Why cant God make a square circle?

[One_point]

Here. I think I have found a compromise we can all agree

I have read this phrase on another site:

And I think it’s misleading to talk about logic as an entity. It’s just a set of descriptions for existence itself. God (as seen by most theists on this subreddit) is an entity.

So logic is a language, yes? Do you all agree with this? if true,

gravity describes physical world which can change without God self-contradicting.

Circle describes a reality. but what reality is that? why is it divine? the assumption that if it is not a physical reality described it necessarily a DIVINE reality and not a creature… that’s where we part ways.

because how does anyone know what other created realities there be beyond matter and spirit? Seem if something is not matter, we assume its divine. is that warranted?

So whats the compromise? Here it is

I agree that square-circle is nonsensical. why? because if circle and square is a human descriptive language of reality, then there is a gap between the concept (circe) and reality. so square-circle makes no sense because it does not describe anything. but what is negated is the concepts and not reality. hurrah! we agree. fnally.

where we disagree. why anyone can assume that the reality behind the circle is a divine reality and not a creaturely reality like the universe?? there please explain.

so we should simply say, square circle does not describe reality because it human-centred language and finds meaning in the human mind, its not an objective language Finally I get it.

Its people who say “God cant make a square-circle” who confuse me!! Because you make it seem like square circle is something God cant do just because YOU cant reconcile the two concepts of square and circle and yet you are but a creature!

But we should not assume that the reality behind circle or 2+2=4 is Gods nature. because Gods nature is beyond us. Anything we can grasp is not the divine nature. Not at all!

the reality behind circle or 2+2=4 is no more divine than I am divine. I reflect something of God’s truth. but I am not God’s nature. and since I grasp 2+2=4, I assume it similarly represents only another reality that exists like me but not God’s nature, only a reflection. A creature. Gods nature is beyond! No maths can describe God. just like no creature can contain God.

 

[Brendan_64]

So logic is a language, yes? Do you all agree with this?

No. Logic is not a language, logic is a means of processing information. Language can be adapted and changed completely, simply by inventing new words or changing the usage of others. Logic, on the other hand cannot be manipulated in this fashion. Logic is consistent, language is not.

 

[thinkandmull]

Thomas Aquinas says in his treastise on the eternity of the world that many pious people believed that God could make something that happened not have been. Aquinas says this is not heresy, and doesn’t disagree with it.

The human mind has a certain form. On psychedelic drugs, for example, people say they have seen square circles. As Aquinas says, truth is like falsehood: just as something can be more false than something else, something can be more true than something else. But what, isn’t truth just truth? If its true, its true? Can there really be degrees of truth? Well, as Maurice Blondel says in his book Action, we except the truths we believe, and move forward, also thinking in a new moment, traveling towards the Full Truth at the end of the journey.

Finally, can God make a rock that He can’t pick up? Well yea, because otherwise God the Father would have the power to destroy God the Son. He generated something He can’t destroy

 

[One_point]

so my point is that we should be honest.

square-circle does not describe anything because square and circle are human concepts that we use to try and describe truth. in as far as it is a human language, it is a human concept. it not equal to reality. which is objective. so square-circle is meaningless because it not a true concept! yes! I get it!!!

But I think those who absolutize “God cant make a square circle or 2+2=7” are also in error. in two ways.

one, because these are merely human descriptive concepts. they are not the true reality they represent and we may be wrong in our math! We may find better concepts and descriptors for that truth. yes? or to put differently, why are we so confident our math is infallible? Maybe the whole thing is wrong! From times table to division and the rest of it. Just like newton was wrong and einestein maybe wrng in relativity. Just a model for reality.

the other thing I think they are in error. the assumption that the immediate truth behind 2+2=4 is divine. maybe its just another created reality that can be ended just like me? why not? God is not immediately graspable after all, like 2+2=4. that why the ONLY way to know him is blind faith and not logic. true blind faith without concepts but darkness. the opposite of logic. via negativa

 

[One_point]

No. Logic is not a language, logic is a means of processing information. Language can be adapted and changed completely, simply by inventing new words or changing the usage of others. Logic, on the other hand cannot be manipulated in this fashion. Logic is consistent, language is not.

ok . so is 2+2=4 a means of processing things or a concept? what is the nature of logic? it seems just rules we find in the intellect already. like A and not A are mutually exclusive. that is a rule. planted in a humam mind. which is why I said we humans cant help but do everything logically and we even approach God this way but that doesn’t necessarily mean God himself is limited like that. rules can be descriptive of reality too and not the reality themselves.

 

[One_point]

ok. how about this? is the basic law of non-contradiction to the intellect what conscience is to the will? wait. is conscience a rule of will or a rule of intellect? confused

I was thinking since the command of conscience come directly to the man from God, do right and don’t do wrong, that maybe non-contradiction is like that but for the mind? “believe the true reject the false.” or 'this is true and this is false"

if that’s true then it can be infallible to an extent because it guidance from God directly as our creator who placed it immediately I the mind when he made our soul. but not completely infallible. because the will sometimes disobeys the conscience or the conscience does not know what is truly good and misleading. so I say the basic rules of non-contradiction may be God direct whisper to our minds. but then again, we are fallen. so maybe its not perfect? which goes back to, we have no choice but to follow logic because that’s how we are made. but my logic tells me God is not subject to the same rules I am subject to? in fact he’s subject to no rules. I am the one who needs rules to know anything. he just is. all the rest is relative to him and receives meaning from him, even the rules of the different intellects he makes, not the other way around.

 

[One_point]

ok. before I sleep. I thought of another last description!

so I think of God like the father of Hansel and Gretel. they are in the dark forest. so then intellect is in order to b united with God, yes? To know or see God. yes? which we call beatific vision. but logic is like clues on the way to find the house where God is. that’s why its rules. it seems like it always divide reality into two, a and not a, like a signpost in every cross road. “this way” and “NOT this way”. And the object or goal is God. so logic is a way of saying “this way to God” and “Not this way” to a mind that is looking for God which is every intellect. yes?

so if we follow all the signs that say “this way to God”, we will come to know God from outside. because logic leads to belief in God. which why atheists seem a bit loopy. but logic has its limits once we find God’s location/house, only faith can allow us to SEE him. to know him. to enter the house. not logic. why? because God is not graspable by logic. he not comprehensible. but he knowable by human intellect. But human intellect knows God by blind faith only. like a light which is black. or opaque.

So, my problem with describing Gods abilities, is that I see it as entering gods nature from his perspective and claiming to know it from inside which I think is impossible. ours is just one way towards the summit. the human way to find God in our world. the clues God give us. maybe there are others that we cant grasp. other signposts for other intellects. because we only know our own. so that’s why I say, I accept logic but maintain God is way beyond.

 

[tafan]

ok . so is 2+2=4 a means of processing things or a concept? what is the nature of logic? it seems just rules we find in the intellect already. like A and not A are mutually exclusive. that is a rule. planted in a humam mind. which is why I said we humans cant help but do everything logically and we even approach God this way but that doesn’t necessarily mean God himself is limited like that. rules can be descriptive of reality too and not the reality themselves.

2+2=4 is a fact, a truth. Logic is a means of arriving at certain truths, it is a tool. God can create 2 angels, He can then create 2 more angels, He will then have create 4 angels, not 7.
Denying that this is a truth, is equivalent to saying we can know nothing for sure.

Saying that truths limit God is wrong. God is not limited by the truth 2+2=4. God is not limited in what he can create by saying that if He creates a circle, it will not be square. Or if He creates a man, it will not be an angel. These are not rules.

God is not limited by “rules” nor is he limited by truth.

 

[Wunderkinds]

Well, God does not is different from God cannot. Catholics say without a hesitation that God CANNOT create a square circle. I don’t see that in revelation anywhere.

Why is it nonsense? Just because human logic cannot conceive something does not mean that God cannot. Man wisdom is foolishness to God. that is in the /bible. Where do we get the courage to decide what is possible for God beyond what he himself has said? I understand statements like “God cannot not be God” Its God himself who says. I don’t understand statements like “God cannot do what human logic deems impossible”. when did human logic became limit to God? seem like human logic is divine then just like God and forever? Is human logic god? is logic God? seem cart before horse thinking to me.

You need to go study under a logician.

 

[JamesATyler]

Eh, I don’t know if anyone ever went out of there way to make it Church doctrine that someone believing that God can make a line both straight and curved at the same time is a heretic.

I mean there is a bunch of stuff that absolute power might not accomplish. Like you might not be able to make 2+2=4 and 2+2=93 be true at the same time. The language of mathematics is a description of truth. 4=4 is true. 4≠4 is not true. But you think that absolute power can make 4=4 and 4≠4 both equally true. A square circle is the same concept. A square is a square and a circle is a circle. But a square ≠ circle.

It is about truth. The question is, can God change the truth? Can God change God into not God? Because if God can make squares = circles then changing God into not God should be possible too. But go a step further with it. Can God be God and not be God at the same time? What say you to that?

 

[yppop]

We can be reasonably sure only about those possibilities that have been actualized. What we can’t be sure about are those possibilities that haven’t been actualized, a list of things we humans with our miniscule minds can’t imagine or deem to be impossible. Usually what we deem to be impossible are those things that either we can’t imagine or find to have violated logic on the basis that God created logic not man.

So, the only correct answer to the OP is: **We don’t know why God can or can’t make a square circle. **

The last thing I want to do is to engage in a silly discussion about what God can or cannot do, but I can’t help “hypothesising (several) illogical absurdities” for those of you that might want to play word games in future discussions of this sort. Isn’t that what this forum is all about?

Consider these absurdities which for some reason or other some respondents seem to think that God can’t:

1. Make a square-circle - meaning both having the same form. I pointed out in a previous post that this is no problem for the topologist who claim the circle and square are homeomorphic, meaning having the same topological form.
2. Square the circle: - meaning equate the area of a circle with that of the square. I pointed out in a previous post that the inability to equate the areas is based on the assumption that space is Euclidean, i.e., flat and continuous. If space is discrete (digital), and no one knows for certain, pi would be rational and you could square the circle.
3. Make 2+2= anything other than 4. That is generally true except in arithmetic modulo 4 where 2+2=0. They make a lot of good counter circuits with modulo 4 gates.
4. Violate the law of non-contradiction - where a thing can be and not be at the same time. Ever see the Escher drawing where you can’t tell whether you are going up or down steps at the same time? Or the foreground/background illusions where you see either a white vase or the silhouette of two people facing each other. When is a vase not a vase? Answer: when you blink you eyes and create a real contradiction. The human mind is capable of forming contradictions, surely God can do the same.
5. Make a 2-sided triangle - everyone knows a triangle has two sides depending on its orientation in space, front and back or top and bottom, unless, of course it is drawn on a Moebius strip in which case it has only one side; or if you cut a triangle in a page of paper in which case it has no sides. Those other three things are edges. Okay so I slipped in a kid’s puzzle.
6. *Violate logic *- Proving something with logic is a bit tenuous ever since Godel derived the incompleteness theorem. He proved that there are things in logical systems that can’t be proven but are true. Does this mean Faith trumps Proof? In which case those that believe God can do what we may think is impossible trump those that think God can’t do with they think is impossible.
7. Make the cause follow the effect - look up the double split experiment in which particles know how many slits are open after they have passed through a single slit.

I know, I know I am playing word games (perhaps) or maybe we need to expand our imaginations.
Yppop

 

[JamesATyler]

It just seems to me that if God’s power were hocus pocus, then why is the world the way it is? Couldn’t he just wave a magic wand and make everything just right? If it is all just abracadabra then why would making everything just perfect in the wink and wiggle of the nose pose any problems to our free will? Cause can’t God make you do his will and follow your own will even when they oppose? Can’t God make you love him even while you hate him? Can’t you be both for Jesus and against Jesus at the same time? No problem! Presto magico!

 

[tafan]

We can be reasonably sure only about those possibilities that have been actualized. What we can’t be sure about are those possibilities that haven’t been actualized, a list of things we humans with our miniscule minds can’t imagine or deem to be impossible. Usually what we deem to be impossible are those things that either we can’t imagine or find to have violated logic on the basis that God created logic not man.

So, the only correct answer to the OP is: **We don’t know why God can or can’t make a square circle. **

The last thing I want to do is to engage in a silly discussion about what God can or cannot do, but I can’t help “hypothesising (several) illogical absurdities” for those of you that might want to play word games in future discussions of this sort. Isn’t that what this forum is all about?

Consider these absurdities which for some reason or other some respondents seem to think that God can’t:

I have been hesitant to address some of the mathematical concepts that have been mentioned on this thread because they are really not relevant. But I will now (BTW, I once extensively studied most of these areas of mathematics at the graduate level, so I am not ignorant of any of them).

1. Make a square-circle - meaning both having the same form. I pointed out in a previous post that this is no problem for the topologist who claim the circle and square are homeomorphic, meaning having the same topological form.

In layman’s terms, homeomorphic equivalence means that one objects can be changed to another object through bending and stretching, but not through tearing or gluing. Only when one stays within the bounds of topology, does that even come close to meaning the objects are the same. In short: both God and topologists can tell the difference between their coffee mug and their doughnut in the morning, because they are in essence two different things.

1. Square the circle: - meaning equate the area of a circle with that of the square. I pointed out in a previous post that the inability to equate the areas is based on the assumption that space is Euclidean, i.e., flat and continuous. If space is discrete (digital), and no one knows for certain, pi would be rational and you could square the circle.

The circle and square being described are obviously in Euclidean space (ie the common, layman’s understanding of what a circle and square is.
Nevertheless, perhaps we should rephrase the original question: can God make a square circle, where the circle defined as a set of points on a continuous plane which are equidistance from a single point , and a square is defined as a polygon on a continuous plane with 4 equidistant sides and 4 right angles?

1. Make 2+2= anything other than 4. That is generally true except in arithmetic modulo 4 where 2+2=0. They make a lot of good counter circuits with modulo 4 gates.

Again, changing the domain of the problem is not the same thing and making the outcome different in the same domain. So, with the set of natural numbers: can God make two + two = four (I will spell out the numbers to be clear I am talking about the abstract number itself and not a decimal representation which another poster postulated would not be valid in a different base-level arithmetic).

1. Violate the law of non-contradiction - where a thing can be and not be at the same time. Ever see the Escher drawing where you can’t tell whether you are going up or down steps at the same time? Or the foreground/background illusions where you see either a white vase or the silhouette of two people facing each other. When is a vase not a vase? Answer: when you blink you eyes and create a real contradiction. The human mind is capable of forming contradictions, surely God can do the same.

Does not apply to the discussion about God’s being able to change a truth. Artists who are painting or drawing use various techniques to represent 3 dimensional forms on a 2 dimensional canvas. Escher was a master at manipulating these techniques to present 3 dimensional objects that could not exists in our universe. But they were all fakes, he could not have taken the picture of the continuous water-fall or staircase and built a 3 dimensional model of it.

1. Make a 2-sided triangle - everyone knows a triangle has two sides depending on its orientation in space, front and back or top and bottom, unless, of course it is drawn on a Moebius strip in which case it has only one side; or if you cut a triangle in a page of paper in which case it has no sides. Those other three things are edges. Okay so I slipped in a kid’s puzzle.

Sorry, its been addressed before with respect to circles: trianlges are two dimensional objects, you cannot look at it from a different orientation in space.

1. *Violate logic *- Proving something with logic is a bit tenuous ever since Godel derived the incompleteness theorem. He proved that there are things in logical systems that can’t be proven but are true. Does this mean Faith trumps Proof? In which case those that believe God can do what we may think is impossible trump those that think God can’t do with they think is impossible.

Now you are in an area that is was one of my main area of study: ie Gödel’s incompleteness theories. First of all, you misrepresent Gödel’s statement (or leave out a key point): he proves that there are statements in logical systems that are true, but cannot be proven within that system.
It has no bearing on faith IMO.

Yes, you are playing word games and math tricks (by which I mean changing the domain/system of the problem to make a different result appear logical).

 

[ready]

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

God can not do anything that would contradict who He is, thus He can not lie, cheat, foul up things, etc… He is a God of order and reasonableness. A square circle is not of order and reasonable, thus God can not make a square circle. God bless you.

 

[yppop]

Yes, you are playing word games and math tricks (by which I mean changing the domain/system of the problem to make a different result appear logical).

tafan
You obviously missed the point of my post. I acknowledge that I am playing word games, so what is your point? Mine is as I boldly stated as the answer to the OP:

So, the only correct answer to the OP is: **We don’t know if God can or can’t make a square circle. **

Do you claim to KNOW that God can’t make a square-circle. You object to the topology argument by pointing out that topologists do so by bending and stretching one into the other. I believe what you are arguing is that the square and the circle are not the same “form” at the same time. I would agree that I also cannot imagine an object that is both a square and a circle at the same time, but I wonder if God can. I don’t know. Do you have some insight into God’s imagination that you can declare with logical certainty that God cannot imagine a square circle?

In the other interpretation that squaring the circle means equating their areas, you didn’t address that it is the assumption of the continuity of space that disallows equating their areas. Do you know with certainty that space is continuous? If it’s not then we can square a circle, which happens to be a timeless math problem.

I prefer not to get trapped in discussions, I prefer adding comments. Since you went to the trouble of answering my post point by point you deserved an answer. Let me end my responses by saying that nothing you posted was incorrect and I believe the same is true of my post. I believe we both don’t know the answer, but if you are adamant about knowing I will not challenge it, you are entitled to your opinion.

My final thought to you is: Beware of intuition!
You may have the last word.
Yppop

 

[thegreypiper]

Even if it is a first principle of logic it does not answer my problem: why is logic a limit to God? Is logic divine?

Yes.

 

[ChainBreaker]

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

I suppose you can assume that the logically impossible can happen but no meaningful or reasonable conversation can be had about that.

God is essentially “truth”, he is the antithesis of nothing. He cannot be truth and non-truth at the same time. He cannot be something and nothing at the same time. God’s very being is the reason why 2 + 2 = 4 as opposed to 6.

A square and a triangle are two distinct shapes, and the two concepts can be meaningfully defined as a square or a triangle precisely because they are absolutely distinct. A square-triangle however is neither a square or a triangle. Its nothing at all. Your question is no more meaningful then asking why we have the guts to say that God cannot choose to sin.

 

[AMFV]

God absolutely can create a square-circle. But conceptually such a thing does not exist in our reality. The effect of having that exist as a possibility would likely change reality in too many ways for us to understand it. It’s like the question “Can God create a rock too big for him to lift?”, and the answer is “Well yes, but that doesn’t make sense, it would be a rock of mass exceeding infinite, and that would be impossible, that cannot exist in our universe without ripping it apart.”

So God could create such a thing, but we could never understand it, our understanding is based on logic, which in turn is based on the laws of our universe, since a square circle violates those laws, it would be something that we could not possibly understand.

 

[ChainBreaker]

tafan
You obviously missed the point of my post. I acknowledge that I am playing word games, so what is your point? Mine is as I boldly stated as the answer to the OP:

Do you claim to KNOW that God can’t make a square-circle. You object to the topology argument by pointing out that topologists do so by bending and stretching one into the other. I believe what you are arguing is that the square and the circle are not the same “form” at the same time. I would agree that I also cannot imagine an object that is both a square and a circle at the same time, but I wonder if God can. I don’t know. Do you have some insight into God’s imagination that you can declare with logical certainty that God cannot imagine a square circle?

In the other interpretation that squaring the circle means equating their areas, you didn’t address that it is the assumption of the continuity of space that disallows equating their areas. Do you know with certainty that space is continuous? If it’s not then we can square a circle, which happens to be a timeless math problem.

I prefer not to get trapped in discussions, I prefer adding comments. Since you went to the trouble of answering my post point by point you deserved an answer. Let me end my responses by saying that nothing you posted was incorrect and I believe the same is true of my post. I believe we both don’t know the answer, but if you are adamant about knowing I will not challenge it, you are entitled to your opinion.

My final thought to you is: Beware of intuition!
You may have the last word.
Yppop

Can God exist and not exist at the same time?

If you can muster the rational courage to say no to that question then you should be able to acknowledge that God cannot create a square-triangle because squares and triangles can only exist as two distinct things for it is in their distinction that we find their rational meaning. The act of reality is intrinsically rational because that is God’s nature. A square triangle has no meaning at all for it is neither truly a square or a triangle. God cannot do the metaphysically impossible.

 

[ChainBreaker]

God absolutely can create a square-circle. But conceptually such a thing does not exist in our reality. The effect of having that exist as a possibility would likely change reality in too many ways for us to understand it. It’s like the question “Can God create a rock too big for him to lift?”, and the answer is “Well yes, but that doesn’t make sense, it would be a rock of mass exceeding infinite, and that would be impossible, that cannot exist in our universe without ripping it apart.”

So God could create such a thing, but we could never understand it, our understanding is based on logic, which in turn is based on the laws of our universe, since a square circle violates those laws, it would be something that we could not possibly understand.

If what you are saying is true then there is no rational reason for God not to sin for truth is arbitrary in distinction and thus God’s reason not to sin is arbitrary and God’s judgment on the human race is arbitrary for there is no absolute objective rational distinction between good and evil…

No rational person believes in that God. Why should we?