Can God make a triangular where the angles add to other than 180 degrees?

[blü 2]

Everything is undefined until we define it.

Not quite. Objective reality exists, and the world external to the individual is what reality is. The tree is real ─ an instance of the category 'tree' ─ whether between ourselves we signify it by saying 'tree' or 'arbre' or 'Baum' or any of the thousands of other words in the world's languages that signify the real object or as here, the category of the real object.

A tree is still a tree when there's no one around to say so, in whatever language or by whatever unspoken thought. Its existence is independent of any observer.

And you're refusing to consider defining it for yourself doesn't change anything.

Calling it a tree, arbre, Baum, doesn't change its category, no. It's still what it was.

From the cradle, humans categorize intuitively, know the difference between 'this tree' (real, particular) and 'a tree' (category, abstraction). I dare say animals have evolved to do that because it works when you're dealing with the world external to you.

We don't imagine that world, we don't create it by imagining it. It exists independently of the observer. The tree that falls in the forest vibrates the air and creates sound, whether anyone or any recording instrument is around to notice at the time, so phooey to George Berkeley.

The possibility remains, both for you to define it and for God to exist. And as with all possibilities, that affords us options that we can use to our advantage. There's nothing clever in refusing to explore this possibility.

Define what? What real thing is a 'god'? As far as I can tell, the evidence that God exists ONLY as a concept / thing imagined by an individual brain, is overwhelming. God (a) never appears, (b) never says, (c) never does, (d) has no Linnaean category, (e) instead is described in purely imaginary terms (f) in many religions is only one of many such beings (g) across the world's many religions is imagined in many thousands of different and incompatible forms ... &c &c.

And nowhere is there examinable evidence to contradict any of the things listed.

From where I sit, you have a problem, Houston.

 

[PureX]

Not quite. Objective reality exists, and the world external to the individual is what reality is.

That's YOUR definition of it. But in fact, "reality" is the imaginary landscape created in our minds as a cognitive reflection of sensory stimuli. The fact that you have 'fallen for' your own self-generated delusion of reality as being the truth is a common error of human cognition. One that you continue to actively resist acknowledging and correcting.

 

[blü 2]

That's YOUR definition of it. But in fact, "reality" is the imaginary landscape created in our minds as a cognitive reflection of sensory stimuli. The fact that you have 'fallen for' your own self-generated delusion of reality as being the truth is a common error of human cognition. One that you continue to actively resist acknowledging and correcting.

The fact is that it works. It allows you and me to communicate, for instance. How? By honing our methods of exploring, describing, testing and seeking to explain reality ─ and doing such a good job that modern medicine can do things undreamed of two decades ago. Including the mapping of the brain and the examination of its functions and the how of doing them ─ a work in progress, but with steady advances.

I find it astonishing and positive, and I count it among those things that give me hope that we can live down our stupidity with eg global warming ─ do you say that it's not happening, that it's external to the body so we invented it, that people killed in extraordinary weather events wet, dry, hot, cold, are simply things we've imagined?

Did you invent your parents? If you have children, are they too just the whims of your brain, not real?

 

[blü 2]

Everything is undefined until we define it.

Not in any important sense. As you'll know if you've ever spent time with an infant (I speak as a father of three, all older now than I was then), what the carer does when he/she points and says the name (car, doggy, tree, apple) is name something that is already self-defined as "that thing" or "that phenomenon". That's to say, the perception of the thing / phenomenon precedes the naming, but the thing / phenomenon has already defined itself as what we're perceiving, and all we're doing is naming it.

And as I mentioned, our capacity for abstraction ─ that car / a car ─ is already present in the infant

And you're refusing to consider defining it for yourself doesn't change anything. The possibility remains, both for you to define it and for God to exist.

It's meaningless to say "God has objective existence" while there's no meaningful definition of a "God" with objective existence. So here, off the cuff, I define "God" as a wide range of concepts with no real referent, having in common an imaginary being, very usually with some or other relationship to humans, with supernatural, that's to say magical, that's to say imaginary, powers, and often with some bailiwick for the being's powers, such as love, flowers, this impressive valley/cave/river/waterfall/&c, the rainbow, the weather, childbirth, good luck ─ or in most
modern Western cases a supreme imaginary thing with omni powers and qualities.

I've kept inviting you to define "God" in terms appropriate to an entity with objective existence, but like everyone else, myself included, you can't do it.

 

[PureX]

Not in any important sense. As you'll know if you've ever spent time with an infant (I speak as a father of three, all older now than I was then), what the carer does when he/she points and says the name (car, doggy, tree, apple) is name something that is already self-defined as "that thing" or "that phenomenon".

What you're doing it teaching them to divide existence up, cognitively, as you have been taught. And what you are doing now is presuming that these divisions are "real". And they are real. But not apart from your mind they aren't.

'Differentiated phenomena' is a lie that happens in out limited, binary, human brain. Existence is ONE SINGLE PHENOMENON. It's ALL OF A WHOLE. Everything is part of, cause of, and result of everything else. It's WE that are cognating it as a bunch of "different stuff". And you are just teaching you kids to apply cognitive differentiation where none actually exists as you are doing. And as all we humans do. Because that's how our brains function.

But that doesn't mean we have to continue falling for the "different parts" lie that our brains are telling us about existence. We can't avoid that this is how our brains function, but we are capable of cognitive self-awareness. We can be aware of the fact that this is how our brains function and that we are being deceived perceptually, as a result.

It's meaningless to say "God has objective existence" while there's no meaningful definition of a "God" with objective existence.

So why, then, do atheists constantly demand proof of God's objective existence? I have to assume it's because they know it can't be provided, and so they think this is their golden ticket to "defeating theism". When all it really is, is childish.

So here, off the cuff, I define "God" as a wide range of concepts with no real referent, having in common an imaginary being, very usually with some or other relationship to humans, with supernatural,

That's not an inaccurate definition, but it's also not the full definition. And what's being left out is the more important aspect of it. That this whole category of human thought based on the idea of the existence of God/gods is about our reaction to and relationship with the 'great unknown', and the unknowable.

... that's to say magical, that's to say imaginary, powers, and often with some bailiwick for the being's powers, such as love, flowers, this impressive valley/cave/river/waterfall/&c, the rainbow, the weather, childbirth, good luck ─ or in most
modern Western cases a supreme imaginary thing with omni powers and qualities.

You falling into the nonsensically biased gibberish of the "there's no such thing as the supernatural" argument, here. It has no logical validity, and it just makes those who continually espouse it look foolish.

I've kept inviting you to define "God" in terms appropriate to an entity with objective existence, but like everyone else, myself included, you can't do it.

Why do you keep doing that when you already know that God does not comport with your obsession with "objective existence"? Not even existence comports with it.

 

[blü 2]

What you're doing it teaching them to divide existence up, cognitively, as you have been taught. And what you are doing now is presuming that these divisions are "real". And they are real. But not apart from your mind they aren't.

It's true that we think rather like that ─ though you and I might disagree on some details. So do many mammals. Dogs can learn to understand words like food and walk and so on. Parrots utter words but, as far as I can tell, not language.

Clearly there are no numbers outside our heads ─ before you can count anything, YOU must first decide what to count and in what field to count it. Abstractions and generalizations don't exist outside our heads, like justice, love, flatulence, bigotry, a chair. Instances of those things require the onlooker to label them, but we can teach AI to do more and more of that by observing human and animal interaction.

But the justification for science is that it maximizes objectivity and that it works. Same for technology.

So what do you wish to replace it with? Are you opposed to analysis?

'Differentiated phenomena' is a lie that happens in out limited, binary, human brain. Existence is ONE SINGLE PHENOMENON.

There's a sense in which it is, because that's what 'being' means. But that's not helpful. It won't develop a Covid vaccine, a better electric car, it won't explore the best techniques of education, on and on through a huge list which we approach by analysis, including the computer system we're presently communicating with.

How do you intend to improve human understanding of human questions if not with analysis? How do you intend to test propositions about reality except by seeing if they work?

It's ALL OF A WHOLE. Everything is part of, cause of, and result of everything else. It's WE that are cognating it as a bunch of "different stuff". And you are just teaching you kids to apply cognitive differentiation where none actually exists as you are doing. And as all we humans do. Because that's how our brains function.

But that doesn't mean we have to continue falling for the "different parts" lie that our brains are telling us about existence. We can't avoid that this is how our brains function, but we are capable of cognitive self-awareness. We can be aware of the fact that this is how our brains function and that we are being deceived perceptually, as a result.

Give me an example of what you're talking about. Let's say you own a car and you come down after breakfast to drive somewhere and it has a flat tire. How does your all-is-one claim require you to proceed, except by analysis to determine the remedy and by executing the fruits of your analysis?

So why, then, do atheists constantly demand proof of God's objective existence?

Because of the way God is portrayed as a special version of a human but invisible and with magic powers. Because of the allegation that God is benevolent when nothing suggests that any generalized benevolence is at work in reality. Because the people who speak of God don't appear to know what they're actually trying to denote with that word,

this whole category of human thought based on the idea of the existence of God/gods is about our reaction to and relationship with the 'great unknown', and the unknowable.

I prefer to react to your 'great unknown' with 'reasoned enquiry' (which includes science) ─ it has the excellent credential of producing more, and more useful, results than any alternative approach.

You falling into the nonsensically biased gibberish of the "there's no such thing as the supernatural" argument, here. It has no logical validity, and it just makes those who continually espouse it look foolish.

I define the 'supernatural' as its name implies, 'not existing in nature / reality / the world external to the self. Which necessarily means it exists only as concepts / ideas / things imagined in individual brains.

How do you define the supernatural?

Why do you keep doing that when you already know that God does not comport with your obsession with "objective existence"? Not even existence comports with it.

I don't know what God is, but I know things exist external to me, and I refer to them as having objective existence. You have objective existence, for example. But things like God, which are purely imaginary, and have no meaningful definition to suggest otherwise, do not.

 

[PureX]

It's true that we think rather like that ─ though you and I might disagree on some details. So do many mammals. Dogs can learn to understand words like food and walk and so on. Parrots utter words but, as far as I can tell, not language.

Clearly there are no numbers outside our heads ─ before you can count anything, YOU must first decide what to count and in what field to count it. Abstractions and generalizations don't exist outside our heads, like justice, love, flatulence, bigotry, a chair. Instances of those things require the onlooker to label them, but we can teach AI to do more and more of that by observing human and animal interaction.

AI is also a binary cognitive mechanism, built by binary cognitive mechanisms. How could it be otherwise? All I'm saying is that we need to be aware that we ARE binary cognitive mechanisms. And that because we are, we see existence as a bunch of "different things". When in fact existence is one holistic phenomenon. There are no "parts" except those we designate as such in our own minds. We can't help but doing that, but we can at least be aware of our doing it. So that we can gain and hold a more honest sense of what existence actually is.

But the justification for science is that it maximizes objectivity and that it works. Same for technology.

Yes. But that's ALL it can do. And this is what so many around here keep forgetting. "Objectivity" based on our binary cognitive mechanism, and our self-centered desire for ever greater control over our environment. It isn't actually what existence is. And because we refuse to acknowledge the innate limitations in this, we are constantly risking devastating over-step. And we are reaching the point in our history when we cannot afford any more over-step. We need to raise our self-awareness to include reigning in that constant inclination to over-step. Tat need to control everything around around us by objectifying it and manipulating it to our own supposed advantage. We need to stop worshipping science and start reigning it in. We need to stop objectifying eistence and start grasping it more holistically.

So what do you wish to replace it with? Are you opposed to analysis?

We need to become more philosophical and less controlling as a species. Or we're going to destroy ourselves.

 

[blü 2]

we need to be aware that we ARE binary cognitive mechanisms.

No, we're not made up of yes/no parts, but rather more/less parts ─ not digital but analog. More or less of this or that hormone or other biochemical, more or less of bioelectricity, in brain very much, but also in nerve, muscle, gland &c.

And that because we are, we see existence as a bunch of "different things". When in fact existence is one holistic phenomenon. There are no "parts" except those we designate as such in our own minds.

Existence may be a quality we all share, but without the details there'd not only be no life, there'd only be inchoate mass-energy. This is my big stumbling block with your position, since what we have WORKS, and gives us a path to make better hydrogen powered planes or better vaccines or better containers for carrying your groceries. With holism you can't move from the OM position and there isn't any lunch to get anyway.

We need to become more philosophical and less controlling as a species. Or we're going to destroy ourselves.

There are dang sure a lot of ways we need to smarten up ─ we can agree on that.

 

[shunyadragon]

Last week, I ran across a quote by Thomas Aquinas that there are three things God can't do:
1. He cannot sin
2. He cannot create a replica of himself
3. He cannot create a triangle where the angles do not add to 180 degrees.

I found number three to be especially curious. Thomas Aquinas, in that one sentence, seems to indicate that God cannot violate the laws of Euclidean geometry. Of course this messes with the idea that God is omnipotent.

Please discuss.

PS Yes, I already know that you can have different angle measurements in non-Euclidean geometries. For the purposes of this thread, assume that we are talking standard Euclidean geometry.

IF an omnipotent All-powerful 'Source' some call Gods Created pur Physical existence. there would be no contradictions in the nature of out existence and the attributes of God including the attributes of what we call logic.We can compse contradictions in a vain attempt to prove the circular of what we want to prove, but it would illogical and not reflected in the nature of physical existence Created by God.

Basically you would be trying to Create a God that would not be God. Many ancient tribal religions are trying to do just that,

 

[ChieftheCef]

Last week, I ran across a quote by Thomas Aquinas that there are three things God can't do:
1. He cannot sin
2. He cannot create a replica of himself
3. He cannot create a triangle where the angles do not add to 180 degrees.

I found number three to be especially curious. Thomas Aquinas, in that one sentence, seems to indicate that God cannot violate the laws of Euclidean geometry. Of course this messes with the idea that God is omnipotent.

Please discuss.

PS Yes, I already know that you can have different angle measurements in non-Euclidean geometries. For the purposes of this thread, assume that we are talking standard Euclidean geometry.

Atum (who god is based off of) is not omnipotent, he can do everything possible to do.

Check this out for the proper spin on Monotheism.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Last week, I ran across a quote by Thomas Aquinas that there are three things God can't do:
1. He cannot sin
2. He cannot create a replica of himself
3. He cannot create a triangle where the angles do not add to 180 degrees.

I found number three to be especially curious. Thomas Aquinas, in that one sentence, seems to indicate that God cannot violate the laws of Euclidean geometry. Of course this messes with the idea that God is omnipotent.

Please discuss.

PS Yes, I already know that you can have different angle measurements in non-Euclidean geometries. For the purposes of this thread, assume that we are talking standard Euclidean geometry.

Perhaps there are four things God cannot do. Aquinas missed one mentioned in Revelation 3:8 which says "...See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut...."

Aquinas is building a philosophical point. I think he is suggesting that 3 follows from 2 which follows from 1. He seems to think that God sinning and God making a replica of himself are the same idea. I am guessing that he believes the basis that God cannot sin implies that triangles must have angles which add to 180 degrees. He also believes 1,2 & 3 are reflexive and transitive relations, and so what he appears to be doing is raising Geometry to a theological level. He is saying that geometry and "God not sinning" imply one another. Geometry is not merely an abstraction but a divine thing to him. It is divine, preexistant, indestructible, incorruptible, omnipresent, omniscient, trans...etc. And, he may be suggesting that they are of the same essence: Geometry and God.

But I am guessing, since I don't know the context you are getting this out of.