Can God Do What Is Logically Impossible?

[YmirGF]

Interesting post, Paul. I agree with much of it, although the part I've quoted gives me pause. I was curious whether you were reasoning something like this:

God is omnipotent
God can do anything
Hence god can create a logical impossibility -- such as a square circle.

Assuming god wanted to, of course.

As I have heard God explained over the years, yes, that is a fairly accurate analysis.
Do I believe it? No, not for a second.

 

[Sunstone]

Do I believe it? No, not for a second.

Yeah, me neither.

 

[YmirGF]

Yeah, me neither.

Personally, I've always loved, "Can god make a rock so large that even he cannot move it?"
*brain implodes*

"Ouch"

 

[David T]

Now and then I've hear someone claim that god can do what is logically impossible*. The claim interests me, but -- so far as I can recall -- it is almost always made as a mere assertion, and without any rational attempt to demonstrate why it might be true. Consequently, I am starting this thread in part to see if anyone is willing to offer a rational basis for believing the claim is true.

A second, closely related question, is whether -- if god could do what is logically impossible -- would god be nonsensical?

This second question I would like to briefly address here. It seems to me that, if god could do what is logically impossible, god would be nonsensical.

Now, if god can do what is logically impossible, then god can create a square circle, a married bachelor, a beach ball that is not itself, and so forth -- all logical contradictions. But it doesn't stop there. God could also create a universe that both exists and does not exist, and god could even arrange that god both exists and does not exist. And god could then bring it about that he cannot do the logically impossible while at the same time doing the logically impossible. Of course, this would mean he could do all of that -- create a square circle, a married bachelor, etc, etc -- while not existing and being incapable of doing the impossible.

All of which, in my opinion, would reduce god to nonsense.

But what do you think?

1) Can god do what is logically impossible? Why or why not?

2) If god could do what is logically impossible, would god be nonsensical? Why or why not?​

___________________________

*A concept is logically impossible if there are inherent self-contradictions or necessary truths opposed to it. It is, in other words, a concept which is logically impossible to be true -- such as a square circle, or a married bachelor.

Now to be careful, I certainly do not mean by "logically impossible" anything along the lines of god doing what is merely illogical. "Logically impossible" and "illogical" are two very different birds. Logically impossible would be something like create a square circle. Illogical would be something like act in a non-logical manner. Obviously, god could act in a non-logical manner without doing the logically impossible.

well we are a part of nature so it should be logically impossible to actually perceive we are not nature and perceive we are literally separate from nature. yet that seems to be the default view we trend towards. Do you mean can God walk on water, raise people from the dead including himself etc? It's like asking can God not be God? Can nature not be nature? Nature certainly can create fantasy make believe that it's not nature, thats called intellectualizing and something we excel at!!! Usually one receives a PhD and teaches at universities if they are really good at it.

 

[Kemosloby]

Of course God could do that..The square evolved into a circle...this took billions and billions of years.

 

[Super Universe]

I'm not ready to dive in just yet tonight, but I do want to point out: anyone who says there is "human logic" and then "God's logic" is contradicting themselves. Logic is logic, it is ontological, it is necessary, but most importantly it is transcendental and incorrigible: suggesting its non-existence or that it isn't indelible or that there are ways around it require its use in order to suggest, which is as absurd as stating with words (and expecting them to have meaning), "I doubt that words have meaning."

There is no "God's logic" vs "human logic," there is just logic -- which God obeys as well as anything else, because logic is the essence of limitation, and limitation is what it means to exist. So if God exists, then God is a being of the same logic as the rest of the universe: A = A, A v ¬A, ¬(A ^ ¬A)

Logic is not truth. It's also not what makes sense to you because what does not make sense to you today can make sense to you tomorrow. What is accepted as logical evolves as a species evolves and what is accepted as universally true to one group is not accepted to be universally true to another.

A tribe in the Amazon rain forest might believe that spirits cause sickness. There is nothing you can say to them to change their minds. To them it is obvious and accepted. If you try to tell them that humans have gone to the moon they will not believe you.

God is not logic and neither is the universe. Some aspects of the universe are "logical", others are not. You could say the dual slit experiment defies logic. Children are not "logical" but the universe allows them to exist.

 

[Rise]

What other people say doesnt matter what matters is what God had revealed to us about Himself, as recorded in the Bible.

In there we see there are two things God cannot do. He cannot lie, and He cannot die. Because He is life and truth, and cannot stop being who He is.

So it is established that God does not violate His character, which would be a kind of "logical impossibility" as you put it.

However, the premise of your question is flawed because it doesn't recognizd God as creator, but instead sees Him as constrained by what He created. Since God is the creator of all, it is He who decided to make a differentiation in form between the circle and the square. To us it is impossible to violate the logical structure of the universe that God created, but it would be wrong for us to assume that God could not have created a different logical structure for the universe if He wanted to, or could not recreate the universe with a new logical structure.

The fundamental flaw in your premise is assuming that God is constrained by the principles of the universe that He laid out to begin with.
The only way we can say for sure such things would not be possible is if they violated God's character.
We know He is one who establishes order, but I don't believe we can say what we see now is the only way He could have chosen to express order.
We only see our world's principles as the only right and possible expression of logical order because for us we have no ability to change it or even design an alternative.

 

[QuestioningMind]

What other people say doesnt matter what matters is what God had revealed to us about Himself, as recorded in the Bible.

In there we see there are two things God cannot do. He cannot lie, and He cannot die. Because He is life and truth, and cannot stop being who He is.

So it is established that God does not violate His character, which would be a kind of "logical impossibility" as you put it.

However, the premise of your question is flawed because it doesn't recognizd God as creator, but instead sees Him as constrained by what He created. Since God is the creator of all, it is He who decided to make a differentiation in form between the circle and the square. To us it is impossible to violate the logical structure of the universe that God created, but it would be wrong for us to assume that God could not have created a different logical structure for the universe if He wanted to, or could not recreate the universe with a new logical structure.

The fundamental flaw in your premise is assuming that God is constrained by the principles of the universe that He laid out to begin with.
The only way we can say for sure such things would not be possible is if they violated God's character.
We know He is one who establishes order, but I don't believe we can say what we see now is the only way He could have chosen to express order.
We only see our world's principles as the only right and possible expression of logical order because for us we have no ability to change it or even design an alternative.

Which God, which bible, and who gets to decide what God is 'revealing' in this bible? And what evidence do you have that your assertions about the God, the bible, and the revelations contained within it are correct?

 

[Rise]

Which God, which bible, and who gets to decide what God is 'revealing' in this bible? And what evidence do you have that your assertions about the God, the bible, and the revelations contained within it are correct?

I am not entirely sure what you are asking. Are you saying you don't believe what I posted is consistent with what the Bible says about God?

 

[Ponder This]

Now and then I've hear someone claim that god can do what is logically impossible*. The claim interests me, but -- so far as I can recall -- it is almost always made as a mere assertion, and without any rational attempt to demonstrate why it might be true. Consequently, I am starting this thread in part to see if anyone is willing to offer a rational basis for believing the claim is true.

A second, closely related question, is whether -- if god could do what is logically impossible -- would god be nonsensical?

This second question I would like to briefly address here. It seems to me that, if god could do what is logically impossible, god would be nonsensical.

Now, if god can do what is logically impossible, then god can create a square circle, a married bachelor, a beach ball that is not itself, and so forth -- all logical contradictions. But it doesn't stop there. God could also create a universe that both exists and does not exist, and god could even arrange that god both exists and does not exist. And god could then bring it about that he cannot do the logically impossible while at the same time doing the logically impossible. Of course, this would mean he could do all of that -- create a square circle, a married bachelor, etc, etc -- while not existing and being incapable of doing the impossible.

All of which, in my opinion, would reduce god to nonsense.

But what do you think?

1) Can god do what is logically impossible? Why or why not?

2) If god could do what is logically impossible, would god be nonsensical? Why or why not?​

___________________________

*A concept is logically impossible if there are inherent self-contradictions or necessary truths opposed to it. It is, in other words, a concept which is logically impossible to be true -- such as a square circle, or a married bachelor.

Now to be careful, I certainly do not mean by "logically impossible" anything along the lines of god doing what is merely illogical. "Logically impossible" and "illogical" are two very different birds. Logically impossible would be something like create a square circle. Illogical would be something like act in a non-logical manner. Obviously, god could act in a non-logical manner without doing the logically impossible.

The more pertinent question: Is God limited only to what we imagine to be possible?

It may be that God cannot do the logically impossible, but people have a difficult time differentiating the logically impossible from what they simply imagine not to be possible. But, it's not impossible simply because you imagine it to be impossible. This is the dilemma.

 

[Willamena]

Now and then I've hear someone claim that god can do what is logically impossible*. The claim interests me, but -- so far as I can recall -- it is almost always made as a mere assertion, and without any rational attempt to demonstrate why it might be true. Consequently, I am starting this thread in part to see if anyone is willing to offer a rational basis for believing the claim is true.

A second, closely related question, is whether -- if god could do what is logically impossible -- would god be nonsensical?

This second question I would like to briefly address here. It seems to me that, if god could do what is logically impossible, god would be nonsensical.

Now, if god can do what is logically impossible, then god can create a square circle, a married bachelor, a beach ball that is not itself, and so forth -- all logical contradictions. But it doesn't stop there. God could also create a universe that both exists and does not exist, and god could even arrange that god both exists and does not exist. And god could then bring it about that he cannot do the logically impossible while at the same time doing the logically impossible. Of course, this would mean he could do all of that -- create a square circle, a married bachelor, etc, etc -- while not existing and being incapable of doing the impossible.

All of which, in my opinion, would reduce god to nonsense.

But what do you think?

1) Can god do what is logically impossible? Why or why not?

2) If god could do what is logically impossible, would god be nonsensical? Why or why not?​

___________________________

*A concept is logically impossible if there are inherent self-contradictions or necessary truths opposed to it. It is, in other words, a concept which is logically impossible to be true -- such as a square circle, or a married bachelor.

Now to be careful, I certainly do not mean by "logically impossible" anything along the lines of god doing what is merely illogical. "Logically impossible" and "illogical" are two very different birds. Logically impossible would be something like create a square circle. Illogical would be something like act in a non-logical manner. Obviously, god could act in a non-logical manner without doing the logically impossible.

What is logically impossible cannot, by definition, be done. So the question of whether it is nonsensical if done is moot.

 

[Mister Silver]

When it comes to the capability of god, I am always reminded of Epicurus.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

 

[QuestioningMind]

I am not entirely sure what you are asking. Are you saying you don't believe what I posted is consistent with what the Bible says about God?

I'm saying that there is more than one recognized God, more than one recognized bible, and more than one recognized way of interpreting any given bible. Until you indicate which god, bible, and interpretation you're talking about, your post makes little sense.

 

[sun rise]

Hi Sunrise! Thanks for a very interesting post!
...
I'm not following here how a non-derivable truth could lead to the claim god is able to do what is logically impossible -- such as create a square circle. Could you help me out a bit?

...
So far as I know, there are at least two kinds of randomness. Randomness can refer to a hypothetically spontaneous event, and it can also refer to non-spontaneous, caused event that is (for one reason or another) unpredictable. The second sense of randomness is far and away the most used, but it is often conflated with the first sense. Perhaps you are doing that here. In human evolution, random mutations are of the second kind -- caused but unpredictable. They are not of the first kind -- genuinely spontaneous and uncaused.

But looking beyond that, I'm still a bit confused here. I'm not seeing how either kind of random event could result in a logical impossibility -- such as a married bachelor.



Absolutely! But again, that does not seem to me at least to address the issue of whether god could do what is logically impossible. Although something can be true even if it does not follow logic, the issue of whether something can be true if it is logically impossible is an entirely different matter.



Gettier problems are special cases used in epistemology to demonstrate that we need something more than a justified true belief for a belief to be considered genuine knowledge. Unless you're seeing something I'm not seeing, they have no relevance to the issue of whether a god can do what is logically impossible.

I think it's possible that my OP somehow mislead you into confusing "logically impossible" with "illogical", and that you have been answering the question, "Can god do what is illogical", rather than the question, "Can god do what is logically impossible". Those are two very different issues.

You used the general term 'logical' in a somewhat ambiguous way to me. "squaring the circle" is not a real question in either case of your last paragraph.

So my response was to attack the very notion of the value of logic as a universal principle which is always true.

 

[sun rise]

The more pertinent question: Is God limited only to what we imagine to be possible?

It may be that God cannot do the logically impossible, but people have a difficult time differentiating the logically impossible from what they simply imagine not to be possible. But, it's not impossible simply because you imagine it to be impossible. This is the dilemma.

That's a better post than the one I did. We tend to measure God by our own human yardstick.

 

[sun rise]

When it comes to the capability of god, I am always reminded of Epicurus.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

If I were a dog and was taken somewhere where I endured great pain, I could easily wonder why I had so much pain. Why didn't my human protect me from that pain. I would have no way of knowing that I had been taken to a vet to treat a serious illness and had to have surgery.

We assume that our beliefs about good and evil are the ultimate truth. The Epicurus quote certainly does that.

 

[Willamena]

If I were a dog and was taken somewhere where I endured great pain, I could easily wonder why I had so much pain. Why didn't my human protect me from that pain. I would have no way of knowing that I had been taken to a vet to treat a serious illness and had to have surgery.

We assume that our beliefs about good and evil are the ultimate truth. The Epicurus quote certainly does that.

As a human, you could/would wonder that.

 

[Mister Silver]

If I were a dog and was taken somewhere where I endured great pain, I could easily wonder why I had so much pain. Why didn't my human protect me from that pain. I would have no way of knowing that I had been taken to a vet to treat a serious illness and had to have surgery.

We assume that our beliefs about good and evil are the ultimate truth. The Epicurus quote certainly does that.

Yet the dog has a reference point upon which to focus in understanding the pain is coming from a real place, the veterinarian who is directly interacting with the dog in a realistic setting.

If I'm the dog and god is supposed to be the veterinarian, the analogy does not work because I have no way of directly interacting with a god that does not physically show himself to me within the reality that I perceive.

 

[Grandliseur]

then god can create a square circle, a married bachelor, a beach ball that is not itself, and so forth -- all logical contradictions.

Meat and potatoes, is what it is about, not insanity.
What is - is; what is not - isn't.

A while back, I realized something that in a small way may be true.
When I write an Excell sheet full of equations and calculation, (or google sheet), the program follows our mathematical rules, and our programming. While it now can calculate faster then we can, nonetheless, it is our programming it runs. It cannot do otherwise if it is free of bugs.

When a person, scientists, or normal person, uses his logic in a rational manner - s/he is using logic programmed into that mind by God. Thus all our accomplishments, musical ones, physics, chemistry, mathematical ones, and even buildings of extreme accomplishments - nothing new is accomplished. All is working by means of the underlying programming provided. The ones who work by perfect logic and rationality, and facts, would then in a sense be mimicking God's own workings in a minor way since we are only images, not the real thing.

So while God could put a pyramid greater than any Egyptian one down in your neighborhood if he wanted, he has no reason to do so, and therefore doesn't. That fact is demonstrated by the change in the earth that happened in the deluge. Mountains that until then stood no higher than about 2 plus miles, now went as high as Everest, seas that were shallow now went miles deep.

However, making a circle that is also a square is a contradiction in terms, it is irrational. God is not irrational. As to a married bachelor, I seem to be one. I am married, but my wife is deeply ill at a hospital for some time now. So, do I qualify as such?! Kind of - right.

 

[Rise]

and more than one recognized way of interpreting any given bible.

This takes me back to what I asked you. You are implying that my outline of what the Bible says about God is not true, or at the very least that these Biblical facts are open to equally legitimate interpretations and therefore we can't say what's true. But you have given no evidence that the Biblical facts I gave are not a true and accurate understanding of the text, or offered any examples of how the text could legitimately be understood to mean something else without either being said to be more true than the other.

So your assertion is baseless. You're making a claim about my post that you can't back up.