Grex Thezone Conference

Item 37: A Square Circle

Can an infinitely powerful being create a square circle?    

it's been done. There's a mathematical formula that lets you deform a circle
top, bottom, left and right. Eventually you get to where the figure will fit
all the tolerances for a square, but it is still a circle.

But the corners are never completely pointy.  If you look
closely, they're always slightly rounded.

true.
,

What's your definition of the terms "square" and "circle"?  They seem to 
be mutually exclusive.  

Good point.  No wonder it can't be done.

So what does this say about the Christian Deity?

How can God create something that goes against man's definition?  If he
can change the definition, he can create the square circle.

I believe that God can make any thing that he wants to.  If God wants
to make a square circle (which would look kind of funny) he can, because
he is creater of all things.

Or would He just work with our minds so that we would visualize a
circle as being square?

suzi, sorry for being late on a responce back.  I think that you might be right
 when you said or would he just work on our minds.  I say that thats right
because I can rember when I becam a christain. and all the things that were 
going through my mind when the speaker was speaking.  So yes I think you are
right when yousay Gos would be just working on our minds to think that a 
cricle would be a square.

THink of it this way....
Mathematical laws were created by God along with everything else....
If all of those other laws that He created have been broken in the form of
miracles, then Mathematical ones can break too....

Orin, God has nothing to do with mathematics. Math was made bty MAN to explain
certain things about the universe's orginization and workings. If something
falls outside of mathematical possibility, it's only 'cause Math is as falable
as the Humans who dreampt it up.

how can math be a *human*( invention.....take art, a human invention....if a
human thinks that something is beautiful, it is..... in the case of math
though, you can *think* that 2+2=5, but it won't be true

Circle and square, two and five. These are just explainations of things that we
see and don't understand. It would change nothing if two plus two equaled five
.

What all powerful deity would even bother doing such a silly thing?
It'd be pretty pointless, even if just to say "There, see, I can do it!"

I doubt any lesser being would be impressed, and it wouldn't have
profound implications anyways, except to maybe redefine geometry and
physics.  Once you can change the laws of nature, you can
do anything.  So, this infinitely powerful being would prove just
that - he/she/it is an infinitely powerful being.  Hoorah.

but hoagy, the point is NOT whether He would WANT to, the point is whether
he COULD

But wouldn't it be a factor of our own mental structure to have a paradox?
I think that all this anthropomorphism (whew!) about a being that is, by
defenition, way beyond anyone's comprehension, is a bit foolish.

This has nothing to do with the power of an infinitely powerful being, it's a  
question of our perseption. If circles were squares then that would be that and
we'd have one less
 shape to deal with.

the definitions of square and sircle are mutually contradictory--there *cant*
be a square circle--it would be impossible.  It's not a matter of perception
at all, it's a matter of the rules of mathematics.

what about a boxing ring?  that is a square circle (or ring) :)

The solution is already here, and perspective is the answer.

It would actually be very easy to have a square circle.  Since these items
exist without definition, and we attach our definitions.  Now, "circle" is a
concept, not a physical thing, so all you have to do is change your 
definition of what a circle is (or what a square is, it doesn't matter), then
make something that looks just a little different from a circle and define
that as a square circle.  Voila!  I love us humans, we think our ideas 
define the universe, its so ironic.

oh, if you make it a semantic issue and just change what the words mean, it's
easy.  If you take the puzzle to mean, "can an infinitely powerful being
make an object that fufills the human definition for a square and the human
definition for a circle", then it becomes a paradox

Once again human perception that makes the paradox.

The big question is "Does anyone care?" But I do. I am Christian therefore
I believe that God can do anything he wants. But I think that if we saw a
square circle we wouldn't be able to tell. It'd probably look like a square
with the corners filed down or something.

that would be niehter a square nor a circle, but something else entirely, snaf

The truth is that we live in a realm called 'reality'.  In this realm things
happen, and they happen consistently.  So we make definitions, and we study
physics, and chemistry, and biology, etc... because things follow a certain
pattern, and there a cause-effect relationship for things (I don't necessarily
believe this, but everyone else, except David Hume, seems to).  So if God were 
to create a square-circle, and in theory, he should be able to, then we'd 
probably look at it and promptly go completely mad, because it would 
challenge everything we know, and all our experience.
It's the same idea as: if aliens landed on this planet, we'd all go mad,
because they would be 'alien', and therefore, beyond our understanding.
I'm tangenting, I'll be quiet now.

I agree 100% on the alien thing, and on the reality thing

Thank you!  (finally)

I think we just need a better question, maybe something like:

Can God(s) create a paradox the s/he cannot slove?

really the basic idea here is can God(s) do something that they cannot do?
seems to me that isn't the important part, let's assume that they can do
something that they cannot do, now, do they understand what they have done?
and just what *is* Spam made of anyway? while we're at it. :)

Again that assumes that God is omnipotent, but given that assumption...

ok, one step further then..  Since humans created god in the first place it

seems to me it would be up to humans to define what god can or can't do.

my personal belief is that, yes, God is merely a useful theory created by
humanity.  But, given the biblical definition of God, in which He creates
us and not vice versa...

ppl this is not the religon item, it all depends on definition and
perspective, none of us maybe can imagine such things  but depending on
definiton and perspective it probably is possible

in a philosiphy class my brother took one time, a philosipher said
(i don't remember whick one) that everything that a human can emmagin
must exist , but if we can not immagin it it could not exist; there fore if

we can immagin a God then he/she/it must exist.

so the challange now is to imagine the big rock!

we can imagine God, so (s)he exists
we can imagine the lack of god, so (s)he doesn't exist

I can imagine $1,000,000.00.. the problem is I can't seem to find it.

 :-)

Re # whatever :


        The point of a god making a circle, which is square,
yet retains the properties of both isn't valid.  It's not valid
whatsoever.

        Can God make a being who is alive, but dead at the same
time?

        Can God make fire which is really water?

        Can God make up really down?

        Can God do whatever it is we want him to do, just
to test his power and might?  

        what the hell is the point?????  It's no longer a matter
of "Yeah, God can do it!"  It's now a matter of "Why is God
wasting his/her time???  We get the message!"
This isn't my proclamation of belief in a higher power, but my
profession that any higher power who is actually paying attention
to this rather inane debate is laughing at the utter silliness
of it all.

        And, let's attack this "it's a matter of perspective"
rebuttal.

        Everything is a matter of perspective.  One person sees
a bum ; another sees someone down on their luck.  Someone sees
a glass which is half-full....yeah, you know the rest.  It all
is up to the individual interpretations which make things interesting.
Why do you think people can actually kill one another when someone says
"There is a God.", and the other says "No there isn't!"?  The power
of suggestion is just that - power. 

        When we start to distort reality, our reality, the one where
we live, by interjecting self-defined laws of physics and so on,
we create an alternate-reality.  You might be the only one living
in that alternate reality, but to you, it's all real.  A green
house is also red.  A one-dollar bill is also a one-hundred dollar bill.
It is now a matter of perspective.  What matters is no longer what
is accepted as fact ; it's what you believe to be fact.  Your fact,
in your world.  See how warped things can get?  When you lose touch with
reality and start changing physical laws, this reality no longer matters.
Therefore, asking questions in this reality to justify another
is pointless.

        

md would be proud....

<Eldrich decides that god (or whatever) is imnipotent and that there for he
doesn't care> The  question is: Can god wordwrap!

hoagy your questions...
can God make a being that is alive, but is dead at the same time?
        God was a being that was alive, but was dead at the same time... 
Jesus the Christ
#2 can God make fire that is really water? ( i can't spell to save my life
so please excuse me if i spell this wrong) a gyser examples old faithful
in yellow stone national park.
#3 can God make up really down? the south pole if your standing on the south
pole and looking up is that not actually looking down?

just a few thoughts

How did old faithful get to be fire and water at the same time? 

fire and water in near proximity is not the same as one object being both...
and "up" is relative to the earth's gravity.
/

I guess up would be down on the south pole as seen from some one on the north  
pole. Exsactly how I don't know but...

        We can't take seriously the claim that Jesus was alive
yet dead.  That's a matter of even more debate.  We cant' solve an 
issue of theory by using even more theory.  In order to make this
debate factual, or at least, believable, we gotta stick with things
which are a bit less esoteric.
        A gyser isn't fire.  It's very hot water.  Not fire, water.
Not the same thing.
        "up" and "down" are relative to our disposition.  But, due
to gravity, we are not down when we're up, and vice versae.
        The questions I posed are paradoxes - making something possible
by doing something else, which counteracts the second order by the
first, etc etc.
        

        Is this the paradox cf or the theology cf?

        The use of logic excludes leaps of faith such as we find in
        all religions.....

        A paradox which is limited to logic is something like this:

        If nothing moves faster than the speed of light, and you are
        driving your car at the speed of light and you turn on your
        head lights, do they work?

        _____________________________________________________________

hokshila--the point of the paradox as i brought it us was to demostrate just
that--that religious belief tends to require some sort of 'leap of faith'.

Incidentally, your paradox is just as bad really, because it includes the
false assumption that a car can move ta the speed of light, but we'll let that
slide :)

You've dont it again. Why would anyone want to make a circle that is a square
or vice versa ? I'm numbed by your myriad justifications on why and how of
the whole proposition, but I cant seem to rationalise .  Need more help
please.

Nistel--this has been raised as an objection here many times.  The issue is
not whether it is desirable, but whether it is possible.

An easier way to phrase it:
Can an all-powerful being do 'impossible' things?
On the one hand, some things are forbidden by definition.  A circle, by
definition, cannot have four corners and four straight and equal sides.
On the other hand, an all-powerful being should, by definition, be able to
do *anything*.

Has anyone thought of the fact that "normal" (I.E. Human) rules don't apply
to an all powerful being? Or may not? Dunno, but I don't think that humans
and *Insert diety/all powerful being of choice* have the same limitations...

And also, has anyone checked the dictionary recently? I don't remember if this
came up before, but I do believe that the dictionary definition of a circle
is: (this isn't a direct quote) A geometric figure where all points are an
equal distance away from the center.... And a square: (again, not a direct
quote...) A geometric figure with 4 sides, all the same length, connected at
right angles... 
Anyway, those are MAN'S (meaning human, not to be sexist) rules... Once again,
*Insert diety/all powerful being of choice* may or may not work by human
rules.. Who says a square is a square to him/her/it? 

And yes, I may have contradicted myself many times in those statements, but
I thought they were all interesting, so I presented them all.

Circle          A closed plane curve such that all of its points are
equidistant from a point within called its *center*
Square          A parallelogram having four equal sides and four right angles.

Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, Unabridged

Snafu--Clarify please?  Do you think an omnipotent being has a different
meaning for the word *square*--for example, using the word *square* to refer
to what we mortals would call a circle?
Do you think that an omnipotent being could create a square circle even within
humanity's rules?  For example, setting up a situation in which there exists
"A parallelogram having four equal sides and right angles, such that all its
points are equidistant from its center".

Either way, sith all due respect, you're wrong.  The first case is just a
quibble about words.  You can *call* it whatever you want.  The *name* you
give to something doesn't change what it *is*.  The second case is still
an impossibility, but a bit more complicated.  The idea that mathematical
rules are created by humanity and therefore don't apply to an omnipotent being
is just not true.  The rules of mathematics are too inconvenient to be created
by humanity--we can't just decide that 2+2=5, and have that be the case.  2+2
has equalled four since before there were humans around to understand that
fact.

More dimensions?

Yes I realize that some of humanities rules, when applied to the 3 dimensional
view in which we see things, are quite unbreakable to anyone. However, they
all relate to only the factors which we can fathom. Who says that whatever
omnipotent being we're talking about can't see a 4th, or 5th, or 6th,
dimension, which can affect 2+2 and make it equal 5? I personally do not
believe that Humanity and the omnipotent view things on the same level. The
basis of a good deal of religion is the fact that God is more powerful, God
can see more, God can do more. Why does he have to be restricted to human
view? and as for the square and the circle, they are the same no matter what
you call them, using the human laws... Who's to say there isn't a part of a
square that sits in the 5th dimension, where we can't see it and add it to
the definitions? But the omnipotent could see it, therefore, a square could
be different to him/her/it then it is to us...

snafu--dammit, you just don't get it do you?  Part of the number two which
extends into the fourth dimension?  Numbers are abstract concepts!  You could
have *two objects* which extend into the fourth dimension, but there would
still be two of them.  
As for 'part of a square that sits in the fifth dimension', a square is a
plane figure.  Two-dimensional!  You could have an object that looks
square-shaped, but really extended into other dimensions, but then it wouldn't
be a square!
As for scott's remark, what I assume he was referring to was the possibility
that we are living in a curved universe.  I unfortunately do not have the
mathematical skill to prove or disprove that one.

As I mentioned earlier, there are two many side issues to confuse this
question.  A better one would be 'can an omnipotent being do impossible
things.'  Not 'improbably things', not 'things that humans cannot do', not
'things that we can't think of a way to do'.  Impossible.

I never said that there woould be more or less than two... I said there might
be something, sortof like an exponet, and it may sit somewhere that wer can't
decipher it... and How do we know a square is completly planar? It's planar
in relation to 3 dimensions... but we can't see the 4th, or 5thm, so we can't
tell whether or not it is planar in 4 or 5D...

I will repeat my prior comment, as you seem not to have seen it the first time
around...<calms himself down before the ad hominem police come to haul him
away>

An object that looks square shaped to us may well extend into the fourth or
fifth dimension, but if it did so it would not be a square.  It would be an
object that looks square-shaped from one point of view, but not a square. 
Part of the definition of a square is that it is a plane figure, and hence
does not extend anywhere beyond a two-dimennsional plane.  (Actually, if you
want to be picky, the 'plane figure' part of the definition is given under
quadrilateral in my trusty Webster's, but a square is a kind of quadrilateral)

So, to summarize, if it extended into the fourth or fifth dimension, it
wouldn't be a square.

I will grant you that it is possible to make an object that has a circular
cross-section in one direction, and a square cross-section in another.  A
cylinder, for instance, looks round from above and square from one side.  But
if the question were 'can God make an object that is round in one direction
and square in another', then the question is trivial.  Of course God can make
an object that is round in one direction and square in another - *I* can make
such an object myself.  So the question has to be 'can God make an object that
is both round and square *in the same direction*', otherwise it is a trivial
question.

True, and I'm going to stop pressing my point, until I find a better way of
putting it... as a final whatever, how this: How do we know that there are
ANY plane figures? They could be non-existant... Ah well... 

Snafu--it is true that a perfectly 2-dimensional object cannot actually exist,
if that is what you mean.  

I will rephrase the question then, for all you nitpickers.
"Can an all-powerful being do literally anything, or would s/he/it be
constrained by the laws of logic just like everyone else?"

Well, it depends on who's logic your using... I for one, do not use logic...
but I'm probably constrained by it all the same... And he/she/it COULD do
anything, unconstrained by the laws of logic, because he/she/it created those
laws, or being omnipotent, could bend them to his/her/its will....

snafu--well, you don't have to be *logical*, but you are constrained by the
laws of logic in that you cannot create impossible things.  

But what is impossible? Just because something is impossible for a large
percentage of the human population, does it mean it's impossible? r is it just
not possible for that group to do it... Does it mean if it's impossible if
all humans can't do it? What about the dolfins?

dolphins can do it but refuse to explain. Also they want to know why we keep
dumping our shit in their "air". This, they do not understand.
So long and thanks for all the fish....

Ignoring that last for the time being..though it is a good point.
There is a differendce, my dear snafu, between something that humans can't
do and something that is *impossible*.  Humans can't fly unaided, but it does
not contradict the laws of physics, logic, etc., that *birds* are able to do
i, hence it is not impossible.  What is impossible is somehting like making
energy from nowhere.  

But what about the things that scientists have declared impossible? going past
the speed of light? At least, I think they said that was impossible...

Alright.  I will grant you that our understanding of the laws of physics might
be flawed, that there might be some way of exceeding th3e speed of light that
we are not aware of.  But surely you will admit that *some* things are
forbidden by the actual laws of physics (as opposed to our possibly mistaken
perception of them)

Very true.. I never sad that everything we've declared impossible is really
possible... just maybe some...

So, do you belive an omnipotent being could do one of those things that
*really are* impossible?

Yes... (for the time being, I'm going to use the Christian God, since that's
what I know, and it's simple) If God created the world, he must have created
the laws of physics which govern the world... Therefor, if he ever felt the
need to creat something which is impossible by our laws of physics, he could
change them... Therefor, the laws of physics and math do not apply to God,
because he can change them at will... There... I've been simple and direct...
ain't you proud orin?

Just because He's *created* the world doesn't mean he *controls* it. 

Touche... and I thought we had it narrowed down to the question "do you
believve in the impossible?" Oh well...

Indeed we have...I'm still working on that bit with the laws of logic being
inviolate...just give me some time.

Well, I see that over a year has passed and the question is still not
answered.  I can better understand the question, if I know the real
reason behind the question.

Nowhere in the Bible do I see that God is referred to as omnipotent.  So the
question is moot.  Like ancient theologians who debated about how many angels
could dance on the head of a pin, we  merely attempt to make a pointless 
philosophical point.

If the purpose of the question is to discredit God, it falls far short of its
intent.  The Bible  writings in Romans chap 11, verse 33 read thus,"Oh the
depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!  How unsearchable
are his judgements, and his ways are past finding out.".

Actually, kenton, a while back we did re-define the question.  (And no, I'm
not attempting to discredit your God or any other; if I ask obnoxious
questions like this, it's out of curiousity as to other peoples' beliefs, not
the desire to start a fight or insult people)

So, anyway, I think we settled on "Are the 'laws of logic' universal; or is
it that they were invented by humans, and some other being could ignore them
or see them completely differently?"  Really, the question is not one about
the nature of God, but one about the nature of logic, at least as I see it.

I guess I missed the redefinition of the question.  And I truly don't
understand the rephrased question.  What are the "laws of logic"?  Based on
the orignial question, this one does not seem logical. :-)

<laughs>

Okay, I guess my re-phrasing was a bit more misleading than I intended it to
be.

Okay, take "2 + 2 = 4", or "the shortest distance betewen two points on a
plane is a straight line along that plane", or "if all mammals bear live
young, and this animal doesn't bear live young, it must not be a mammal"  To
our way of thinking, these are all true things.  The question is, would a
being more powerful than a human, perhaps even an all-powerful being, see them
as true?  Or would an 'higher being' be able to make 2 + 2 equal 5 if
he/she/it so chose?

I think Elbert Einstein  said something like, "God doesn't play dice with the
universe".

Doesn't the duckbilled platypus lay eggs?  Its a mammal, right?

Your question is interesting.  Does God have rules which govern his actions?

In the Old Testament there were two incidents in which God changed the time.
Once the sun was caused to stand still and the other he caused the shadow to
move backwards on the sundial.

Perhaps you wonder why I repeatedly refer to the Bible and to God.  It is
because I can't envision a hypothetical supreme being.  I believe the Bible is
true.  Not a literal truth, understand.......although certainly much has been
proven to be historically (and literally) true.

Hmm...
Okay, you caught me on the platypus one.  I'll have to be more careful.
I'm familiar with the Einstien quote, and I think I might have some clue how
it's relevant, but a bit more elucidation would be nice.

I have no problem with your Biblical references...as long as you don't start
arguing from it as The Truth, or trying to force it on me, I love the book
just as much as you do :)

I guess Einstein believed in complete order, with nothing left to chance. 
If I were a god, I would leave somethings to chancce just to make things
interesting and unpredictable.

<laughs>

Remind me to appoint you as Head Deity, if I ever find myself in charge of
that decision.

• Read the next item
• Go to the menu of items for the Thezone conference
• Go to the list of conferences
• Go to the opening screen