Why cant God make a square circle?

[friardchips]

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 . . .

No! It exists?! Seek the Squircle you must, and remember it you will, because for some of us, Pat Albertson, the Squircle might always and only remain one reach too far.

 

[friardchips]

**

balto:

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.

**

To say God can go against His Nature and all His truths is a nothing statement, a contradiction - so maybe nothing is a relative nothing in relation to, and contradiction is a relative contradiction in relation to, the reality of God (?)

Ultimately, I agree with another poster, that claimed balto’s post explained things the clearest.

 

[One_point]

---

To say God can go against His Nature and all His truths is a nothing statement, a contradiction - so maybe nothing is a relative nothing in relation to, and contradiction is a relative contradiction in relation to, the reality of God (?)

Ultimately, I agree with another poster, that claimed balto’s post explained things the clearest.

I haitve repeatedly stated that God cannot go against his nature.

it is you and others who just assume that making a square circle is contrary to God’s nature. you presume this based on rules of logic. rules you assume God cannot break. without explaining why he cant break them. orderliness is no reason. God breaks laws he has made in our universe all the time and that’s how we see a miracle. yet that does not mean disorder. which means you consider physical laws to be creatures but not logical laws. if logical laws are creatures they can be broken like the physical laws without violating God’s nature.

 

[One_point]

tafan, It honestly still shocks me that you can say “God cant make 2+2=7. He cant.” a God who must fit into your conceptions of what is possible does not seem to be the transcendent God to me. the only way God cant make 2+2=7 is if 2+2=4 is necessarilu true. but why is 2+2=4 true? is it because it true on its own or its truth of divine nature? I cannot accept the former or the latter. even the idea God is “a collection of truths” seem totally disrespectful to me and not true. God is transcendent. Beyond. God is not bound by rules of logic. God made those rules the way he made the law of gravity. if he can violate gravity he can violate the law of non-contradiction. it humans who cant violate that law because it doesn’t come from us.

Look. if 2+2=7 is nonsense. And therefore the problem is language. it seem Christians when asked can God make a square circle? they should not say “God cannot make a square circle” and purport to speak for God. Rather they should say, “I cannot deal with that question because it does not make sense to me” or “that question is nonsensical to me”. And then affirm God can do all that he likes, and that is beyond my understanding.

 

[friardchips]

I haitve repeatedly stated that God cannot go against his nature.

it is you and others who just assume that making a square circle is contrary to God’s nature. you presume this based on rules of logic. rules you assume God cannot break. without explaining why he cant break them. orderliness is no reason. God breaks laws he has made in our universe all the time and that’s how we see a miracle. yet that does not mean disorder. which means you consider physical laws to be creatures but not logical laws. if logical laws are creatures they can be broken like the physical laws without violating God’s nature.

I understand what you are saying but all God has created was with His wisdom and love, and higher reasoning that God has given to us in His wisdom and love, points to God who IS. It is in the CCC if you don’t believe me.

Would a square-circle be a contradiction: yes, it would. And posters have explained why it is a contradiction. A nothing statement. There would be no reason to make one because all that is good God has already willed, in Himself. So it would cause chaos.

And God does not do what is contrary to His nature - He brings order not chaos. There is meaning to love so there is meaning to God (God IS love) so there is meaning to reason and all of life God has given us.

Where is the meaning in a squircle?

 

[yppop]

Yes, but then he would be changing one form into the other.

The fact is, God is not chaotic. He creates an orderly universe. If God is chaotic, we are all doomed.

The fact that we can think that contradictions in terms have meaning in reality is itself chaotic thinking.

Originally posted by** Friardchips**
Is this what the OP means: to make a square, a circle? Rather than a square-circle? Now confused. If the OP means to simply morph a square into a circle then why not. Easy for God. But if it means that one replaces the other then it is not that He can’t but He won’t (chaos).

Okay, so you don’t believe that God is omniscient enough to equate the circle and the square topologically. All God has to do is to bend Euclidian space into Hyperbolic space then according to Wikipedia: “… bending the rules by allowing an infinite number of compass-and-straightedge operations or by performing the operations on certain non-Euclidean spaces also makes squaring the circle possible. For example, although the circle cannot be squared in Euclidean space, it can be in *Gauss–Bolyai–Lobachevsky *space” (Wikipedia). noteThe GBL space is hyperbolic).

Since there is some evidence (the acceleration of the universal expansion) to believe that universal space is hyperbolic which means the possibility not only of a “square-circle” (topologically) but also of “squaring the circle” (see the first paragraph above) already exists without bothering God. Surely God knows all about topology and hyperbolic space.
.
In addition, you probably are aware that mathematicians prove that you cannot equate the area of the circle and the area of a square (squaring the circle) primarily because the area of a circle depends on a transcendental number we call pi. The transcendence of pi is based on the assumption that universal space is continuous. If it was discrete, pi would be rational and it would be possible to square the circle even in Euclidian space… Hence God can square the circle by creating the universe from a substrate of discrete space instead of continuous space. I believe He has already created the universe from discrete space. (see post #32 on the thread “How Can Something Come From Nothing?”).

Folks, God is omniscient and can do anything including that which we mere humans may think is impossible. Such is the nature of omniscience.

Yppop

 

[Lion_IRC]

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.

Yep!
God could (if He wanted*) make us epistemologically comfortable with 2+2=4 or 2+2=5 and He could even make us comfortable with both simultaneously - even though we currently
would have a problem with this because He made us the way we are.

I love the scene in the movie Bruce Almighty where Bruce asks ‘God’ how many fingers am I holding up (behind my back).
Bruce - played by Jim Carrey - tries to trick ‘God’ by holding up a different number of fingers.
‘God’ says to Bruce you’re holding up 7 fingers
Bruce thinks he has tricked God (Morgan Freeman)
…but
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[friardchips]

Okay, so you don’t believe that God is omniscient enough to equate the circle and the square topologically. All God has to do is to bend Euclidian space into Hyperbolic space then according to Wikipedia: “… bending the rules by allowing an infinite number of compass-and-straightedge operations or by performing the operations on certain non-Euclidean spaces also makes squaring the circle possible. For example, although the circle cannot be squared in Euclidean space, it can be in *Gauss–Bolyai–Lobachevsky *space” (Wikipedia). noteThe GBL space is hyperbolic).

Since there is some evidence (the acceleration of the universal expansion) to believe that universal space is hyperbolic which means the possibility not only of a “square-circle” (topologically) but also of “squaring the circle” (see the first paragraph above) already exists without bothering God. Surely God knows all about topology and hyperbolic space.
.
In addition, you probably are aware that mathematicians prove that you cannot equate the area of the circle and the area of a square (squaring the circle) primarily because the area of a circle depends on a transcendental number we call pi. The transcendence of pi is based on the assumption that universal space is continuous. If it was discrete, pi would be rational and it would be possible to square the circle even in Euclidian space… Hence God can square the circle by creating the universe from a substrate of discrete space instead of continuous space. I believe He has already created the universe from discrete space. (see post #32 on the thread “How Can Something Come From Nothing?”).

Folks, God is omniscient and can do anything including that which we mere humans may think is impossible. Such is the nature of omniscience.

Yppop

That was a really awesome post and enjoyed reading it.

My point was not whether God can do it, although you have seemingly given proof of how in human understanding He could, but why he would and why He might not. If we believe that in God there is meaning then there would have to be meaning for Him to want to do this(?) I know we are looking at it from different angles (excuse the pun! ) but this shape would presumably cause chaos(?) So maybe the Squircle could exist somewhere in the Universe but to do add this now would ‘presumably’ alter everything else, so what would be the meaning of the Squircle (?) - the universe is already as good as it gets because God made it (do we need a squircle?) - this is what I was trying to say, not doubt God’s power, because He is almighty. Unless you are saying, that He can add this shape or morph it without it affecting everything else; he could add this shape without causing disorder to what is already beautiful in design? I am not a mathematician, so I can only argue this from angles that are not mathematics-based, unfortunately for me.

 

[friardchips]

I love the scene in the movie Bruce Almighty where Bruce asks ‘God’ how many fingers am I holding up (behind my back).
Bruce - played by Jim Carrey - tries to trick ‘God’ by holding up a different number of fingers.
‘God’ says to Bruce you’re holding up 7 fingers
Bruce thinks he has tricked God (Morgan Freeman)
…but
http://www.movie-moron.com/wp-content/gallery/sequel/bruce-almighty-sequel.jpg

I love this film!

 

[Bob_Crowley]

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

google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=definition+of+a+circle

A Circle by definition is a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the centre).

google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=definition+of+a+square

A Square by definition is a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles.

They’re two different things by definition. For God to make a square circle, He would have to reconcile two completely different objects. It can’t be done. It’s illogical nonsense.

When Christ said “All things are possible with God”, He was not referring to word games hypothesising illogical absurdities.

 

[friardchips]

…literally pointless!

Aren’t we taught not to try and read God’s mind?

However, interesting subject though, from the posts containing apparent mathematical solutions!

 

[Brendan_64]

The question does not make any sense.

God can make whatever shape He likes, however a square is only a square and a circle is only a circle because that is the label we have created for it using language. The names we give things are not related to their inherent nature.

 

[balto]

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 truth that “2+2=4” is part of God’s nature yes. And I am referring to the mathematical truth that the phrase “2+2=4” refers to, not the phrase itself. It is just an application of the law of non-contradiction which, like I said earlier, flows from God’s nature as being itself, i.e. that He is not simultaneously non-being as well, so there is a distinction between being and non-being. And I don’t think that this fideistic view is ultimately a tenable one. You say that human reason is faulty and that Church dogmas are infalliable. Yes, a Catholic accepts that. But presumably you need to use faulty human reason to arrive at the conclusion that you should accept the Church’s claims. That is why faith is necessary and a perfection of reason, because it fills in the gaps in the faulty human reasoning.

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, He did do all of those things, but parting the Red Sea, multiplying the loaves, raising people from the dead, etc. are not logical contradictions. They are possible but do not regularly obtain in the ordinary course of events. That’s what makes them miracles. A miracle does not involve a contradiction, just a suspending of the laws of nature, which are contingent. The laws of nature are contingent and “breakable” because they regulate how two or more separate things interact with one another, or how one thing changes. Mathematical and logical laws are necessary and inviolable because they concern being as being itself, so to contradict them ultimately entails a contradiction of God’s nature. Moderns have such a hard time believing in miracles because they suppose that scientific laws are necessary, but they are not. It is certainly possible for a world like Tolkein’s world to exist. You can imagine such a world and such a world would be coherent, even though its regularities differ from our own. But even in Tolkein’s world it cannot actually be true that 2 + 2 really equals 5 because there would be no being there otherwise.

 

[Bakmoon]

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”.

Catholic teaching has always regarded that God by his very nature is a rational being. If God can suspend logic, that means that he can suspend his very nature, which is of course incorrect.

 

[JimG]

Oh I don’t doubt that God could do a topological transformation which would turn a square INTO a circle. It just wouldn’t be both at the same time in the same respect in the same space.

God doesn’t do contradictions in terms because they are impossible to him. He doesn’t do them because they are contradictions. They are nothings. And God can’t do nothing!

Here’s another one: God cannot commit suicide. He cannot end his existence.

 

[One_point]

The truth that “2+2=4” is part of God’s nature yes. And I am referring to the mathematical truth that the phrase “2+2=4” refers to, not the phrase itself. It is just an application of the law of non-contradiction which, like I said earlier, flows from God’s nature as being itself, i.e. that He is not simultaneously non-being as well, so there is a distinction between being and non-being. And I don’t think that this fideistic view is ultimately a tenable one. You say that human reason is faulty and that Church dogmas are infalliable. Yes, a Catholic accepts that. But presumably you need to use faulty human reason to arrive at the conclusion that you should accept the Church’s claims. That is why faith is necessary and a perfection of reason, because it fills in the gaps in the faulty human reasoning.

Please could I get a quote or something that math is Gods nature?? You say not the statement, but then if not the statement what? Do you believe God is transcendent and incomprehensible? I honestly get feeling you don’t. You think you have him figured out??? I understand and accept that God nature not changeable. But I refuse to told what Gods nature is.

Yes I accept I am bound by logic to find truth of the church. I don’t accept that because that is true for me it is true for God. I just accept that I have no choice but to go logic because logic is transcendent to me. But God is incomprehensible and I don’t know his nature except what he told me. period. Better to be blind lika sheep than clever if that’s fideist position. fine. I think contemplaetive saints are all fidesist they look down on human logic extrapolation and rely on the via negativa. it works for them.

Yes, He did do all of those things, but parting the Red Sea, multiplying the loaves, raising people from the dead, etc. are not logical contradictions. They are possible but do not regularly obtain in the ordinary course of events. That’s what makes them miracles. A miracle does not involve a contradiction, just a suspending of the laws of nature, which are contingent. The laws of nature are contingent and “breakable” because they regulate how two or more separate things interact with one another, or how one thing changes. Mathematical and logical laws are necessary and inviolable because they concern being as being itself, so to contradict them ultimately entails a contradiction of God’s nature. Moderns have such a hard time believing in miracles because they suppose that scientific laws are necessary, but they are not. It is certainly possible for a world like Tolkein’s world to exist. You can imagine such a world and such a world would be coherent, even though its regularities differ from our own. But even in Tolkein’s world it cannot actually be true that 2 + 2 really equals 5 because there would be no being there otherwise.

Please a quote from church that maths and logic is necessary and inviolable. the only necessary truth is God. you are all seriously confusing me. honestly.

 

[One_point]

Catholic teaching has always regarded that God by his very nature is a rational being. If God can suspend logic, that means that he can suspend his very nature, which is of course incorrect.

No. logic is not equal to divine nature. show me where the church says it is? Logic is a rule of human intellect. period!!!

God is good, love, changes not and so many things. but I never saw him say I am logic!!

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. 9"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts"

My logic is not God’s logic. that’s how I undetstand this, but you are all convinced that your logic is Gods logic.

 

[JimG]

When God created human beings, he gave them a soul with an intellect and free will. The intellect is a spiritual faculty by which we come to know reality. In creating the human intellect, God conformed it to reality. If we use it properly we can come to a true understanding of reality. He did not give us an intellect that was in violation of external reality, but one that, while limited, accorded with reality.

 

[randomusername]

Jesus was man and God, so what’s stopping God from making something that’s square and circle? He is beyond all limits. What seems impossible to us is simple to Him.

 

[One_point]

When God created human beings, he gave them a soul with an intellect and free will. The intellect is a spiritual faculty by which we come to know reality. In creating the human intellect, God conformed it to reality. If we use it properly we can come to a true understanding of reality. He did not give us an intellect that was in violation of external reality, but one that, while limited, accorded with reality.

Which reality?

–there is physical reality.

–there is that reality that maths and logic rules are about. And concepts like shapes. Abstract things that are not physical.

–there is God himself-reality.

I look t them with the same intellect and logic rules of Aristotle, but the reality are not the same. God reality is beyond me. but not the first two which are easily in my mind. if the first can be violated. why not the second? you all say the second is also divine truths but in what way? what way that the first is not? is the first made by a different God? I think the second is higher than the first. but I don’t agree that the second is equal to the third.