Can any being have infinite power?

[nebulaJP]

The image you posted is a circle within a square, not a square circle. Nice try though lol.

The circle should be a little bigger like this:

 

[elopez]

...and that´s exactly what happens when people start assuming a reality that´s not accessible to them: they simply make ex negativo claims, don´t define anything and declare one can´t think of it.
Once we assume that in god´s reality things are possible that do not appear in our reality because they defy logic - the very frame of all our conceptions - this reality is not thinkeable or definable.

First what things are you talking about? I have defined some things. I'm saying if God is incomprehensible then we cannot think of Him much at all. Assuming God can do the illogical even in His 'reality' doesn't work because we wouldn't even know or think of this. It could be asked then if a square circle would change because it's in God's 'reality'? What is God's 'reality' to you even? I understand it is to act illogical, but beyond that what exactly?

 

[elopez]

How about a tube the diameter of which has the same size as its length - it looks like a circle from one perspective and like a square from another.

I thought you were saying that which does not exist in our reality exists in God's? What happened to that?

Anyway, could you post your pic of this tube? I'm willing to guess it is more oval or circle in shape than anything and not remotely close to a square circle. I'm really beginning to wonder what is so difficult in realizing that a square and a circle are two mutually exclusive things? A square just cannot be circle.

 

[quatona]

First what things are you talking about?

I´m not talking about things. I am talking about the (non-)concepts that there may be realms within which stuff is possible that can´t appear to us because it would be illogical.

I have defined some things. I'm saying if God is incomprehensible then we cannot think of Him much at all.

Exactly my point.

Assuming God can do the illogical even in His 'reality' doesn't work because we wouldn't even know or think of this.

A good summary of my previous post!

It could be asked then if a square circle would change because it's in God's 'reality'? What is God's 'reality' to you even? I understand it is to act illogical, but beyond that what exactly?

Not sure why you ask me of all these questions. There must be a misunderstanding.

 

[elopez]

The circle should be a little bigger like this:

Now that is just a square overlapping a circle. The eight outer points of the object form a four-sided grip. Again, still not a square circle. Keep trying though lol.

 

[quatona]

I thought you were saying that which does not exist in our reality exists in God's? What happened to that?

No, I wasn´t saying that. I followed this assumption for argument´s sake and tried to draw conclusions. (Logical conclusions from nonsensical premises, if you will.)

Anyway, could you post your pic of this tube?

No, but it´s not hard to imagine. Think of a cylinder with the diameter of 1m and a length of 1m. If you look at it from the front it looks like a circle, if you look at it from the side it looks like a square.

I'm really beginning to wonder what is so difficult in realizing that a square and a circle are two mutually exclusive things?

What makes you think I don´t realize this? They are mutually exclusive by definition.

A square just cannot be circle.

Exactly, but an object can look like a square and like a circle at the same time. It all comes down to what "is" means.

Just another thought (I have just got up from bed): We are all familiar with realms in which the illogical is possible - dreams. I´m afraid I´m shooting my own leg with this remark.

 

[elopez]

I´m not talking about things. I am talking about the (non-)concepts that there may be realms within which stuff is possible that can´t appear to us because it would be illogical.

Then why did you say "things"? Gheesh... So like a square circle? Is God sinning logically impossible in our reality? Does that mean in God's 'reality' it is possible?

Exactly my point.

That's what I figured, and that's exactly the problem. How can you sit there and postulate that God can do the illogical within His 'reality' yet also say that God's nature is incomprehensible, which is to mean impossible to understand? If it is impossible to understand God's nature you would not be sitting there and say God acts illogically in His 'reality.'

A good summary of my previous post!

Of course, which means we would not be sitting here thinking about the possibility of the divine acting illogically. Yet here we are...

Not sure why you ask me of all these questions. There must be a misunderstanding.

There is a huge misunderstanding. I mean I comprehend your argument I just find there is no reasoning in it. God does not act illogically no matter which 'reality' as again acting illogically makes no apparent sense just because we say God does it.

 

[elopez]

No, I wasn´t saying that. I followed this assumption for argument´s sake and tried to draw conclusions. (Logical conclusions from nonsensical premises, if you will.)

Yeah but the thing is logical conclusions cannot be drawn from nonsensical premises.

No, but it´s not hard to imagine. Think of a cylinder with the diameter of 1m and a length of 1m. If you look at it from the front it looks like a circle, if you look at it from the side it looks like a square.

I can imagine what it would look like. If it's looked at from the side it doesn't accurately represent a square.

What makes you think I don´t realize this? They are mutually exclusive by definition.

That you are trying to show an example of what a square circle might look like, I dunno.

Exactly, but an object can look like a square and like a circle at the same time. It all comes down to what "is" means.

Just another thought (I have just got up from bed): We are all familiar with realms in which the illogical is possible - dreams. I´m afraid I´m shooting my own leg with this remark.

I don't think exactly like a square.

I should be getting to bed. Dreams are what they are. So if you're shooting yourself shall we drop this point so I can do dream or at least sleep?

 

[quatona]

Then why did you say "things"? Gheesh... So like a square circle? Is God sinning logically impossible in our reality? Does that mean in God's 'reality' it is possible?

I can´t say anything about a reality that defies logic, sorry.

That's what I figured, and that's exactly the problem. How can you sit there and postulate that God can do the illogical within His 'reality' yet also say that God's nature is incomprehensible, which is to mean impossible to understand?

Whre´s the contradiction? "Illogical" and "impossible to understand". Both are ex negativo definitions that leave us with nothing positive, thinkeable, conceivable.

If it is impossible to understand God's nature you would not be sitting there and say God acts illogically in His 'reality.'

Why not? a realm defying logic is inconceivable.

Of course, which means we would not be sitting here thinking about the possibility of the divine acting illogically. Yet here we are...

Well, I´m not. I am the one saying that postulating the divine performing illogical acts is the end of meaningful discourse.

There is a huge misunderstanding. I mean I comprehend your argument I just find there is no reasoning in it.

Your responses tell me that you do not comprehend my argument.

God does not act illogically no matter which 'reality' as again acting illogically makes no apparent sense just because we say God does it.

Yes, that´s the very problem with postulating that there may be something that does not and cannot make sense to us: There is no point in even thinking about it - it doesn´t make sense to us, after all.
I am not sure why people want to do that, yet it is a position that many theists seem to feel is an explanation of sorts - it allows them to sell nonsensical claims as reasonable.

 

[quatona]

Yeah but the thing is logical conclusions cannot be drawn from nonsensical premises.

Not?

I can imagine what it would look like. If it's looked at from the side it doesn't accurately represent a square.

You´d see an object that´s 1mx1m. That fits the definition of a square.

I should be getting to bed. Dreams are what they are. So if you're shooting yourself shall we drop this point so I can do dream or at least sleep?

Sleep well.

 

[nebulaJP]

Now that is just a square overlapping a circle. The eight outer points of the object form a four-sided grip. Again, still not a square circle. Keep trying though lol.

OK the square circle is a paradox that defies logic right? Isn't the trinity a paradox as well?

The Triune Paradox

 

[elopez]

OK the square circle is a paradox that defies logic right? Isn't the trinity a paradox as well?

The Triune Paradox

Well I personally can conceive of one God existing as three persons. Not totally or absolutely but it makes sense to me. I cannot conceive of a square circle and makes no sense to me.

 

[nebulaJP]

Well I personally can conceive of one God existing as three persons. Not totally or absolutely but it makes sense to me. I cannot conceive of a square circle and makes no sense to me.

Let's say that outside of the physical universe God created an immaterial square circle that can manifest itself to humans in the physical universe as either a square or a circle but not both at the same time. Does this square circle make sense?

 

[elopez]

Let's say that outside of the physical universe God created an immaterial square circle that can manifest itself to humans in the physical universe as either a square or a circle but not both at the same time. Does this square circle make sense?

As God is immaterial there really is no shape or form to Him. An immaterial square circle could therefore not exist in God's 'realm' as it would be without shape or form, and both are suppose to have form. So no, this square circle actually makes less sense than the one that could never exist in our reality.

 

[JYJ]

As God is immaterial there really is no shape or form to Him. An immaterial square circle could therefore not exist in God's 'realm' as it would be without shape or form, and both are suppose to have form. So no, this square circle actually makes less sense than the one that could never exist in our reality.

I disagree. I think it is an error to connect form exclusively with material (physical universe). In addition to physical there is emotional, mental and so on, each a dimension of it's own wherein forms are of the material of that dimension. For instance emotional form is of emotional matter. It is not physical. Mental form is of mental matter.

This is a bit too much for most because none of this can be adequately demonstrated much less proved. But.... If we allow it as a possibility then we find that many questions are answered.

note: Emotional matter surrounds us all the time. Angry people produce clouds of it around themselves. It is for this reason that a sensitive person will sometimes say "I have to move away from that man over there. I don't know what it is but I am very uncomfortable being near him". This sort of thing happens. It can be explained. The fact that we have trouble quantifying all this is irrelevant really. Understanding can come later.

note: The reason mental telepathy is real is because our minds generate a form that corresponds to our thoughts and it will go where we send it. These things have substance. Not material substance but mental material substance. Sensitive people can detect this. It is how psychic ability works. Can't prove it? Right. That doesn't mean it is not real.

 

[elopez]

I disagree. I think it is an error to connect form exclusively with material (physical universe). In addition to physical there is emotional, mental and so on, each a dimension of it's own wherein forms are of the material of that dimension. For instance emotional form is of emotional matter. It is not physical. Mental form is of mental matter.

Well I didn't even say form is solely related to material but now that you mention it form is connected to material or the physical universe. To deny that, I think is what I would disagree with. If the 'matter' is not physical I wouldn't really say it's any type of 'matter' at all. What you probably mean is more like a 'feeling,' or intuition.

This is a bit too much for most because none of this can be adequately demonstrated much less proved. But.... If we allow it as a possibility then we find that many questions are answered.

Actually more questions than answers arise in my mind from this explanation, even allowing it as a possibility.

note: Emotional matter surrounds us all the time. Angry people produce clouds of it around themselves. It is for this reason that a sensitive person will sometimes say "I have to move away from that man over there. I don't know what it is but I am very uncomfortable being near him". This sort of thing happens. It can be explained. The fact that we have trouble quantifying all this is irrelevant really. Understanding can come later.

Again, people do not produce clouds of angry matter, that sounds like something out of a kid's cartoon or something. I take to mean what you're describing as a gut feeling or again intuition. It does happen and when first experienced it is hard to explain because the origin is really unknown to us at the time or so appears. Science helps explain intuition to an extent.

note: The reason mental telepathy is real is because our minds generate a form that corresponds to our thoughts and it will go where we send it. These things have substance. Not material substance but mental material substance. Sensitive people can detect this. It is how psychic ability works. Can't prove it? Right. That doesn't mean it is not real.

I don't believe we can send our thoughts to one another, if that's what you're saying here. What substance do thoughts have? How are you defining "substance"? What is mental material substance? Are you saying insensitive people cannot detect this, and why can only sensitive people detect it? I'm not so much worried about you proving this but making sense of it first.

 

[nebulaJP]

As God is immaterial there really is no shape or form to Him. An immaterial square circle could therefore not exist in God's 'realm' as it would be without shape or form, and both are suppose to have form. So no, this square circle actually makes less sense than the one that could never exist in our reality.

Then it looks like the square circle and the omnipotence paradox are nonsensical, which is the C.S. Lewis answer on here.

 

[elopez]

Then it looks like the square circle and the omnipotence paradox are nonsensical, which is the C.S. Lewis answer on here.

It's looks that way. The omnipotence paradox is nothing but a loaded question, and as a loaded question is nothing but unfounded it shouldn't be asked in a serious, logical manner.

Lewis' main thrust is that the illogical doesn't become logical just because we could say God does it.

 

[juvenissun]

.....Christians who say God is omnipotent still claim that God can't violate his own character or can't do things that aren't in his will or can't save us without the literal sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross for some mysterious reason etc.

Compare it with this: you are not omnipotent. Yet you can (easily) violate your own character. So you can easily do what God "can not" do. Make sense?

All these are simply word games. We all use imperfect language, so we can distort any verbal expression very easily. If you translate the statement into computer or math language, then you will easily see the problem of the expression.

God is beyond logic (so are Christians). That will solve your problem in the OP.

 

[skm9]

Infinity is a mathematical concept, not a property that can be held.