Debunking Flat Earth

[46AND2]

And so, God should not actually be bound by logic.

So, if we conclude that God is not bound by logic, then God should be able to show us a shape that we see as perfectly round, and yet at the same time we would see that it perfectly fits the definition of a square. Sure, it may not make sense to us how this could be possible, but that's because we are bound by logic. God, without such a limitation, could accomplish it, even if it seems impossible to us.

One could argue that the common belief that Jesus is 100% man AND 100% god is doing exactly that.

 

[Tom 1]

Of course, that depends on whether God is bound by logic. Is that the case, or are the laws of logic something that God created? If God created logic, then he should no more be bound by logic than he'd be bound by gravity.

In fact, I'd say that anything that is actually a genuine miracle would have to violate the laws of logic, even if only in the slightest way - after all, if they didn't, then there'd have to be a perfectly logical explanation for any alleged miracle, and if that's the case, why call them a miracle at all? And so, God should not actually be bound by logic.

So, if we conclude that God is not bound by logic, then God should be able to show us a shape that we see as perfectly round, and yet at the same time we would see that it perfectly fits the definition of a square. Sure, it may not make sense to us how this could be possible, but that's because we are bound by logic. God, without such a limitation, could accomplish it, even if it seems impossible to us.

And so we have a problem. I've often asked why God doesn't make me, an atheist, a believer. And I'm often told that he can't, because that would violate my free will. And God wants me to CHOOSE to believe, not be forced. And, I'm told, that it is logically impossible for someone to be forced to do something and at the same time be doing that thing of their own free will.

Yet, if God is not bound by logic, he should be able to.

So why hasn't he?

then God should be able to show us a shape that we see as perfectly round, and yet at the same time we would see that it perfectly fits the definition of a square

That would be some species of illusion, not a round square. A square has a certain definition, if it doesn’t fit that definition then it is not a square, it’s not a question of logic. You can change the definition, but then you still have the thing the old definition applied to.

Yet, if God is not bound by logic, he should be able to.

Same sort of question, people as we are experience a lot of things differently. I don’t know if free will is the right term for it, but it is a basic reality of life. What is your experience of the colour green? Is it exactly the same as mine? Why have two authors never written the same book about the same theme? Why do two people rarely agree 100% on anything? I’m not clear why you think it’s a question of logic, as an abstract idea it might be but what is the use of that? For it be possible to make two people read the bible, or any other book I should imagine, and come to exactly the same - or even fairly similar - conclusions on everything in it, you would not only have to redefine but recreate those people in some other way.

Edit: this assumes of course that each person has devoted adequate time to be able to have some knowledge about the bible to consider. Nobody can ‘make’ anyone do that either, without having an indelible impact on how the person being so obliged then interprets the bible.

 

[Tom 1]

One could argue that the common belief that Jesus is 100% man AND 100% god is doing exactly that.

Do you see that as a question of logic? If you have a God who made the human body then it would be more a question of mechanics (or meta-mechanics if you like). Maybe we can come back to that question after ‘how the brain lost its mind’ comes out in a few months.

 

[46AND2]

Do you see that as a question of logic? If you have a God who made the human body then it would be more a question of mechanics (or meta-mechanics if you like). Maybe we can come back to that question after ‘how the brain lost its mind’ comes out in a few months.

I don't see how it is any different than your objection about definitions when it came to squares and circles.

 

[Tom 1]

I don't see how it is any different than your objection about definitions when it came to squares and circles.

A square is defined by a few things, angles, straight lines of equal length etc. It is incompatible with curved lines, so it can’t be round. What are the qualities of man and God that would make them incompatible to the same rigid degree?

 

[46AND2]

A square is defined by a few things, angles, equally shaped lines etc. It is incompatible with curved lines, so it can’t be round. What are the qualities of man and God that would make them incompatible to the same rigid degree?

Seriously?

Humans are formed when sperm fertilizes eggs. God has always been.
God is spirit. John 4:24
Humans sin.
God doesn't sin.
Humans lie.
God cannot lie. Hebrews 6:18
Humans change their mind, God does not. 1 Samuel 15:29
GOD IS NOT MAN - 1 Samuel 15:29, Numbers 23:19
God is everywhere, man is finite.
God can do all things, man is limited
God knows all things, man is limited

I'm sure you'll have your special pleadings for why these (and dozens more) don't count.

 

[Tom 1]

Seriously?

Humans are formed when sperm fertilizes eggs. God has always been.
God is spirit. John 4:24
Humans sin.
God doesn't sin.
Humans lie.
God cannot lie. Hebrews 6:18
Humans change their mind, God does not. 1 Samuel 15:29
GOD IS NOT MAN - 1 Samuel 15:29, Numbers 23:19
God is everywhere, man is finite.
God can do all things, man is limited
God knows all things, man is limited

I'm sure you'll have your special pleadings for why these (and dozens more) don't count.

Well yes, as we are talking about God/god as character in a book, then the 'pleadings' are 'special' in that context. You think, it seems, that your list of things means they are incompatible in the same way that a square is incompatible with a curved line. I don't see how that is the case:

A square has only straight lines, if you introduce a curved line into its structure it is no longer a square. There is no room for manouevre. However you look at it, a square cannot accomodate a curved line.

People and God are not however quite so straigthforward or easily defined. The bible posits the possibility of being perfect, for example. This is where the 'knowing the material' part comes into the 'understanding the bible' equation.
At the beginning, some kind of state of innocence is outlined, a very simple state in which humans act freely, unencumbered by the understanding and implications of right and wrong. There are various ideas about what this represents, however what is clear is that there is on the one hand a state of innocence and unity between humans and between humans and God, and on the other a very limited set of rules - care for the land, only eat vegetables, have offspring, don't eat from that tree. Humans break the last rule, and gain an awareness of the 'wrongness' of some of their actions, they become conscious of themselves in relation to one another, to their own desires and impulses, the need for these to be managed, and so on. Something (for the sake of explanation) perhaps like Jung's shadow self is recognised, something that if not integrated into a person's whole being will direct that person's behaviour unconsciously to one degree or another. People are then in a state of having to manage themselves whereas previously they had existed in some state of grace, maybe an allegory for a pre-conscious state, maybe for something else, in which moral decisions and self-management had not been necessary.
Taking what the bible says about this as a whole, if you rely only on what is actually in the bible, then theoretically a person could be 'perfect' and 'sinless', however given the complexity of being human this is only theoretically possible for us. Jesus, however, is presented in the bible as being imbued with the essence of God, he has the characteristics of God but in a human body. In other parts of the bible God appears in various other forms, as a burning bush, a gentle breeze, a man who wrestles with another man - figurative meanings at least in terms of the import of each instance. God is variously portrayed as being able to be both everywhere but also anywhere, he is ascribed the quality of being able to manifest as he pleases. In Jesus, the full character of God is revealed. He doesn't sin, and so on, as per your list. He is by choice limited to existing in one particular manifestation within a finite body, which has no (biblical) implications for his finiteness - merely the passing from one form to another in a temporal sense.

Other arguments could be - it's not true, God doesn't exist, there is no such thing as a mind/spirit/soul etc., God couldn't inhabit a human body because he doesn't exist, or because this contravenes your personal understanding of who/what God is, and so on. However these are not arguments of the same type as a round thing is not a square.

 

[Kylie]

That would be some species of illusion, not a round square. A square has a certain definition, if it doesn’t fit that definition then it is not a square, it’s not a question of logic. You can change the definition, but then you still have the thing the old definition applied to.

If we say that a particular thing has certain criteria, and if a thing does not meet those criteria then it's not that type of thing, then that is indeed a statement of logic.

Same sort of question, people as we are experience a lot of things differently. I don’t know if free will is the right term for it, but it is a basic reality of life. What is your experience of the colour green? Is it exactly the same as mine? Why have two authors never written the same book about the same theme? Why do two people rarely agree 100% on anything? I’m not clear why you think it’s a question of logic, as an abstract idea it might be but what is the use of that? For it be possible to make two people read the bible, or any other book I should imagine, and come to exactly the same - or even fairly similar - conclusions on everything in it, you would not only have to redefine but recreate those people in some other way.

Not sure why you think two authors writing the same book is equivalent to the round square not being a statement about logic.

But if we say that for something the be A, then it must satisfy conditions B, C, and D, then saying, "If a thing does not meet conditions B, C, and D, then it can't possibly be an A," is a statement of logic.

 

[Kylie]

Do you see that as a question of logic? If you have a God who made the human body then it would be more a question of mechanics (or meta-mechanics if you like). Maybe we can come back to that question after ‘how the brain lost its mind’ comes out in a few months.

Yeah, because it's saying that Jesus is 100% man and 100% God, and that makes him 200%, and it is logically impossible for anything to be more than 100% something.

 

[Kylie]

A square is defined by a few things, angles, straight lines of equal length etc. It is incompatible with curved lines, so it can’t be round. What are the qualities of man and God that would make them incompatible to the same rigid degree?

So a line can't logically be round if it's part of a square. That's my point - it's logically impossible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Of course, that depends on whether God is bound by logic. Is that the case, or are the laws of logic something that God created? If God created logic, then he should no more be bound by logic than he'd be bound by gravity.

The 'laws of logic' are a set of axioms we use to construct the formal system of logic, based on our experience of how the macroscopic world behaves. Different axioms give different logical systems, and the behaviour of the world at, for example, quantum scales, doesn't always correspond to our macro-scale logical expectations.

You could say that a god that creates universes creates the logical structure of those universes - in order to have structure, there must be rules of interaction, etc., but these are implicit, and not necessarily reflected in the rules that apply at emergent levels/scales, from experience of which the occupants of those universes might construct their formal logics.

It seems to me that for a god to act in some coherent and organised way, e.g. to create a structured universe, it too would need to behave according to some kind of logical rules - though not necessarily the rules familiar to us.

In fact, I'd say that anything that is actually a genuine miracle would have to violate the laws of logic, even if only in the slightest way - after all, if they didn't, then there'd have to be a perfectly logical explanation for any alleged miracle, and if that's the case, why call them a miracle at all? And so, God should not actually be bound by logic.

I suppose that depends on what your definition is. Miracles are usually considered to be outside or beyond physical laws; in a loose sense, that is their logical explanation. But such terms that people devise to cover their ignorance or lack of understanding are typically ill-defined and ambiguous.

So, if we conclude that God is not bound by logic, then God should be able to show us a shape that we see as perfectly round, and yet at the same time we would see that it perfectly fits the definition of a square. Sure, it may not make sense to us how this could be possible, but that's because we are bound by logic. God, without such a limitation, could accomplish it, even if it seems impossible to us.

I don't agree. If the definitions are mutually exclusive, then that can't be the case. Circles don't have straight sides and bachelors aren't married, by definition. You can make shapes that look like a circle from one viewpoint and a square from another, but such a shape is neither. Trying to change that is changing the nature or meaning of the things themselves, which would invalidate the concept of a miracle. It's the old irresistible force vs immovable object conundrum - they are mutually exclusive.

And so we have a problem. I've often asked why God doesn't make me, an atheist, a believer. And I'm often told that he can't, because that would violate my free will. And God wants me to CHOOSE to believe, not be forced. And, I'm told, that it is logically impossible for someone to be forced to do something and at the same time be doing that thing of their own free will.

I think this is more a problem with the concept of free will. What is the definition of free will? If asking someone to force you to do something is an act of free will, why not the act itself? If you prefer to stay home and read instead of socialising, but wish you didn't, which is your free will? If you're offered a doughnut and you like doughnuts so you want to eat it, but you want to lose weight, but you're quite hungry, but you don't want to appear greedy, but you don't want to appear rude by refusing it, but you want to break your doughnut habit, but it's just a small doughnut - what's your free will?

I suggest it's just another ill-defined and ambiguous term people have invented to cover their ignorance and lack of understanding.

 

[Kylie]

The 'laws of logic' are a set of axioms we use to construct the formal system of logic, based on our experience of how the macroscopic world behaves. Different axioms give different logical systems, and the behaviour of the world at, for example, quantum scales, doesn't always correspond to our macro-scale logical expectations.

You could say that a god that creates universes creates the logical structure of those universes - in order to have structure, there must be rules of interaction, etc., but these are implicit, and not necessarily reflected in the rules that apply at emergent levels/scales, from experience of which the occupants of those universes might construct their formal logics.

It seems to me that for a god to act in some coherent and organised way, e.g. to create a structured universe, it too would need to behave according to some kind of logical rules - though not necessarily the rules familiar to us.

Yes, but that would mean God is bound by some set of rules - in which case why should he be called a God? Of course, we could say that God has a set of rules that he imposes on himself, but that would mean it's just a choice, and not something he is actually bound by. Just like how I have made a choice not to punish my daughter by spanking her - I am physically capable of doing it, and there's nothing stopping me except the fact that I have chosen not to.

In any case, my point was about the laws of logic that we have in this universe - something can't both be a thing and at the same time NOT be that thing. But there's no reason to think that God has that same limitation. God might very well be able to be X and NotX at the same time. We are bound by laws of logic that he is able to circumvent, much like a gamer using cheat codes to carry infinite ammo in a game. A character in the game might claim that it is logically impossible to carry infinite ammo, but I can manipulate the game so I am not bound by that law.

I suppose that depends on what your definition is. Miracles are usually considered to be outside or beyond physical laws; in a loose sense, that is their logical explanation. But such terms that people devise to cover their ignorance or lack of understanding are typically ill-defined and ambiguous.

I know. I was suggesting that we define a miracle as anything that is logically impossible.

I don't agree. If the definitions are mutually exclusive, then that can't be the case. Circles don't have straight sides and bachelors aren't married, by definition. You can make shapes that look like a circle from one viewpoint and a square from another, but such a shape is neither. Trying to change that is changing the nature or meaning of the things themselves, which would invalidate the concept of a miracle. It's the old irresistible force vs immovable object conundrum - they are mutually exclusive.

Yes, but that's from the perspective of someone who is bound by those laws. For a deity that is NOT bound by the laws of logic that prohibit such things, they might be the easiest things to do.

I think this is more a problem with the concept of free will. What is the definition of free will? If asking someone to force you to do something is an act of free will, why not the act itself? If you prefer to stay home and read instead of socialising, but wish you didn't, which is your free will? If you're offered a doughnut and you like doughnuts so you want to eat it, but you want to lose weight, but you're quite hungry, but you don't want to appear greedy, but you don't want to appear rude by refusing it, but you want to break your doughnut habit, but it's just a small doughnut - what's your free will?

I suggest it's just another ill-defined and ambiguous term people have invented to cover their ignorance and lack of understanding.

My post was not intended to provide definitive answers to what free will is, more to show that if God is not bound by logic, then he must be capable of doing things that to us would be logically impossible, just like the gamer using a cheat code.

 

[Tom 1]

If we say that a particular thing has certain criteria, and if a thing does not meet those criteria then it's not that type of thing, then that is indeed a statement of logic.



Not sure why you think two authors writing the same book is equivalent to the round square not being a statement about logic.

But if we say that for something the be A, then it must satisfy conditions B, C, and D, then saying, "If a thing does not meet conditions B, C, and D, then it can't possibly be an A," is a statement of logic.

If we say that a particular thing has certain criteria, and if a thing does not meet those criteria then it's not that type of thing, then that is indeed a statement of logic.

I think you can put that into a statement of logic, but the definition of a square is just its definition, that’s what a square is. In any case that is how I think about it - this is what defines a square, this other thing is what defines a circle. The point being they are two different things, by definition. One cannot be the other.

Not sure why you think two authors writing the same book is equivalent to the round square not being a statement about logic.

Same question as in a question about definitions. If a square is defined in a certain way, then what is the definition of God, and what other definitions would be relevant to the question? If we say God should be able to do this or that thing, then there needs to be a context of relevant definitions for that idea to have any substance.

 

[Tom 1]

Yeah, because it's saying that Jesus is 100% man and 100% God, and that makes him 200%, and it is logically impossible for anything to be more than 100% something.

Sure, if @46AND2 ’s question is ‘can something be 200% of something’ then no, it can’t. What I took the question to mean however is how could Jesus be both God and man, which then leads on to a set of definitions which would or would not make that possible either practically or theoretically. As the subject is God/Jesus, then the place to look for those definitions would be the bible, which doesn’t describe the whole things in terms of percentages but in various other ways.

 

[Kylie]

Sure, if @46AND2 ’s question is ‘can something be 200% of something’ then no, it can’t.

Because it's logically impossible, right?

What I took the question to mean however is how could Jesus be both God and man, which then leads on to a set of definitions which would or would not make that possible either practically or theoretically. As the subject is God/Jesus, then the place to look for those definitions would be the bible, which doesn’t describe the whole things in terms of percentages but in various other ways.

I've always taken it to mean that Jesus is entirely Human and also entirely God. That's what my (Christian) husband has taken it to mean as well.

 

[Tom 1]

So a line can't logically be round if it's part of a square. That's my point - it's logically impossible.

Ok, well I would say practically impossible, potatoes/potAtoes maybe. Maybe we don’t have the same understanding of what logic refers to. In either case we can agree I think that while the definition of a square could be changed the thing that is a square by the definitions of a square as we understand them is that and nothing else. The definitions of other things relevant to this overall discussion are less easy to pin down.

 

[Tom 1]

I've always taken it to mean that Jesus is entirely Human and also entirely God.

Yes, but what does that mean. That answer to that covers a fairly broad range of biblical concepts. If you mean something like occupying the same physical space, or something of that sort, then you’d need some other set of criteria, some sort of metaphysical manual. The bible puts it into terms of physical and spiritual bodies and their interaction, so if we’re talking about the bible and what it says, those are the relevant criteria.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, but that would mean God is bound by some set of rules - in which case why should he be called a God? Of course, we could say that God has a set of rules that he imposes on himself, but that would mean it's just a choice, and not something he is actually bound by.

Yup; but in order to formulate rules and impose them on himself, he must follow some logical reasoning process... so maybe a god (or God) is just another ill-defined and ambiguous term people have invented to cover their ignorance and lack of understanding

In any case, my point was about the laws of logic that we have in this universe - something can't both be a thing and at the same time NOT be that thing. But there's no reason to think that God has that same limitation. God might very well be able to be X and NotX at the same time. We are bound by laws of logic that he is able to circumvent, much like a gamer using cheat codes to carry infinite ammo in a game. A character in the game might claim that it is logically impossible to carry infinite ammo, but I can manipulate the game so I am not bound by that law.

I don't think that that gaming analogy is sound - having unlimited ammo limit isn't a logical contradiction, it's a change of limits. As I said, I do agree that other forms of logic are possible and that one could conceive a god bound by or operating under a different logic, but I don't know enough about formal logic to know whether a logic where X = not X is constructuve; my gut says no. In quantum mechanics, a quantum system can be in a superposition of states, e.g. spin-up and spin-down, but that's not quite the same thing.

I was suggesting that we define a miracle as anything that is logically impossible.

OK; miracles are impossible.

Yes, but that's from the perspective of someone who is bound by those laws.

It's from the perspective of someone who has made those definitions, someone who assigned their meaning. If you change the meaning, then you're talking about something else. So, you might argue that a square can become a circle on a surface of infinite curvature, where the corner angles become 180 degrees and the sides are curved into a circle; and there may a surface where a circle can be said to become a square - but in such geometries the distorted shapes no longer fit their definitions, and they can no longer coexist in the same geometry.

My post was not intended to provide definitive answers to what free will is, more to show that if God is not bound by logic, then he must be capable of doing things that to us would be logically impossible, just like the gamer using a cheat code.

It seems to me that if God acts to some purpose, he follows some logical form. Random acts might have no logical grounding, but an act, of itself, has some logic of interaction, of having an influence on the world.

But quantum mechanics has shown that some real-world behaviours that seem logically impossible to us (because our assumptions about the logic of operations in the world are limited to our everyday experience) are possible in practice.

 

[Kylie]

I think you can put that into a statement of logic, but the definition of a square is just its definition, that’s what a square is. In any case that is how I think about it - this is what defines a square, this other thing is what defines a circle. The point being they are two different things, by definition. One cannot be the other.

So, a square can be called S, and then a circle is NotS. And to say that something can't be S and at the same time NotS is a statement of logic.

Same question as in a question about definitions. If a square is defined in a certain way, then what is the definition of God, and what other definitions would be relevant to the question? If we say God should be able to do this or that thing, then there needs to be a context of relevant definitions for that idea to have any substance.

Why do you ask em to define God? At best, I'm talking about just one aspect of God, not a complete definition.

 

[Kylie]

Ok, well I would say practically impossible, potatoes/potAtoes maybe. Maybe we don’t have the same understanding of what logic refers to. In either case we can agree I think that while the definition of a square could be changed the thing that is a square by the definitions of a square as we understand them is that and nothing else. The definitions of other things relevant to this overall discussion are less easy to pin down.

I'd say logically impossible because two statements of fact about them contradict each other. Hence, a logical impossibility.