Liquidrage

1) Just because square circles are illogical to us now, doesn't mean they always will be

2) Just because said god makes square circles, does not mean he cannot and does not make square squares


If we change your example
"A property of god is that he can make square circles. We can't rationalise square circles, so we can't rationalise god."

to
"A property of god is that he can make square circles. We can't rationalize how god makes square circles. However god also makes square squares and this we can rationalize."

This would lead us to understanding certain aspects of said god while keeping other aspects unknown. Which is how I was answering the question.

liquid

LR,

1.Square Circles always will be illogical. Logic/Rationality is a self-contained and complete system, not equivalent to understanding. Think about the logic circuits in a computer 1 AND 1 = 1, no matter what. It's by *definition*.

Now we might hypothetically gain an understanding of square circles, perhaps through a system that displaces, even resembles, logic, but it will not be *logical*.

2.This leads me onto my next point. Things get a little tortuous here, but that's what happens when you get into irrationality (in fact, things get infinitely tortuous!).

So irrational square/circle god can make apparently rational square squares too. The problem comes when we try to make logical arguments about said god - in fact, there is an infinite regression of problems which effectively leads to a reductio ad absurdum.

For instance, you make a logical argument about a square square. This is fine, except there can be no certainty that the god has not made that particular square irrational on a whim. It might appear rational, but it might not BE rational - rationally this doesn't work, but under your god concept it is possible. So no rational conclusion is logically valid because there is an inbuilt uncertainty and logic does not deal with uncertainties. Not even fuzzy logic can deal with this, because although it can assign probabilities, even the validity of the = sign on any operation is suspect.

Alternatively, logic might be an illusory fabrication of said god. Or the person you are arguing with. Or the piece of paper your argument is on. No valid axioms, postulates or conclusions can be made, even about seemingly logical problems. The situation becomes absurd.

I'd like to explain a little further (or better, for that manner), but am short on time, so will return when I am free.

Vorkosigan

I won the TPM medal of honor with neither hits nor bullets. Apparently my views are "well thought out" although the alternative, I am really good at sussing out tests, may also be true.

Vorkosigan