God can't make square circles.

1. Apr 4, 2004

I am not very well versed in math, but I do have some idea, would this theorem be correct?

Basis Step:
x is an element of the universal set. In other words, you could say that the number 5 is an element of N(the set of natural numbers), and it is also in the set of R (the set of Real Numbers)
However, 5.2134... Is not an element of N, but it is still an element of R. The set of R is uncountably infinite, the set of N is countably infinite.

For every x, x is an element of the Universal Set.
The Universal Set is the set of all possiblities and impossibilities.
A is a subset of U, consisting of all the possibilities.
The empty set O is a subset of U, consisting of no elements.
x is an element of A and U, since A is a subset of U.
For every x that is an element of A, can be performed.
God has the power to do everything in set A.
God is omnipotent, because there is no element x in the set in which God cannot do.
Hence, x is an onto function of God, under the set of A.
Since x is true for everything, then there is nothing God cannot do in Set A.
For god, he can do Ax e A.
Therefore, God is omnipotent.

P.S. Logic is not restrained by human thinking.

God cannot make a square circle. It's logically impossible. That doesn't limit his power, because his power is limitless, and infinite, in the set of possibilites.

2. Apr 4, 2004

3. Apr 4, 2004

Chen

4. Apr 4, 2004

Im referring to the fact of when people say that 'god' can do anything, possible or impossible which isnt true.

5. Apr 4, 2004

Janitor

In something I once read, it was mentioned in passing that the logician Kurt Godel devised some sort of supposed proof of God's existence. I don't think anybody in his circle of colleagues (which included Einstein) took it too seriously.

6. Apr 5, 2004

olde drunk

why would god change the definition of words just to prove s/he/it existed. a circle is a circle and a square is a square. i have enought trouble understanding what people are talking about. now you want god to use the words circle and square and have them mean sumtin different??? if that happened, i'd tell s/he/it to shape up.

peace,

7. Apr 11, 2004

Scott Sieger

of course "God" can make a circle in to a square or a square into a circle but to have both simultaneously out of the one object would be a state of self delusion......

I can for instance imagine a circle into a square but I would never call a circle a square.

this reminds me of an old Hindi riddle or Brahham riddle ....I can't recall.which.

The challenge was to imagine a sphere with a sphere inside and then visualise the inner sphere expanding to fill the outer sphere and shrink to nothing simultaneously......

It said that to take this riddle seiously is a test of ones sanity.....

Thus a circle into a square and maintained as both simultaneously as one object is such a test.

Last edited: Apr 11, 2004
8. May 1, 2004

the_truth

This is more of a case of your incapability to comprehend a square circle due to the fact that you have been indoctrinated to this universe's laws.

9. May 5, 2004

alpha_wolf

Regardless of the existance or lack thereof of god, what is a square in one geormtry, can easily be a circle in another. In fact, if you take a circle in cartesian 2D, and transform it into shifted polar coordinates, you'd get a square. That is basic calculus. Similarly, what is a sphere in cartesian space is a cube in spherical coordinate space.

10. May 5, 2004

NateTG

I don't want to get involved in discussions about dog, I can make a square circle:

A circle is a set of points that are all equidistant from the center of the circle $$c$$.

If you use the absolute value metric so that the distance between two points $$\vec{a}=<x_a,y_a>$$ and $$\vec{b}=<x_b,y_b>$$ is equal to $$\max(|x_b-x_a|,|y_b-y_a|)$$, and then you take the circle of radius 1 about the origin, you will get a square.

11. May 5, 2004

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Put up a picture of that. You don't seem to have made a square.

12. May 5, 2004

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
By the way, if you are going to say that God can only do that which is logically possible, you're going to run into a whole new set of problems if you accept the traditional theistic definition of "God."

God is said to exist outside of space and time, and yet he has some sort of causal relation to these. Action would seem to require at least temporal extent, if not necessarily spatial extent, so how does God act if he has no temporal extent? If God cannot act, how does he cause anything in space/time?

If you can get past that, you run into this: God is said to be omniscience of the past, present, and future. This means that he knows every action he will every take. Yet he is also said to be completely free. How can this be? If he has foreknowledge of his future actions, then he cannot act otherwise. If his future actions are restricted solely to one set of actions that has already been determined, that is not freedom.

If you get past that, you run into the problem with God being completely good and incapable of evil. Religious apologists claim the existence of evil is justified because in order to be free, a given being must be able to choose either a good or evil act. If God cannot choose an evil act, then he is not free under the apologist's own definition. If the apologist insists that God can be free even though he is incapable of evil, then he must concede that a human can be free under the same circumstances, negating the justification of evil. Then you run back into the problem of the existence of evil.

It is also said that beings are good, not because their actions are good, but because they choose these good actions. We don't refer to a dialysis machine as good because it is helping to improve the lives of diabetics. It might be doing a good thing, but it isn't good. If God is not making a choice, if he does good because that is all he can do, then he is not good under our common definition.

Anyway, that's just a small sample of the issues you would need to work out. Personally, I feel that it would be better, if you insist on holding a positive belief in a deity, to make no attempt at pigeonholing it into an illogical definition. You may as well just concede that you have no idea what such a being would be like if it should exist.