Hobart Bliggity Posted:
Please, OverclockedJesus, no more trollbait or cherry-picked quotes. I want to hear your position on this with defense. I want to know how the impossibility of a square circle applies to the God debate.
Here, I’ll even get you started.
The only reason we know that a square circle can’t exist is because we know squares and circles exist, and we can define them. It is the combination that makes the existence of a square circle impossible. We can go two ways from here:
1) To apply this to “God” we would have to not only be able to exactly define God (which we can’t; you and I both agree on this) but also show which “parts” of “God” contradict themselves. In order to show that these parts would inherently contradict themselves, these different aspects would have to be shown to exist in the first place, which is a road I don’t feel you’d be comfortable going down.
Claiming that the impossibility of certain aspects of “God” makes “God” logically impossible has nothing to do with your square circle analogy, and begs the question of knowledge of everything that is possible in the universe.
2) If you leave “wiggle-room” in the definition of God, or claim that the impossibility of defining God means the likelihood of any “God” actually existing is nil, then the whole analogy breaks down. Without the absolute definitions, asking me to draw a square circle is like asking me to draw a korfor fribnab. I could draw an infinite amount of korfor fribnabs, and be wrong every time, but unless you know exactly what a korfor fribnab is, you can say nothing about the existence of one.
Prove me wrong.