What kind of physical impossibilities can God create?

[Image_of_God]

Take the question: Can an omnipotent being (God) make a rock so heavy He can’t lift it? The answer is no. Why? Because the question is meaningless. It refers to two terms:

Term #1: God
Term #2: A rock that God cannot lift.

The second term cannot have any reference. There is no object, nor can there be any object, in any possible world, that fits the description “a rock that God cannot lift”. You might as well ask the question: “Can God waffle fires twenty knots?” The phrase “waffle fires twenty knots” contains exactly as much meaning as the phrase “a rock God cannot lift”.

All logical contradictions create sentences without reference, sentences that cannot be understood in the context of any actual state of affairs. We do not know how these sentences could have meaning, and we have excellent reasons for believing they cannot possibly have any meaning.

God can do anything logically possible. He cannot, however, define the conditions that must inhere to anything that exists (the laws of logic), because He would have to first exist to do so – and therefore those conditions would already have to be satisfied in Him.

Does this help?

It’s beginning to make sense, but I think I will need time to reflect on what you typed. You know how the contemplation of abstract principles works.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A=A is not universally true. It works most of the time. Light can be measured as a wave, and with another measuring technique reveals itself to be particles.

You cannot judge the laws of logic with reference to empirical observations. Or at least, any such judgment yields only empirical knowledge, not pure (mathematical) knowledge.

 

[Katrina5]

I now know what “begging the question” means.

If God created the physical universe with all of it’s infinite possibilities, then God couldn’t create physical impossibilities, within that same universe.

By using the word “God” with all that word entails, including “creator”, and then subjecting it to the test of the first part of the sentence, you are begging the question, making it moot.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I now know what “begging the question” means.

If God created the physical universe with all of it’s infinite possibilities, then God couldn’t create physical impossibilities, within that same universe.

By using the word “God” with all that word entails, including “creator”, and then subjecting it to the test of the first part of the sentence, you are begging the question, making it moot.

I’m confused. Are you replying to me?

My position is that physical “impossibilities” are quite possible, with God. Logical impossibilities are not.

 

[Image_of_God]

Take the question: Can an omnipotent being (God) make a rock so heavy He can’t lift it? The answer is no. Why? Because the question is meaningless. It refers to two terms:

Term #1: God
Term #2: A rock that God cannot lift.

The second term cannot have any reference. There is no object, nor can there be any object, in any possible world, that fits the description “a rock that God cannot lift”. You might as well ask the question: “Can God waffle fires twenty knots?” The phrase “waffle fires twenty knots” contains exactly as much meaning as the phrase “a rock God cannot lift”.

All logical contradictions create sentences without reference, sentences that cannot be understood in the context of any actual state of affairs. We do not know how these sentences could have meaning, and we have excellent reasons for believing they cannot possibly have any meaning.

God can do anything logically possible. He cannot, however, define the conditions that must inhere to anything that exists (the laws of logic), because He would have to first exist to do so – and therefore those conditions would already have to be satisfied in Him.

Does this help?

It’s beginning to make sense, but I think I will need time to reflect on what you typed. You know how the contemplation of abstract principles works.

I think I now understand.

God cannot act contrary to the laws of logic because it is contrary to the law he has established?
Kind of like God cannot do evil because it is contrary to his nature, that is goodness? Right?

 

[geometer]

Identity is not universally true you say and I presume you use light as an example. However, I want to say that you’re incorrect. Even though light might be particles in another measuring technique, the fact that it is still a wave does not change. It is only perceived as a particle do to the mechanism used.

An analogy: A person is on one side of a building. You look on the side that the person is on and you see him. He stays in the same place and you then go to the opposite side of the building and you can no longer see the person. Does that mean the person is no longer there? No. In the same manner, the reality of light as a wave does not cease to be true simply because a different mechanism shows it to be particles. Light is always a wave and many particles. It is all a matter of our limited perception of things.

I had asked that it not be argued. I took a few physics courses.

Now lets hear your argument about Padre Pio. Was he one person or two people?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think I now understand.

God cannot act contrary to the laws of logic because it is contrary to the law he has established?
Kind of like God cannot do evil because it is contrary to his nature, that is goodness? Right?

Not really. I’m saying that He hasn’t established the laws of logic, because they aren’t “laws”. What are they, then? My best guess is “preconditions for everything”. They are simple rules like “a hat is a hat” (A=A) or “If the dog is brown, and the dog is a German Shepherd, then the German Shepherd is brown.”

My answer is loosely based on C.S. Lewis’s answer in “The Problem of Pain”. His claim is that the self-contradictory is impossible even for God. He cannot create a rock He can’t move, but…

"This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it’, you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combination of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them to other words `God can’. It remains true that all *things *are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities… not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

In case you’re wondering why many theistic philosophers feel so strongly about this, here’s the reason: If God *can *create a rock He cannot move, then He could create a world where all people freely choose good. (See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=355228&goto=newpost). The arguments we have against that claim are all based on God not being able to do the logically impossible. Luckily, the position that the laws of logic must be independent of God makes perfect sense, so we can hardly be accused of believing this simply because it is convenient.

 

[Langdell]

The term “laws of logic” is deceptive. These are not laws, such as “objects must behave in such and such fashion” or “people must stop at red lights”. They are preconditions for anything. They do not “exist”, but they must be predicated in order to understand anything that does exist.

All laws of logic are built on “A=A”, the identity property. If this were not true, then nothing could exist (not even God), because it could not be what it was. Thus, the “laws” of logic are independent of God and uncreated. Christians have been saying this for millenia.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Christians before the later 19th century held logic to be uncreated, because that was before the invention (or discovery, if you prefer) of non-Euclidean geometry. Before then, most (all?) people thought logic and math were universal and unchanging “things” that simply had to obtain. But then mathematicians showed that geometries and logics other than the classic Euclidean and Aristotelian flavors could work. And then, in the 20th century, astronomers and others found that non-Euclidean geometry actually explained some phenomena better than Euclidean geometry did.

Nowadays, it’s much more plausible to see logic, geometry, and math as things that could be created and in fact probably were created (though I suspect that many thinkers would ascribe the creation to humans rather than God).

I’d be interested in knowing if any modern theologians have addressed this issue.

.

 

[geometer]

In case you’re wondering why many theistic philosophers feel so strongly about this, here’s the reason: If God *can *create a rock He cannot move, then He could create a world where all people freely choose good. (See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=355228&goto=newpost). The arguments we have against that claim are all based on God not being able to do the logically impossible. Luckily, the position that the laws of logic must be independent of God makes perfect sense, so we can hardly be accused of believing this simply because it is convenient.

This is the whole problem with logic. Once you believe it is absolute, your ignore you own experience. Just like Darren in bewitched. A miracle before Darren would be like pouring water on a ducks back. He is the great problem that the world has, the one who has eyes but does not see, ears but does not hear.

If you have a question about god you must go directly to God to get the truth. You can not satisfy your self with you favorite logical ideas applied to the dead letters of your tomes.

I am thoroughly convinced of the invincible ignorance of modern western philosophy.

Someone said whats the most important question in modern philosophy?

The answer; Do you want fries with that?

 

[Langdell]

Someone said whats the most important question in modern philosophy?

The answer; Do you want fries with that?

I have a lot of respect for philosophers. But even so, that’s funny!

.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is the whole problem with logic. Once you believe it is absolute, your ignore you own experience.

I have never experienced A to be both A and not-A.

You say that “light” is a “wave”, but this is A=B. You say that “light” is a “particle”, but this is A=C.

Do you deny that light is light? For that is *all *A=A is saying.

 

[Image_of_God]

I had asked that it not be argued. I took a few physics courses.

I know you did. You said it cannot be argued, but you still argued anyway that light is contrary to identity. You said, “We really do not know how reliable non-contradiction, identity, and excluded middle are.” But you still said light was contrary to identity. How can you say that light is contrary to identity when you state you do not know how reliable it is?
If you can do that, I see nothing that prohibits me from trying to argue it (however unsuccessfully).

Now lets hear your argument about Padre Pio. Was he one person or two people?

Bilocation is a physical impossibility (in so far as we know). But as Prodigal Son said, God can do things that are physically impossible. The question is whether bilocation is logically impossible. I cannot answer the question myself, but this article on the topic might be able to.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It wouldn’t surprise me if Christians before the later 19th century held logic to be uncreated, because that was before the invention (or discovery, if you prefer) of non-Euclidean geometry. Before then, most (all?) people thought logic and math were universal and unchanging “things” that simply had to obtain. But then mathematicians showed that geometries and logics other than the classic Euclidean and Aristotelian flavors could work. And then, in the 20th century, astronomers and others found that non-Euclidean geometry actually explained some phenomena better than Euclidean geometry did…

To my knowledge, all of these alternatives agree on the most basic laws of logic. What alternative logics call into question the fundamental laws of logic? How could one even communicate such a thing, without falling into contradiction?

 

[Langdell]

To my knowledge, all of these alternatives agree on the most basic laws of logic. What alternative logics call into question the fundamental laws of logic? How could one even communicate such a thing, without falling into contradiction?

I believe paraconsistent logic is contrary to classic logic. But most of my reading in this area involves math rather than logic, such as What Is Mathematics, Really? by Reuben Hersh, and Euclid in the Rainforest, by Joseph Mazur.

.

 

[geometer]

I have never experienced A to be both A and not-A.

You say that “light” is a “wave”, but this is A=B. You say that “light” is a “particle”, but this is A=C.

Do you deny that light is light? For that is *all *A=A is saying.

sorry no light does a not equal three things A, B, and C. Light is one being as far as we know that two distinct natures. It is wave and particle.

A=A means that all being must be singular.

But, I said that I do not want to argue that question.

If your consciousness is limited by Non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the excluded middle, then my suggestion is that Padre Pios ability to bilocate would force this question about Padre Pio:

How many Saint Padre Pios are there?

Was he singular in being? He appeared in two places at once according to observations. What if he was actually able to appear in three or more places?

What does bilocation tell us about his being.

I simply believe that we can not adopt the fascism of those logical laws to bind reality.

Reality will never be bound, like the philposophers are with their rules of intellectual predjudice…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

sorry no light does a not equal three things A, B, and C. Light is one being as far as we know that two distinct natures. It is wave and particle.

“Wave” is a category, or a property. “Light is a wave” has the same structure as “red is a color”. In other words, when I say “wave”, I am not necessarily indicating “light”. Thus, we must indicate “wave” with a different variable than “light”. It is a case of A=B.

 

[Image_of_God]

sorry no light does a not equal three things A, B, and C. Light is one being as far as we know that two distinct natures. It is wave and particle.

A=A means that all being must be singular.

But, I said that I do not want to argue that question.

If your consciousness is limited by Non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the excluded middle, then my suggestion is that Padre Pios ability to bilocate would force this question about Padre Pio:

How many Saint Padre Pios are there?

Was he singular in being? He appeared in two places at once according to observations. What if he was actually able to appear in three or more places?

What does bilocation tell us about his being.

I simply believe that we can not adopt the fascism of those logical laws to bind reality.

Reality will never be bound, like the philposophers are with their rules of intellectual predjudice…

Here is the article that I posted on biolocation:
newadvent.org/cathen/02568a.htm
It may give you the answer you need.

I pose this question geometer: If reality cannot be bound by logic and non-contradiction, then what stops reality from being non-reality?

 

[geometer]

Here is the article that I posted on biolocation:
newadvent.org/cathen/02568a.htm
It may give you the answer you need.

I pose this question geometer: If reality cannot be bound by logic and non-contradiction, then what stops reality from being non-reality?

We have to do as empirical science does. What can be known through human experience decides every issue. Logics, not a single logic, are useful in the descriptions of what we find. To think that we are getting knowledge itself purely through logic is a delusion.

Logic is only a servant of science, not the master. Everything comes from experience, even logic must be discovered.

 

[Areopagite]

I haven’t read any of the posts on this thread (except the first one), because I get scared when there are too many posts. It’s a real problem, I know. So I apologize if I repeat stuff. Ignore this if you feel like it. But, I would say, that …

READ THIS FOR THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER!!!

When asked if God can create logical impossibilities, the answer is uniformly: “no”. On the other hand, it is also uniformly asserted that God can create physical impossibilities. The laws of nature are not an obstacle for God.

This is correct (or, I should say, this is the Catholic position). I would add, however, (and I am open to correction on this, but I’m quite sure I’m right), that if a certain physical impossibility involves a logical impossibility as well, then God cannot do it! Now, what the heck does this mean?

Well, I would say that the basic principle of logic (and reason in general) is the principle of non-contradiction … a.k.a. the principle of identity. From this principle, all logic, metaphysics, and reasoning spring. The principle has been expressed in a couple different ways, but really with the same meaning each time. One definition is “a thing cannot be and not be in the same way.” Some philosophers would also add “… and at the same time” though, in my opinion, this is included in “the same way” (but that’s my opinion). For example: I cannot be at a certain place and not be at a certain place at the same time and in the same way. However, some may point out something like, “Well, what if you’re day-dreaming … then, in a sense, you ‘not there’ but literally you ‘are there.’ Thus, the principle of non-contradiction is wrong.” No, obviously that’s wrong because that is me being there and not being there in different ways. If you disagree with this, explain why. Perhaps more and better examples are needed … I’ll admit, that one was kind of dumb.

The test for metaphysical/logical possibility (i.e. the test for whether God’s omnipotence can do something or not) is whether the “thing” to be attempted by God’s omnipotence can be defined without contradicting itself. If something can be defined logically, then it is something that God can do. If the explanation involves a self-contradiction in what it is, then God cannot do it.

There is an absolute zero, which is the “coldest” possible temperature, there the Brownian motion of molecules stops. To achieve minus one degree Kelvin is only a physical impossibility. Can God do it?

I may be horridly off in my knowledge of physics (and you are free to make fun of me if I am), but something involved with having something at zero Kelvin is that all molecules stop moving. Now, what would sub-zero kelvin even look like? Can we imagine it? Can we conceptualize it? Can we even define it? Or is it a logical absurdity? Would sub-zero Kelvin consist of molecules moving slower than they would if completely motionlessness? Probably not. Perhaps they are still moving on an unseen dimension and that if slowing them down there too, we may attain sub-zero kelvin. The question is … what is a definition of sub-zero kelvin? If the definition doesn’t make logically sense, it is excommunicated from the domain of omnipotence.

There is an absolute maximum speed, the speed of light in a vacuum. No physical object with a resting mass of more than zero can achieve, much less surpass it. This is just a physical limit, so it should not hinder God. Can God move anything faster than the speed of light?

Not an expert in this particular subject either. Presumably, though, I think you are right that this is a physical limit … a purely physical limit and not a logical one. There doesn’t seem to be anything here that would be a certain way and not be that same certain way in the same way.

There is also a maximum of heat, where the molecules would move with the speed of light. Can God make anything “hotter” than this maximum?

I think if the previous thing can be achieved by God, then it would seem this could as well.

Theoretically, it could go in the other direction. Can God reverse the direction of time? Can God make time travel possible? Can God change the past?

Ooh, good question. There are varied layers of meaning to what people can mean by “time travel.” So some specifics are needed, at least for me, to understand what exactly you mean here. What perspective, for example, are you implicitly referring to when saying changing direction of time? For example, if time machines were possible, time would not be reversing for someone outside the time machine. Right? So, are you saying, could God, from his perspective, reverse time? Well, I would say no. This is because God is outside of time. There is no succession of events for Him. He looks at the entirety of history, beginning to end, at the same time. Also, He does not change his mind or do things in succession. All He does, He has done at once. Obviously, you may have more questions on this topic (the changelessness of God). Since God is changeless, though, it would be a logical contradiction to then say that He can change (i.e. by changing the direction of time from His perspective). You may also have more questions about time-travel, too, and if you do, explain exactly what kind of time-travel you’re referring to (because even theoretical physicists have varied notions of time-travel).

Opposite electromagnetically charged objects attract each other, like electromagentically charged ojects repel each other. Can God create the opposite, where like charges repel and opposite charges attract? Or something else, where all charges repel each other? Or all charges attract each other?

Yes, absolutely, I think God can mess with forces until the cows come home. Forces are highly vulnerable to not being metaphysically bound to their observed natures. Physical laws, especially those of forces, are merely observed repetitions in nature. We say that gravity will affect a thing every time not because we have figured this out by deduction but by induction. The apple falling from the tree is known with a slightly shakier certainty compared to 2 plus 2 equaling 4 (for mathematics is deductive and logical, of course). It can be imagined that an apple can fly upward for no physical reason. If such a thing can be conceived, then it would not be logically impossible.

I hope I didn’t speak too ignorantly on various matters of physics. If so, let me know (or, you don’t have to). Also, I hope I didn’t speak too ignorantly on matters of philosophy. If so, I hope someone corrects me.

 

[geometer]

I have never experienced A to be both A and not-A.

You say that “light” is a “wave”, but this is A=B. You say that “light” is a “particle”, but this is A=C.

Do you deny that light is light? For that is *all *A=A is saying.

You are being tiersome to me because you have not studied physics.

There is a wonderful study called electrodynamic physics which has two forms the classical study, and quantum electrodynamic physics, the modern form.

According to the classical theory light is simply a class of electromagnetic waves that propagate isotropically, along straight lines.

I believe the quantum electrodynamic theory covers photon progagations. I haven’t taken that course.

As electromagnetic waves electromagnetism is completely described by two variables an electric and a magnetic one.

The way that the physicist looks at electromagentic waves you know everything from the math. The math came about as the creative effort by physicists to describe their real observational experiences. The logic of the whole thing works very well. The logical theory conforms to the reality of observation bettter than the logic of any other science.

Science is always observing, and even in this field there are anomalies which the logic does not resolve. Because like anyone knows who studies physics and logic, the physics is the reality that you try to describe with the logic, not the other way around.

Logic is not reality, its only language.

Have you read about the incompleteness theorem? And, Whitehead’s finding that there is no universal set of axioms?

I think you take your axioms too seriously. Take a walk on the wild side, pray for a miracle or two…