Squaring the circle

wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Squaring the circle

You cannot square a circle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle

 

But this does not mean a circle doesnt exist - you just can't arrive at a circle from the method described. 

So how does the fact that there is no ontology for god prove non-existence. Can't it be true that the problem is you can't arrive a god through that method?

Before you attack, I accept that my skill and understanding of this subject is limited. 

 


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Just give up. Circles

Just give up. Circles exist. Squares exist. God doesn't exist.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: You cannot

wavefreak wrote:
You cannot square a circle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle

 
But this does not mean a circle doesnt exist - you just can't arrive at a circle from the method described.


Um...
Did you actually read the article?
Nothing said that a circle couldn't exist, just that it was impossible to build a circle with the same area as a square and vice versa. Not sure what that has to do with the existence/non-existence of circles!

Quote:
So how does the fact that there is no ontology for god prove non-existence. Can't it be true that the problem is you can't arrive a god through that method?

No. I think the problem is that ontology is a very abstract philosophical term and you haven't fully understood what it means for something to have no ontology. Not that's a bad thing - I'm not sure I've fully gotten my head around the concept myself. My recommendation is find a book on Amazon to learn some basic metaphysics. This one looks fairly readable.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

Just give up. Circles exist. Squares exist. God doesn't exist.

 

If I gave up you would have no one to heap scorn upon. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: Um...Did

Strafio wrote:


Um...
Did you actually read the article?

Why the hell would I read the article when making any kind of shit up is easier?

Quote:


Nothing said that a circle couldn't exist, just that it was impossible to build a circle with the same area as a square and vice versa. Not sure what that has to do with the existence/non-existence of circles!

Duh! Of course it doesn't say that circles don't exist. All I am saying that if you have a set of rules that restrict what can be produced by those rules, it does not follow that nothing exists outside of what those rules can produce.

 

What I am saying is that while it follows that god cannot be produced from logical argument, that is not sufficient to prove non-existence. There is a very specific set of rules to produce logical truth. Those rules restrict what can be known to things within that system, not what exists in an absolute sense.

 

Quote:

No. I think the problem is that ontology is a very abstract philosophical term and you haven't fully understood what it means for something to have no ontology.

I admitted to this in my initial post.

Quote:

Not that's a bad thing - I'm not sure I've fully gotten my head around the concept myself. My recommendation is find a book on Amazon to learn some basic metaphysics. This one looks fairly readable.

Thanks for the recommendation.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: You

wavefreak wrote:

You cannot square a circle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle

 

But this does not mean a circle doesnt exist - you just can't arrive at a circle from the method described.

So how does the fact that there is no ontology for god prove non-existence. Can't it be true that the problem is you can't arrive a god through that method?

Before you attack, I accept that my skill and understanding of this subject is limited.

 

I think you misunderstand something. There's a difference between a "square circle" and "squaring a circle". Its not impossible to turn a circle into a square; but it is impossible for a "square circle" to exist.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
So, wavefreak, you want to

So, wavefreak, you want to ponder some geometry, don't you? "Here's one for you" (I just love that Tickle saying):

1. Two straight lines, 90 degrees angle between them (consider we are working in 2D). You take one and start turning it rightwards. The intersection point between them moves to the left. It moves on and on, until it's a mile away from you. You go on turning the line rightwards. What is the precise moment in which the two lines become parallel ?

2. Put two lines, in an angle of a random value. Two hundred miles away, on each of the lines, mark one point. Start lowering the angle by moving the two lines towards one another. What is the exact point in which the angle is 0?

Also, on the squaring circle problem, think this way: try creating a cube with the same volume of a sphere, a pyramid with the same volume as a cone, etc.

And no, this doesn't prove God doesn't exist.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote: So,

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

So, wavefreak, you want to ponder some geometry, don't you? "Here's one for you" (I just love that Tickle saying):

1. Two straight lines, 90 degrees angle between them (consider we are working in 2D). You take one and start turning it rightwards. The intersection point between them moves to the left. It moves on and on, until it's a mile away from you. You go on turning the line rightwards. What is the precise moment in which the two lines become parallel ?

2. Put two lines, in an angle of a random value. Two hundred miles away, on each of the lines, mark one point. Start lowering the angle by moving the two lines towards one another. What is the exact point in which the angle is 0?

Also, on the squaring circle problem, think this way: try creating a cube with the same volume of a sphere, a pyramid with the same volume as a cone, etc.

And no, this doesn't prove God doesn't exist.

 

Nice little thought experiments.  Are you being tongue un cheek? If not I don't see how this is relevant. I was using squaring the circle as an example of how strict rules limit what can be expressed by those rules. I suppose I should stay away from analogies.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
There seems to be a giant

There seems to be a giant leap between the circle stuff and the ontological question that you haven't explained, so I'm just going to respond to the ontological question.

The fact that there is no ontology given for the supernatural means that discussing it is meaningless. It doesn't prove or disprove the existence of anything, but in order to make a case that something exists, you need to have some idea what that thing is, and therefore the lack of an ontology for the supernatural undermines a great number of arguments that describe how it solves some mystery (such as arguments for a supernatural creator). Think about it: Can you really claim that a god solves the universal fine-tuning dilemma if you don't even know what that god is?

Hope that's roughly the kind of response you were looking for.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
One thing you always forget

One thing you always forget Wavefreak, you have the burden of proof not us. You are right, we cannot find a God through science, but what is this other magical means by which we can? Faith prooves nothing, then there are all the usual theistic arguments.  


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: There seems

rexlunae wrote:
There seems to be a giant leap between the circle stuff and the ontological question that you haven't explained, so I'm just going to respond to the ontological question. The fact that there is no ontology given for the supernatural means that discussing it is meaningless. It doesn't prove or disprove the existence of anything, but in order to make a case that something exists, you need to have some idea what that thing is, and therefore the lack of an ontology for the supernatural undermines a great number of arguments that describe how it solves some mystery (such as arguments for a supernatural creator). Think about it: Can you really claim that a god solves the universal fine-tuning dilemma if you don't even know what that god is? Hope that's roughly the kind of response you were looking for.

Thank you. Yes, I think this is what I am groping after. It makes perfect sense to me that to make a logical arguments about something that the definition of that thing must be constrained. I agree that, for example, supernatural really doesn't mean anything - everything that exists is part of nature.

Is it fair to say that lack of an ontology prevents rational discourse but does not prove non-existence? I realize this does not prove existence either and that is not what I am implying. Basically, lack of an ontology allows you to prove or dis-prove nothing.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley wrote: One

Jacob Cordingley wrote:
One thing you always forget Wavefreak, you have the burden of proof not us. You are right, we cannot find a God through science, but what is this other magical means by which we can? Faith prooves nothing, then there are all the usual theistic arguments.

 

Understood, but I am not trying to prove anything. I'm just trying to clear up my understanding of how these arguments work. I'm wondering if I will have more luck posting in the philosphy forum and finding ways to ask these questions without invoking the specter of theism. I'm really more focussed on the process right now. 


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Thank you.

wavefreak wrote:
Thank you. Yes, I think this is what I am groping after. It makes perfect sense to me that to make a logical arguments about something that the definition of that thing must be constrained. I agree that, for example, supernatural really doesn't mean anything - everything that exists is part of nature.

Is it fair to say that lack of an ontology prevents rational discourse but does not prove non-existence? I realize this does not prove existence either and that is not what I am implying. Basically, lack of an ontology allows you to prove or dis-prove nothing.

Cool, I think we agree on most or all of this. I would just add that because the burden or proof is on the claimant, the inability to prove something without an ontology is much more a problem for the person making a claim of god, not the person denying the claim.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: It makes

wavefreak wrote:

It makes perfect sense to me that to make a logical arguments about something that the definition of that thing must be constrained. I agree that, for example, supernatural really doesn't mean anything - everything that exists is part of nature.

So, if that's the case, why are you a theist? Is God part of nature? 

Quote:
Is it fair to say that lack of an ontology prevents rational discourse but does not prove non-existence? I realize this does not prove existence either and that is not what I am implying. Basically, lack of an ontology allows you to prove or dis-prove nothing.

The problem, as you seem to be aware, is simply that if we can't talk about it because it is meaningless, then there is no way to talk about it existing.  Since the word 'exist' is completely dependent upon the natural world, then the supernatural does not exist.

The question seems to be whether there is some supernatural realm that, if we were there, might have some corresponding concept that we could refer to.  But since the supernatural is, by definition, completely ontologically distinct from the natural, then that would be impossible.  Thus, even if a supernatural did "exist," and possibly a god "existed," not only would we never be able to apprehend it (or it us!), but it would not have created this universe because there would be no (known) method of interaction between the supernatural and teh natural.

I always try to think of an analogy to explain why the natural cannot interact with the supernatural.  But any examples I could give would both be natural, so they could interact in some way.  And that's the point; the supernatural must, by definition, have nothing whatsoever to do with the natural, thus they cannot interact.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly wrote: So, if

ShaunPhilly wrote:

So, if that's the case, why are you a theist? Is God part of nature?

So far, nearly everyone in this forum has assumed that my theism is similar to Evangelical Christian's. If I stick around long enough, it will become clear that this is not the case. So far, I have been patient with the level of contempt and disdain for theisem that is liberally thrown about, but my patience has limits. Life is too short. I personally prefer to enjoy it. This doesn't feel like fun.

 

 I will only go as far as saying god is part of what exists. I make no claims about omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, free will, sin, redemption, etc.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Jacob

wavefreak wrote:

Jacob Cordingley wrote:
One thing you always forget Wavefreak, you have the burden of proof not us. You are right, we cannot find a God through science, but what is this other magical means by which we can? Faith prooves nothing, then there are all the usual theistic arguments.

 

Understood, but I am not trying to prove anything. I'm just trying to clear up my understanding of how these arguments work. I'm wondering if I will have more luck posting in the philosphy forum and finding ways to ask these questions without invoking the specter of theism. I'm really more focussed on the process right now. 

Go for it love.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak

wavefreak wrote:
ShaunPhilly wrote:
So, if that's the case, why are you a theist? Is God part of nature?
So far, nearly everyone in this forum has assumed that my theism is similar to Evangelical Christian's. If I stick around long enough, it will become clear that this is not the case. So far, I have been patient with the level of contempt and disdain for theisem that is liberally thrown about, but my patience has limits. Life is too short. I personally prefer to enjoy it. This doesn't feel like fun.

I think he's just trying to probe your beliefs. I too am curious to know what sort of god you believe in.

wavefreak wrote:
I will only go as far as saying god is part of what exists. I make no claims about omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, free will, sin, redemption, etc.

I have to point out that nearly anything could meet this standard. I realize that you are not giving a complete definition of what you believe to be god, but this is just a little too vague to be useful. I could be god if this were the only standard.

However, I would also understand if you do not want to reveal more about what you consider god to be right now. I think the ontological question has been answered, so this thread is effectively dead.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: wavefreak

rexlunae wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
ShaunPhilly wrote:
So, if that's the case, why are you a theist? Is God part of nature?
So far, nearly everyone in this forum has assumed that my theism is similar to Evangelical Christian's. If I stick around long enough, it will become clear that this is not the case. So far, I have been patient with the level of contempt and disdain for theisem that is liberally thrown about, but my patience has limits. Life is too short. I personally prefer to enjoy it. This doesn't feel like fun.
I think he's just trying to probe your beliefs. I too am curious to know what sort of god you believe in.
wavefreak wrote:
I will only go as far as saying god is part of what exists. I make no claims about omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, free will, sin, redemption, etc.
I have to point out that nearly anything could meet this standard. I realize that you are not giving a complete definition of what you believe to be god, but this is just a little too vague to be useful. I could be god if this were the only standard. However, I would also understand if you do not want to reveal more about what you consider god to be right now. I think the ontological question has been answered, so this thread is effectively dead.

 

Point taken about vagueness. But it's all I got so far. I'll flesh it out as I get more comfortable with the language around here. 


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak

wavefreak wrote:
ShaunPhilly wrote:

So, if that's the case, why are you a theist? Is God part of nature?

So far, nearly everyone in this forum has assumed that my theism is similar to Evangelical Christian's. If I stick around long enough, it will become clear that this is not the case. So far, I have been patient with the level of contempt and disdain for theisem that is liberally thrown about, but my patience has limits. Life is too short. I personally prefer to enjoy it. This doesn't feel like fun.

I will only go as far as saying god is part of what exists. I make no claims about omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, free will, sin, redemption, etc.

Very well. I try not to assume anything (which is hard). I'll be interested to hear about your non-Evangelical-Christian theism. From what you've said so far, I'm hypothesizing that you are a pantheist (Spinoza fan?), panentheist (possibly a follower of Hartshorne's process theology?), or something along those lines.

Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly wrote: Very

ShaunPhilly wrote:

Very well. I try not to assume anything (which is hard). I'll be interested to hear about your non-Evangelical-Christian theism. From what you've said so far, I'm hypothesizing that you are a pantheist (Spinoza fan?), panentheist (possibly a follower of Hartshorne's process theology?), or something along those lines.

Shaun

I used to know what panthiesm is but it's been 20 years or more since I thought about it at that level. I'll have to look it up. Spinoza-ish might work. Have to read up on him again.

I'm resurrecting some old ghosts here so I need to revisit some 100 level courses. It's frightening how stale things get when you ignore them for awhile.