Is God a "square circle"?

[itinerant1]

No, it does not “disprove” it. It merely shows that the words “describing” God are meaningless / nonsensical in that respect. Apologists could change their vocabulary to better suit the subject. If that is impossible, then they should admit that they have no idea what they are talking about.

Apologist, at least ones that know what they are talking about, do not need to change their concepts. You are busy telling others what apologists mean by their concepts without ever having understood for yourself what apologists do in fact mean. To rationally critique a position requires that a person first understands that position.

If words describing God were used according to your definitions of the terms, then indeed apologist would be talking nonsense. But you have been mired down by the common and physicists meaning of terms, which is the foundation of your argument, and assert this is the only way theists can mean what they say. You will not understand the stipulated meanings of theological terms just so long as this remains your strategy. Hence, your argument cannot get off the ground.

So far, you have exhibited a refusal to understand theological or metaphysical terminology. So, if you ever change your mind, I recommend a serious study of Aristotle’s Metaphysica.

One cannot present a serious criticism of such terms as “act” until one first understands what the philosopher and theologian mean by the term. For instance, can you explain what the Thomist means by essence and existence, act and potency, prime matter, form, substance, quiddity, or accident? Unless one has a good working understanding of these concepts, then he is in no position to grasp what is meant by an act that does not involve change.

One can bring the entire science of physics to bear down on this issue, but it would have little relevance to the problem.

In conclusion, I have no doubt that anyone who lacks a background in metaphysics as represented by the philosophia perennis, lacks the tools required to formulate a worthwhile argument in favor of or against some usage of genuine metaphysical language.

To play baseball or any sport, one first needs to know the rules and be trained in the sport. Likewise, if one wants to play at metaphysics he first needs to know the rules or principles and get the necessary training. There is no other way possible.

 

[ateista]

I had said that imperfect geometric figures exist in the physical world and the intellect abstracts the essential characteristics from what is known of these physical objects by the senses. The intellect knows the essence of a perfect geometric figure, while the senses know the imperfect physical object or figure.

So far so good.

Moreover, this necessarily implies that the essential attributes of geometric figures, or the perfect geometric figure, exists in the external, physical world before it exists in the mind.

That is merely gobbledegook. Our mind abstracts from the physical world, and that is it. The geometrical point has no physical dimensions, the geometrical line has no thickness, etc.

I do not understand the term “eternal” in conjuction with the term “physical”. Please elaborate.

 

[ateista]

Apologist, at least ones that know what they are talking about, do not need to change their concepts. You are busy telling others what apologists mean by their concepts without ever having understood for yourself what apologists do in fact mean. To rationally critique a position requires that a person first understands that position.

If they have a “meaning”, which is far from certain.

“Meanings” do not exist outside the mind. Meanings of words, propositions do not exist outside a communication channel, with a sender and a receiver. If the mental concept in the sender’s mind is different from the mental image conjured in the receiver’s mind, we have misunderstanding or miscommunication.

It is the sender’s duty to reformulate the proposition to make it meaningful. Otherwise the whole communicaton was a futile attempt to mutual understanding.

If words describing God were used according to your definitions of the terms, then indeed apologist would be talking nonsense. But you have been mired down by the common and physicists meaning of terms, which is the foundation of your argument, and assert this is the only way theists can mean what they say.

I like the phrase “mired down”. So wonderfully condescending. Since we are physical being in a physical world, that is the only starting point.

I am willing to contemplate that this starting point can be expanded, and a new meaning introduced to these concepts, but so far my waiting was futile. No new meaning emerged, except such assertions that “God eternally willed” the universe… which is just as meaningless as the others. Maybe it is meaningful to you, but it is not meaningful to me.

So far, you have exhibited a refusal to understand theological or metaphysical terminology. So, if you ever change your mind, I recommend a serious study of Aristotle’s Metaphysica.

Why should I waste my time on Aristotele, or the other ancient philosophers? Their concepts have been updated, or discarded.

Besides, I stick to my idea that there are no such esoteric concepts, which cannot be explained in simple, everyday terms. Mathematics is much more complicated than any of the philosophical constructs, and yet, the mathematical concepts can easily be explained in simple terms.

One cannot present a serious criticism of such terms as “act” until one first understands what the philosopher and theologian mean by the term. For instance, can you explain what the Thomist means by essence and existence, act and potency, prime matter, form, substance, quiddity, or accident? Unless one has a good working understanding of these concepts, then he is in no position to grasp what is meant by an act that does not involve change.

The funny stuff is that even theistic philosophers cannot agree on these terms. So, again, it would be a huge waste of my time to try and dig into the specific meanings presented by some apologists which are repudiated by others. If you want to speak for them, go ahaed, and present their arguments in simple, meaningful terms.