Why cant God make a square circle?

[One_point]

I been reading the net for this topic and just stumbled on this question asked and answered by a hindu to a hindu. Have t o say, they are not Christian but of all the answers I found, this explanation makes the most sense for me and is most spiritually and intellectually edifying to me. So I post it here and then you can tell me what is wrong with this explanation from a Catholic point of view. If nothing, then this is my solution until God says otherwise!

Can God make a square circle?

Posted by Chaitanya Charan das • June 30, 2010 • Printer-friendly

Question: If God can do anything, can he make a square circle?

Answer: Questions like these arise from not understanding the definition of God as the Supreme Being. Let’s consider the two kinds of impossibilities: practical and logical.

1.Practical impossibility: When the sacred scriptures describe that, say, Lord Krishna lifted the huge Govardhana hill in Vrindavana during his descent to this world five thousand years ago, skeptics may dismiss this as impossible, because they deem possession of such strength practically impossible. However, notice their self-centric mentality implicitly operating here; they presume that what is impossible for them is impossible for anyone. By such a mentality, an ant crawling on a table may consider the glass that blocks its way impossible to lift, but we humans do it all the time – nonchalantly. Just as we, humans, being much stronger than ants, can do what they think practically impossible, similarly, God, being Supreme, being infinitely stronger than us, can do what we think practically impossible.

2. Logical impossibility: Activities like making a square circle seem not just practically impossible, but even logically impossible. Our mind tends to think that a geometrical object can either be a circle or a square, but never both. However, this is a limitation of our mind, not a limitation of God. Our mind functions by discerning in the world around us features like logicality, causality and repeatability. Our mind needs the intellectual framework formed by such attributes to make sense of the world. But that very framework limits our mind from “thinking outside the box”, and so we mistakenly infer that those activities that are impossible for us to think logically must also be impossible for God to do practically. However, our framework of thought does not limit God. For his cognition, God does not need any such framework, and so he is completely free to think and act independent of it.
Let’s now apply this background analysis to our specific question. God can surely make a square circle, but our minds can never understand how. Is this an evasive answer? Not at all. The sixteenth-century devotee-scholar Jiva Goswami insightfully reminds us that if God’s actions were limited to the conceiving abilities of our mind, then our mind would be supreme, not God, thus violating the very definition of God. Therefore, by his very definition, God has inconceivability (achintyatva in Sanskrit) as his integral attribute.

thespiritualscientist.com/2010/06/a-square-circle-2/

not sure about the stone god cannot lift part, as I am about the square circle bit, but hey, that God can make it, AND lift it, seems to be at least as satisfying as “there are things God cannot do”. Don’t get it, but that’s irrelevant if we are talking god. I also saw a similar understanding in an orthodox discusson but cant find it again. They did not say that God can make the stone but they did deny that logical contradictions are per se impossible for god to do which is what my mind disagrees with as well. I read that Descartes also denied in his philosophy that god cannot perform logical impossiblilities-contradictions.

So leaving aside the God and stone, how is this quote solution for square-circle sit with the church? if its ok then this is what I accept and not “God cannot make a logical contradiction” which God has not said.

 

[friardchips]

I been reading the net for this topic and just stumbled on this question asked and answered by a hindu to a hindu. Have t o say, they are not Christian but of all the answers I found, this explanation makes the most sense for me and is most spiritually and intellectually edifying to me. So I post it here and then you can tell me what is wrong with this explanation from a Catholic point of view. If nothing, then this is my solution until God says otherwise!

thespiritualscientist.com/2010/06/a-square-circle-2/

not sure about the stone god cannot lift part, as I am about the square circle bit, but hey, that God can make it, AND lift it, seems to be at least as satisfying as “there are things God cannot do”. Don’t get it, but that’s irrelevant if we are talking god. I also saw a similar understanding in an orthodox discusson but cant find it again. They did not say that God can make the stone but they did deny that logical contradictions are per se impossible for god to do which is what my mind disagrees with as well. I read that Descartes also denied in his philosophy that god cannot perform logical impossiblilities-contradictions.

So leaving aside the God and stone, how is this quote solution for square-circle sit with the church? if its ok then this is what I accept and not “God cannot make a logical contradiction” which God has not said.

I am not sure how this counter-argues what has already been written - it just seems like yet another strand of argument. Hindus argue this topic from a belief that is not the same at all - a completely different viewpoint. Roman Catholics believe we have the indwelling God who is the completion of the Christian through our baptism and receiving of the Sacraments. At our baptism we literally become a part of the body of Christ making up the Bride of Christ. - this our faith to know this?! There is no other religion that can theorise to the same degree because they don’t recognise this exact understanding and neither do they incorporate this intimate relationship?

So I would put this to you and seek a response that I feel is more conclusive than the ambivalent Hindu response - put simply:

God can do all things. But God won’t! because He will not undo His own Word, it is part of Him, He is bound by Himself NOT to. A difference between what God can do and what God WILL do (WILLS)…?

We have a relationship bound by God’s promise.

 

[Ignatius]

Catholics all say it but I don’t understand how any one has the courage to say what God can and cannot make.

It’s like a two sided triangle, i.e. it a nonsense statement. God is a God of good order, not nonsense.

 

[friardchips]

It’s like a two sided triangle, i.e. it a nonsense statement. God is a God of good order, not nonsense.

Exactly. God doesn’t do: anything goes. Because He cares about us. If He didn’t then He might. And we’d all worship Zeus. However, God being love…

 

[Pat_Albertson]

…you are free to make a squircle though if you want to try.

I think I have encountered those in the snack foods aisle, not far away from the corn chips and the tacos. In fact, I think squircles are kind of crunchy, and they taste sort of like Fritos . . .

 

[Ignatius]

I don’t know why you think that the law of non-contradiction is something over and above God to which He is subject. The law of non-contradiction is derived from God’s nature, that there is a distinction between being and non-being. The nature of God as being itself is not also non-being.

This is really the Crux of the matter!

 

[Ignatius]

There is no need to be rude. its not about what I can make but what I am struggling accepting that God CANT make. human abilities are nothing. I cant make a squircle because that’s my reality. but why does it mean its Gods reality too?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12400480&posted=1#post12400480

 

[One_point]

I am not sure how this counter-argues what has already been written - it just seems like yet another strand of argument. Hindus argue this topic from a belief that is not the same at all - a completely different viewpoint. Roman Catholics believe we have the indwelling God who is the completion of the Christian through our baptism and receiving of the Sacraments. At our baptism we literally become a part of the body of Christ making up the Bride of Christ. - this our faith to know this?! There is no other religion that can theorise to the same degree because they don’t recognise this exact understanding and neither do they incorporate this intimate relationship?

So I would put this to you and seek a response that I feel is more conclusive than the ambivalent Hindu response - put simply:

God can do all things. But God won’t! because He will not undo His own Word, it is part of Him, He is bound by Himself NOT to. A difference between what God can do and what God WILL do (WILLS)…?

We have a relationship bound by God’s promise.

It is not a “counter-argument” wasn’t meant to be. so far, no one has actually stated why God bound to the logic that stated he cannot make a square circle, so no counter arguments are evn needed.

I think you don’t see that what you claim is radically different from what the others are saying. You are talking God choices, what you think he will or will not choose to do. Others are talking his abilities, not his choices.

To me, I cant talk of either. I have no access to God’s personal will since I am not a member of the Trinity. I only know of God choices by what he done in my world. I know what he chose not he would not chose. No further speculation necessary beyond what God told me. For all I know, there might another world exactly like this but with squircle.

But with the other point what God cnt do. I rather accept what the Hindu man is saying. His tradition and all differences you note are irrelevant in current discussion. He explaining an omnipotent uncreated being (God) ability to make what human say is logical contradiction. that is all is relevant. their belief of sacraments is outside topic.

I accept that I live in the world of logic. it impossible for me to think “b” and “not b” at once. law of non-contradiction is my way of knowing truth. I am not free from it no matter what I do. so even God I approach him like that and this is how he made me. Like I see in another discussion, logical contradiction is to my mind what a physical impossibility is to my body. Like I cannot be in sitting and standing at once. or I cannot move like the wind or go faster than light or become big like the universe, just like my body is limited by laws of physics, my mind is limited by law of logic. I cant be outside this world unless maybe by contemplation or beatific vision. this represent my impotence and creatureness. so others say (as ive seen it in other discussions) that the logic is transcendent because even to conceive of a world where logic is contradicted I must use logic. I agree, it simply a fact.

but I think its most humble to say, my world is one of logic. I cannot think except in conformity to logic. logic is transcendent to me. but that is my world. so even if I say I approach God through logic, I am just saying to be aware I am limited. not any less than a cartoon in black n white movie. why should the cartoon use the rules in the movie to be certain what reality outside movie is? catholics use this against atheist who want to know why God cannot murder when he kills. I don’t understand why we catholics cannot accept that it may be true when speaking of logic too? the cartoon can only approach reality according to its ability and our ability is logic but not only logic. so I say certain things are logical contradictions. they are completely impossible for human mind to picture. so the idea is impossible to my mind. I accept my use and reliance on logic even to approach god or what god says. but I refuse to use this to say anything objectively about God that denies his limitlessness.

if none of that is contrary to catholic teaching, I admit that is all I can do at this point. to me dpoing otherwise is denying the one objective truth that God is God and I cannot reconcile what people are saying here with my understanding which is limited and flawed but still what my mind sees as the fundamental truth.

 

[balto]

Another thing; I don’t think truth or reality is necessarily same thing as logic. I think logic is a very human way of knowing things. but it is limited and on top we are fallen so we don’t know if it always work the way God made it to work and all our unverified (by God) conclusions are true. So I accept 'God cannot contradict God". I don’t necessarily accept “making a square circle is God contradicting God.”

I think that you are right to draw a distinction between logic and reality. God is not logic, as some have been saying. But God is Truth, and logic is a human tool for arriving at truth. The only way God could make a square circle would be if we are mistaken about what a circle and/or a square is, but I highly doubt that. And saying that God cannot make square circles is valid as is because, based on what we actually mean by the words “square” and “circle” it is impossible to have an object that is essentially both because being a square necessarily precludes the shape from having the essential properties of a circle and vice versa. That in no way limits God’s power unless He should be able to cause non-being, which is not a power at all. You would have to redefine the word “square” to mean something more broad, but they you would not be talking about the same thing as other people that use the word “square.”

Why cant we say, “there are creatures or concepts of creatures that are contrary to human logic”. And leave it at that? Why do we need to make a leap and make a conclusion about God himself from this?

I suspect that you are defining “contradiction” too broadly. A contradiction is not simply something that does not obtain in the actual world. Unicorns and phoenixes do not obtain in the actual world, but they are not contradictions. God could have created them but chose not to. A contradiction is something that is both A and not A at the same time and in the same respect and hence corresponds to the absence of being. A square circle is both a square and not a square in the same respect and time, hence it refers to the absence of existence.

 

[Ignatius]

It is not a “counter-argument” wasn’t meant to be. so far, no one has actually stated why God bound to the logic.

Balto did actually answer it:

I don’t know why you think that the law of non-contradiction is something over and above God to which He is subject. The law of non-contradiction is derived from God’s nature

It is not that He is bound, it is that it is not in His nature! He is a God of Perfect Order!

 

[tafan]

Hello. man-angel is the same kind of thing as sqircle for this discussion. that the reality that exists or that the reality we know about seems to our logic has them as 2 distinct things that logic cannot have them be one at once doesn’t mean that God couldn’t make it. I may not understand it but I also don’t think my lack of understanding it means it cannot be a thing.

So I guess my confusion is two: why humans think that creatures that logic say are contradiction means they cannot exist. may be they can but are completely unknowable through logic. why all possibilities must conform to logic?

why cannot God make a nothing? it repeated by several people. can someone please explain what t means or why?

First of all, you speak as if logic is simply a human construct. Logic is a means to represent certain truths. It cannot represent all truths, but those that it represents are true. It is part of human reason. It is a dogma of the truth that human reason and faith cannot be in contradiction. God cannot make 2+2=5. He cannot. Because 2+2=4 is a truth, an eternal truth.

I brought up the man-angel because I was hoping to escape this dependency on logic, that any Euclidean problem is going to have and make it easier to understand. As I said before, this is really not even a point of logic.

We know, by the dogmatic teachings of the church that an angel is a purely spiritual creature. We know, but both our experience and the teaching of the Church, that a man is a creature with both a body and a soul (both a material and spiritual being).
Now, God can create anything. He can certainly create a creature with all of the spiritual and intellectual attributes that angel’s possess and that also has a human body. But this creature would NOT be an angel (because, by definition angels are purely spiritual). And this creature would not be a man, because man does not share the same spiritual attributes of angels.
That is not limiting what God can create. It is only recognizing that he creates different things.

Finally, of course god cannot create nothing. Creating is a action requires an object. If he created nothing, he never performed an action of creating.

 

[Bakmoon]

Perhaps some explanation from the Angelic Doctor will make the matter clearer. In Summa I, 5, iii he says:

All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His
omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word ‘all’ when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, “God can do all things,” is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.* Now according to the Philosopher (Metaph. v, 17), a thing is said to be possible in two ways. First in relation to some power*, thus whatever is subject to human power is said to be possible to man. Secondly absolutely, on account of the relation in which the very terms stand to each other.
…
It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible. For a thing is said to be possible or impossible absolutely, according to the relation in which the very terms stand to one another, possible if the predicate is not incompatible with the subject, as that Socrates sits; and absolutely impossible when the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject, as, for instance, that a man is a donkey.

And for those who think that it is automatically a denial of omnipotence to say “God cannot do X” you have a problem because the Bible itself states such things like “God cannot lie”, “God cannot deny himself”, “God cannot be tempted” etc… so clearly the statement “God cannot do X” can be true depending on what X is otherwise the Bible wouldn’t say it.

 

[One_point]

First of all, you speak as if logic is simply a human construct. Logic is a means to represent certain truths. It cannot represent all truths, but those that it represents are true. It is part of human reason. It is a dogma of the truth that human reason and faith cannot be in contradiction. God cannot make 2+2=5. He cannot. Because 2+2=4 is a truth, an eternal truth.

I brought up the man-angel because I was hoping to escape this dependency on logic, that any Euclidean problem is going to have and make it easier to understand. As I said before, this is really not even a point of logic.

We know, by the dogmatic teachings of the church that an angel is a purely spiritual creature. We know, but both our experience and the teaching of the Church, that a man is a creature with both a body and a soul (both a material and spiritual being).
Now, God can create anything. He can certainly create a creature with all of the spiritual and intellectual attributes that angel’s possess and that also has a human body. But this creature would NOT be an angel (because, by definition angels are purely spiritual). And this creature would not be a man, because man does not share the same spiritual attributes of angels.
That is not limiting what God can create. It is only recognizing that he creates different things.

Finally, of course god cannot create nothing. Creating is a action requires an object. If he created nothing, he never performed an action of creating.

Are you saying its dogmatic that 2+2=4? Or that the logic that says so is an eternal truth? Please direct me to the dogma? The only eternal truth is God. By definition. The only way 2+2=4 is an eternal truth is if 2+2=4 is God’s nature. How can any Catholic say that any mathematical principle is God? That has to be false. Logic is not TRUTH. it is a method of finding truth. it very human. limited. fallen. therefore fallible.

The church says our reason can attain to truth to a point. It has never declared human reason infallible. Moreover many fathers taught our reason is fallen.To say that every logical conclusion human reason makes is true and this dogmatic is to claim that its dogmatic that human reason is incapable of error. Again that must be false. With respect.

To Ignatius:

It is not that He is bound, it is that it is not in His nature! He is a God of Perfect Order!

God has gone against physical laws he made in the same world the operate. He parted the Red Sea. walked on water. fed thousands with 2 fish. recently he made the sun dance in Fatima for a small portugese town while it remained still for the rest of the world. Why is this not chaos for you and against order? After all, having a law where water 2 fish does not feed thousands and then fill 2 baskets and then make it do just that is chaos and violating perfect order yes? if god did not overrule these laws, we could never know it was god acting or miracles. by overruling them, we know he is above laws he makes. so saying god cannot overrule rules of logic because of order is much like saying god is not sovereign over them.

yes order expresses some perfection of God. that doesn’t mean has no freedom to violate the same “order” and impose another. logic is above human intellect(I think) but logic is not necessarily above or equal to God.

 

[One_point]

Perhaps some explanation from the Angelic Doctor will make the matter clearer. In Summa I, 5, iii he says:

And for those who think that it is automatically a denial of omnipotence to say “God cannot do X” you have a problem because the Bible itself states such things like “God cannot lie”, “God cannot deny himself”, “God cannot be tempted” etc… so clearly the statement “God cannot do X” can be true depending on what X is otherwise the Bible wouldn’t say it.

I said I believe revelation when it says God can only be God. Not just human logic. With respect, even super intellect like st Thomas is not flawless. and catholics are not bound to accept all his conclusions that are not dogmatized. st Thomas takes aristotles rules of logic for granted. but they remain logical rules that bind us. even though I cannot reason without logic, it doesn’t mean God cannot suspend those rules. bottom line is, humans cannot presume that seems contradictory to logic must be impossible to God because God is under no obligation to approach things through the confines of logic. I accept God must be God because it is true eternally by God himself but not because it violates some law of “non-contradiction”.

 

[One_point]

Are you saying its dogmatic that 2+2=4? Or that the logic that says so is an eternal truth? Please direct me to the dogma? The only eternal truth is God. By definition. The only necessary reality. nothing else. The only way 2+2=4 is an eternal truth is if 2+2=4 is God’s nature. How can any Catholic say that any mathematical principle is God? That has to be false. Logic is not TRUTH. it is a method of finding truth. it very human. limited. fallen. therefore fallible.

The church says our reason can attain to truth to a point. It has never declared human reason infallible. Moreover many fathers taught our reason is fallen.To say that every logical conclusion human reason makes is true and this dogmatic is to claim that its dogmatic that human reason is incapable of error. Again that must be false. With respect.

To Ignatius: God has gone against physical laws he made in the same world the operate. He parted the Red Sea. walked on water. fed thousands with 2 fish. recently he made the sun dance in Fatima for a small portugese town while it remained still for the rest of the world. Why is this not chaos for you and against order? After all, having a law where water 2 fish does not feed thousands and then fill 2 baskets and then make it do just that is chaos and violating perfect order yes? if god did not overrule these laws, we could never know it was god acting or miracles. by overruling them, we know he is above laws he makes. so saying god cannot overrule rules of logic because of order is much like saying god is not sovereign over them.

yes order expresses some perfection of God. that doesn’t mean has no freedom to violate the same “order” and impose another. logic is above human intellect(I think) but logic is not necessarily above or equal to God.

 

[tafan]

One point:

Are you saying its dogmatic that 2+2=4? Or that the logic that says so is an eternal truth? Please direct me to the dogma? The only eternal truth is God. By definition. The only way 2+2=4 is an eternal truth is if 2+2=4 is God’s nature. How can any Catholic say that any mathematical principle is God? That has to be false. Logic is not TRUTH. it is a method of finding truth. it very human. limited. fallen. therefore fallible

The Church does not define all truths as dogmatic. What the Church says is that any truth we reach by human reason is never in conflict with a truth that is divinely revealed. Human reason is certainly fallible, but that does not mean human reason cannot reach any truths on its own. If we take two objects and add another two objects we end up with four objects, always, and without fail. 2+2=4, this is a truth that we have achieved from human reason, it cannot be in conflict with anything from God.
Never did I say that any mathematical principle is God. Never did I say logic is truth. I chose my words very carefully and you chose not to read them. I said that logic is a tool of humans to determine certain truths. By no means can all truths (even all true mathematical statements) be reached through logic. And logic is not the truth, logic is simply the means to reach/determine a truth.
And of course, humans can be fallible in their application of logic, just as in any other mental endeavor.

 

[One_point]

The Church does not define all truths as dogmatic. What the Church says is that any truth we reach by human reason is never in conflict with a truth that is divinely revealed. Human reason is certainly fallible, but that does not mean human reason cannot reach any truths on its own. If we take two objects and add another two objects we end up with four objects, always, and without fail. 2+2=4, this is a truth that we have achieved from human reason, it cannot be in conflict with anything from God.
Never did I say that any mathematical principle is God. Never did I say logic is truth. I chose my words very carefully and you chose not to read them. I said that logic is a tool of humans to determine certain truths. By no means can all truths (even all true mathematical statements) be reached through logic. And logic is not the truth, logic is simply the means to reach/determine a truth.
And of course, humans can be fallible in their application of logic, just as in any other mental endeavor.

I apologise please no offence. my problem is you introduced language of church dogma which does not seem relevant here because it does not dogmatize any logical conclusions on this subject. it relevant because it says truth does not contradict truth. which I am not denying. what I am denying is your definition of ETERNAL truth. only god is the way the truth and the life. for that reason he changes not. he is the only necessary being. by definition the only true thing. only eternal truth. when you say 2+2=4 is eternally true its like saying 2+2=4 changes not. my mind cant accept that. 2+2=4 is not true because it is its own truth eternally. it is true because God has made it. if God made 2+2=7 that is what would be true. and then you would be arguing 2+2=4 is impossible. because you can only think from logic no matter what you do.

 

[tafan]

I apologise please no offence. my problem is you introduced language of church dogma which does not seem relevant here because it does not dogmatize any logical conclusions on this subject. it relevant because it says truth does not contradict truth. which I am not denying. what I am denying is your definition of ETERNAL truth. only god is the way the truth and the life. for that reason he changes not. he is the only necessary being. by definition the only true thing. only eternal truth. when you say 2+2=4 is eternally true its like saying 2+2=4 changes not. my mind cant accept that. 2+2=4 is not true because it is its own truth eternally. it is true because God has made it. if God made 2+2=7 that is what would be true. and then you would be arguing 2+2=4 is impossible. because you can only think from logic no matter what you do.

I introduced doctrine of the church only in the point that the church teaches that any truth reached through reason will never contradict a truth revealed by God. That is very relevant, IMO, to this discussion.

You keep saying that God is Truth. I agree. That is true in the sense that God is the collection of all truths. I am speaking of individual truths. And something that will always be true and has always been true is eternally true. But I am not equating that individual truth with God.

God cannot make 2+2=7. He can’t. Not because he is limited in His omnipotence, but because it is not true. It exactly fits the case that St Thomas Aquinas wrote about that was posted by Bakmoon.

You may ignore what the Angelic Doctor of the Church wrote, but it is not a wise thing to do. His logic was rarely wrong.

 

[friardchips]

It is not a “counter-argument” wasn’t meant to be. so far, no one has actually stated why God bound to the logic that stated he cannot make a square circle, so no counter arguments are evn needed.

I think you don’t see that what you claim is radically different from what the others are saying. You are talking God choices, what you think he will or will not choose to do. Others are talking his abilities, not his choices.

To me, I cant talk of either. I have no access to God’s personal will since I am not a member of the Trinity. I only know of God choices by what he done in my world. I know what he chose not he would not chose. No further speculation necessary beyond what God told me. For all I know, there might another world exactly like this but with squircle. Why would go have told us that He created the Universe in order to love us and not mean it?

I agree with other posts. But God’s choices are wound up in this too. I don’t think in order to answer one can separate. God is not a logical Dr. Spock or a robot; neither is he just a philosopher etc…He is more than everything good we know. We cannot put God in a box.

God’s choices He made must be taken into account when learning because these choices give us insights into who He IS. This is more than we can argue from other religious standpoints for the very fact that God brought us into the most intimate relationship via Christ to learn about Him.

But with the other point what God cnt do. I rather accept what the Hindu man is saying. His tradition and all differences you note are irrelevant in current discussion. He explaining an omnipotent uncreated being (God) ability to make what human say is logical contradiction. that is all is relevant. their belief of sacraments is outside topic.

All other religions conform to gods, or goddesses, that pretty much do what they like. Christian faith is all about relationship and living now a life in God’s example. In order to know God one understands that God does everything out of love for us, not anything outside of ‘LOVE’ for us.

I accept that I live in the world of logic. it impossible for me to think “b” and “not b” at once. law of non-contradiction is my way of knowing truth. I am not free from it no matter what I do. so even God I approach him like that and this is how he made me. Like I see in another discussion, logical contradiction is to my mind what a physical impossibility is to my body. Like I cannot be in sitting and standing at once. or I cannot move like the wind or go faster than light or become big like the universe, just like my body is limited by laws of physics, my mind is limited by law of logic. I cant be outside this world unless maybe by contemplation or beatific vision. this represent my impotence and creatureness. so others say (as ive seen it in other discussions) that the logic is transcendent because even to conceive of a world where logic is contradicted I must use logic. I agree, it simply a fact.

As humans we can be extremely illogical and logic is not the sum of human existence.

…

 

[friardchips]

…(had to split reply in two posts…)

but I think its most humble to say, my world is one of logic. I cannot think except in conformity to logic. logic is transcendent to me. but that is my world. so even if I say I approach God through logic, I am just saying to be aware I am limited. not any less than a cartoon in black n white movie. why should the cartoon use the rules in the movie to be certain what reality outside movie is? catholics use this against atheist who want to know why God cannot murder when he kills. I don’t understand why we catholics cannot accept that it may be true when speaking of logic too? the cartoon can only approach reality according to its ability and our ability is logic but not only logic. so I say certain things are logical contradictions. they are completely impossible for human mind to picture. so the idea is impossible to my mind. I accept my use and reliance on logic even to approach god or what god says. but I refuse to use this to say anything objectively about God that denies his limitlessness.

God will not do anything evil because it is against His nature and the ultimate reality is to know God’s love. Logic is not the sum for transcendence and neither is reasoning alone. But to believe God would do things contrary to what He has led us to believe would mean He is cruel. We know from Scripture He is not. To know something of Him now only for Him to be different when we die in all respects would not indicate a loving relationship.

if none of that is contrary to catholic teaching, I admit that is all I can do at this point. to me dpoing otherwise is denying the one objective truth that God is God and I cannot reconcile what people are saying here with my understanding which is limited and flawed but still what my mind sees as the fundamental truth.

God is more than Scripture except that it does contain the Word of God. So theology, logic (not conclusive), reasoning, grace, science, mathematics, philosophy, art, beauty, Truth, life, is all part of God. These are of God which He has given to find Him and we are meant to do this and live in Him, but to live with these Godly attributes, using logic, would be the least important. None of these can explain the Mystery He is because nothing can explain eternal love. This is unexplainable and can’t be put in a box. We do have glimpses of this love as Catholics through grace. To experience these things is to think of the God who made us - in the right direction! It is possible to live with one’s mind aligned, albeit as a human, in direction with God’s loving Will. In the choices we make. This is why His life on earth in Scripture tells us something that other religions can’t do with their theorising or reasoning:

God’s love is eternal, but when we accept Christ, God gets personal!

So again, God has the power to do anything. He is Almighty God. But He WILL NOT do anything contrary to LOVE - His own nature - the love He showed us - the proof is the death of Christ,* for us*!

Would God do something to send life spiralling out of control - cause and effect? If He’s achieved His WILL and it’s for our benefit then maybe he’ll take His grace away and the earth might implode - will this be thanks to the squircle? Well, He won’t do anything to push us away from trusting in His loving Word and deeds; rather, this is what the devil and His demons do - they cause anguish and confusion. If God allowed the world to end we know that to live with God in Heaven is the ultimate good anyway so He is outside of our rules of justice and love on that front too.

Even to speak of God’s miracles, that defy human existence, the supernatural, are done out of LOVE.