Creation and Causality

[apogee]

Can God create in a two dimensional space? There's no logical necessity for us to have anything more than length and width. So, if He can create in two dimensional space, can He create a square circle in two dimensional space? It's a question of what God can do, not what God did do.

If God does exist then I cannot even conceptualise what he can and cannot do, let alone create a list of semantically contradictory tasks, that are not so much actual tasks but more meaningless arrangements of words.

 

[Moral Orel]

No shoot sherlock. it's a semantic problem, that is inherently meaningless, and therefore requires a semantic answer that is equally meaningless.

It's not semantic. It's ontological. Nothing can have attributes that are a direct contradiction of each other. Therefore God can't do the logically impossible. It's a point that needs to be made in any discussion about what God can do or did to find the people who will claim God can do logically impossible things. Those people don't need to be engaged in a logical discussion. It isn't an attack on God's omnipotence, if that's what is making you react so strongly to a simple, and necessary, point that has little to do with the actual OP.

 

[Moral Orel]

We have not, and presumably cannot, observe nothingness, so there are no empirical grounds to say what can or cannot occur. Further, we know that nothingness entails a complete lack of rules or governing principles, so the governing principle "something cannot come from nothing" cannot apply to nothingness by definition.

If nothingness is lacking any attributes, then it has no location. So it isn't anywhere and never was. Nothingness can't exist.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I thought of the same kinds of implications too. Like I said, there might be a good defense for all that, but I don't know it. Silmarian mentioned it to me recently, and Zippy before that. Lord knows how long your ignore list is, so you don't see as much as I do, since my list is empty.

You're definitely correct. Trust me, they were determined to get on there.

Mostly, I think that fundamentally it would mean that God changed, wouldn't it? He was spirit, and now he's matter and energy... I dunno. I'm just trying to stir stuff up in your thread

That is correct. So you can see all the reasons I brushed it over.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Oh ok, thanks for the considerably diminished word count. I'll have a think and get back.



I love this problem, unfortunately squares and circles only exist in a two dimensional universe, like South Park. So whilst square circles definitely do appear to exist in our universe, two dimensional objects do not appear to exist outside of your imagination. Despite your meaningless equation.



was this a semantic problem?




Three times

So you say you've read the thread three times, indicating that you have an interest in the topic. But then you say this:

No shoot sherlock. it's a semantic problem, that is inherently meaningless, and therefore requires a semantic answer that is equally meaningless.

If you already agree that God cannot perform logically impossible tasks, simply move on from that issue. Why spin your wheels on this? Further, why ask your questions in such a way as to suggest that you think these issues can actually be resolved? "Square circle=cylinder; one-ended stick=tree branch." Except apparently you didn't even believe what you were saying. You're deliberately stating meaningless things in a way that appear to be serious so that they will be addressed. Please take your act elsewhere.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If nothingness is lacking any attributes, then it has no location. So it isn't anywhere and never was. Nothingness can't exist.

I see you're only half serious here, but a serious response would be that particles don't seem to have a well-defined location and yet they exist. But of course if we granted your case here it would render God's existence moot because existence of "stuff" would be a necessary part of reality given that nothingness cannot exist.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Absent creation, when the sum total of all existence was just the Christian God, what was available for God to act upon? Did God act on himself? Then we are all made of the stuff of God

I think this comes very close to the idea of Immanence. Personally, I have no problem with this. As I have learned more about the Cosmos from Tyson, Cox, Greene et al, I have had to re-examine what I think constitutes God. Perhaps everything that exists (detected or undetected) could be called God in some sense of the word.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I love this problem, unfortunately squares and circles only exist in a two dimensional universe, like South Park.

What do we do with an eleven dimensional world then? This is purely a rhetorical question.

 

[Moral Orel]

I see you're only half serious here, but a serious response would be that particles don't seem to have a well-defined location and yet they exist. But of course if we granted your case here it would render God's existence moot because existence of "stuff" would be a necessary part of reality given that nothingness cannot exist.

There's a world of difference between a location being poorly defined, and being necessarily lacking. And it wouldn't make God's existence moot, it would just mean space-time is infinite and eternal, and we'd have to rethink the whole concept of a god existing outside it.

 

[Starcomet]

I think you have a problem on your hands either way.

I think it would depend on the implications. If God transcends time then one can proposed that when he shaped the matter around him, time was a by-product of this and thus he/it did not need to be bound by time to spew forth creation. But I do not believe God created the universe directly, but indirectly.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think it would depend on the implications. If God transcends time then one can proposed that when he shaped the matter around him, time was a by-product of this and thus he/it did not need to be bound by time to spew forth creation. But I do not believe God created the universe directly, but indirectly.

That's a tricky one. If God is not bound by time, then He could create another timeless thing. If something is timeless, then wouldn't it be eternal with no beginning or ending? But it did have a beginning because God created it... So maybe time is a necessary by-product of God creating. But if God has to create time to create at all, isn't He bound by time then?

 

[Steve Petersen]

BTW, NV, that was a really thought provoking OP. Thanks!

 

[Starcomet]

That's a tricky one. If God is not bound by time, then He could create another timeless thing. If something is timeless, then wouldn't it be eternal with no beginning or ending? But it did have a beginning because God created it... So maybe time is a necessary by-product of God creating. But if God has to create time to create at all, isn't He bound by time then?

One could argue that since it is beyond time it can create both timeless and timeless things. One could also argue that time co-existed with God just like matter and God merely used it for its purposes. If time is a by product, then it was not so much necessary to create, but simply a force or law that resulted from creation. It may or may not have known of this result but regardless, time would be infinite like it and matter.

 

[Moral Orel]

One could argue that since it is beyond time it can create both timeless and timeless things.

If something is timeless, then terms like "beginning" and "end" have no meaning in relation to that thing. But if God created it, then it began when He created it, so how could it be timeless and have a beginning?

If time is a by product, then it was not so much necessary to create, but simply a force or law that resulted from creation.

Right. A force or law that necessarily resulted from creation. If God can't avoid creating time in order to create, then time is necessary in order for Him to create anything.

Let's say color doesn't exist, but I want to create a painting. Even if we're just talking about black and white, I have to create color by creating that painting. It's necessary.

 

[Starcomet]

If something is timeless, then terms like "beginning" and "end" have no meaning in relation to that thing. But if God created it, then it began when He created it, so how could it be timeless and have a beginning?

Right. A force or law that necessarily resulted from creation. If God can't avoid creating time in order to create, then time is necessary in order for Him to create anything.

Let's say color doesn't exist, but I want to create a painting. Even if we're just talking about black and white, I have to create color by creating that painting. It's necessary.

1. You misunderstand. The implication of such a speculation is that time is not infinite but has an end as all things. Or that once created, it has no end unless given one regardless if it has a creation.

2. You misunderstand. This speculation assume that time was not needed to shape matter as it did it before time was created. The moment the process began, time sprung forth and its effects spread. But it was not needed for the creation to begin.

 

[apogee]

It's not semantic. It's ontological.

Everything here is semantic, whether or not it's ontological, is really a matter of faith.

Nothing can have attributes that are a direct contradiction of each other.

What like photons?

Therefore God can't do the logically impossible. It's a point that needs to be made in any discussion about what God can do or did to find the people who will claim God can do logically impossible things. Those people don't need to be engaged in a logical discussion.

Read my signature, I like logic, but I sure as 'heaven' can't find a logical reason for it.

(actually I'll paste it here just in case I replace it with a 'funny cat picture' at some point)
"There is nothing more reasonable than reason, or less rational than rationalism."

It isn't an attack on God's omnipotence, if that's what is making you react so strongly to a simple, and necessary, point that has little to do with the actual OP.

Do I appear tetchy? I was just starting to get interested.

 

[apogee]

So you say you've read the thread three times, indicating that you have an interest in the topic. But then you say this:



If you already agree that God cannot perform logically impossible tasks, simply move on from that issue. Why spin your wheels on this? Further, why ask your questions in such a way as to suggest that you think these issues can actually be resolved? "Square circle=cylinder; one-ended stick=tree branch." Except apparently you didn't even believe what you were saying. You're deliberately stating meaningless things in a way that appear to be serious so that they will be addressed. Please take your act elsewhere.

I am definitely serious about the square-circles(cylinders intersected by a two-dimensional plane really do tick all the boxes, all it takes is a bit of rotation), your one-ended stick is just silly (which I'm assuming is the point), although I'm sure if i could be bothered to try and change the frame of reference enough, even this might start to make some sense.

So can God perform logically impossible tasks, interesting....I have no idea, I'm sure he can perform tasks that I think are logically impossible, I'm not at all sure it is really sensible to assume that 'impossible' or 'possible' can be determined by logic, which itself seems to have no logical basis for validation, but clearly it's useful for having discussions and predicting the behaviour of dominoes.

 

[apogee]

What do we do with an eleven dimensional world then? This is purely a rhetorical question.

If it's up to me.... probably argue about the existence of ten dimensional 'objects'.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think this comes very close to the idea of Immanence. Personally, I have no problem with this. As I have learned more about the Cosmos from Tyson, Cox, Greene et al, I have had to re-examine what I think constitutes God. Perhaps everything that exists (detected or undetected) could be called God in some sense of the word.

Nicholas Deka said something similar:

"Not that I'm equipped to take this very far, because I don't understand it really myself. But I think that this is actually what classical theism states. That God is existence itself. So God would be the sculptor and the marble. Some theist who knows more can take this and run with it. I noticed how quickly you glazed over this idea, NV, I think it might be the weakest point in your argument. Though Admiral Ackbar might have something to say about me noticing that..."

I replied with this:

"Hmmm... this would mean that the profane is divine, that the natural is supernatural, and that the unholy is holy. I do not think theology takes this seriously. It would mean that you are God, or made of God, as am I, as is a dung beetle's dinner. It would not only mean that God actually can look upon sin, but that God *is* sin. This position seems to me to be so blasphemous that Christians are forbidden to even consider it, so professing it is out of the question.

Then again, I'm sure we've both seen our share of crazy here so maybe you've come across someone pitching this idea."



The theology you're proposing is definitely non-Christian.

 

[apogee]

Nicholas Deka said something similar:

"Not that I'm equipped to take this very far, because I don't understand it really myself. But I think that this is actually what classical theism states. That God is existence itself. So God would be the sculptor and the marble. Some theist who knows more can take this and run with it. I noticed how quickly you glazed over this idea, NV, I think it might be the weakest point in your argument. Though Admiral Ackbar might have something to say about me noticing that..."

I replied with this:

"Hmmm... this would mean that the profane is divine, that the natural is supernatural, and that the unholy is holy. I do not think theology takes this seriously. It would mean that you are God, or made of God, as am I, as is a dung beetle's dinner. It would not only mean that God actually can look upon sin, but that God *is* sin. This position seems to me to be so blasphemous that Christians are forbidden to even consider it, so professing it is out of the question.

Then again, I'm sure we've both seen our share of crazy here so maybe you've come across someone pitching this idea."



The theology you're proposing is definitely non-Christian.

I don't think this is particularly controversial at all. I certainly wouldn't describe it as non-Christian. The idea that Gods Holiness could somehow be tainted by the world, is really to misunderstand the Christian concept of 'Gods Holiness'. It's kinda like supposing that a fire might be extinguished by pouring gasoline on it.