconceivable as well?

Something can be inconceivable because it is contradictory, or because it is beyond your experience, or because a relationship cannot be determined.

Contradictory: A thought squared circle is impossible simply because you cannot think of it. A real squared circle would have to produce in you, for example, the simultaneous impression of something which has right angles and which does not have right angles, and make you think accordingly, which is impossible.

Beyond your experience: That is why you cannot conceive the Holy Trinity.

A relation cannot be determined: if someone asks you what is the relation between the perimeter of a circle and its diameter, you could respond “it is Pi!”, and probably you will be able to provide an approximation to it. You could be able to establish an upper and a lower limit to it too; but an approximation to Pi is not Pi. Actually you cannot conceive it.

So, something which is inconceivable is not necessarily false, but it is false if it is contradictory.

 

[Robyn_p]

For example, many will say there can be no such thing as a squared circle, a married bachelor, etc. because it is impossible to conceive.

BUT…don’t we also believe that the Trinity is impossible to conceive, God is impossible to conceive.

So my question is, what is the difference between a squared circle being false because it’s inconceivable, but the Trinity is not false even though that is inconceivable as well?

It’s when something is logically contradictory - and not simply impossible to conceive – that we say it is false. A square circle is a logical contradiction. (If a circle is square then by definition it is not a circle) The Trinity isn’t. There is nothing contradictory about three Persons possessing the same nature, we’ve just never experienced that ourselves.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Logical inconsistencies aren’t always impossible if we measure things only in terms of the rules of created physics. Also, even if something is “inconceivable” it doesn’t make it false. 5000 years ago, it was inconceivable for a person to realize water was composed of H2O, but that doesn’t make it false.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Ben and Juan, I am convinced a squared circle is conceivable because I think I conceive it! (It looks like a larger circle but with invisible corners.) (You might put that down to the pot of tea I drink in the mornings! ) It is a contradiction in a certain level of logic, as Robyn points out.

I’m sure some wives know a “married bachelor” when they see one! But again, a contradiction in a certain level of logic.

However, to the general question I would simply say, no, because our conceiving is limited, therefore something might be outside any of our conceiving and yet not false. I find it difficult to conceive what kind of a thing that might be, even on my tea!

I read recently the latest hypothesis is that outside the present universe is a larger one, with at least four separate dimensions of space alone, not including time.

God’s world is wonderful!!!

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Ben and Juan, I am convinced a squared circle is conceivable because I think I conceive it! (It looks like a larger circle but with invisible corners.) (You might put that down to the pot of tea I drink in the mornings! ) It is a contradiction in a certain level of logic, as Robyn points out.

I’m sure some wives know a “married bachelor” when they see one! But again, a contradiction in a certain level of logic.

However, to the general question I would simply say, no, because our conceiving is limited, therefore something might be outside any of our conceiving and yet not false. I find it difficult to conceive what kind of a thing that might be, even on my tea!

I read recently the latest hypothesis is that outside the present universe is a larger one, with at least four separate dimensions of space alone, not including time.

God’s world is wonderful!!!

1. 
   *]If you think you can conceive a squared circle, then you can establish some of its definitory relations. Please state three of them.
   *]What do you mean with “certain level of logic”?
   *]Let’s one of those wives explain herself about their conceivable “married bachelor”.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Logical inconsistencies aren’t always impossible if we measure things only in terms of the rules of created physics.

Please MarcoPolo, give us an example of a “logical inconsistency” which is “possible”.