Proof of an omnipotent being

[Berkley Babes]

Glad we are contributing into what this powerful thing is, because otherwise you just cant control it.

[Certainly real]

Certainly Real, if you have the time, I would appreciate your view on this subject concerning logic, semantics, infinity, and infinitesimals - but on that thread, not this one.

Sure, Godwilling I'll have a look tomorrow.

Silhouette, hopefully, I'll reply to you tomorrow.

[Silhouette]

Silhouette, hopefully, I'll reply to you tomorrow.

Ah, I was starting to wonder if I'd driven you away.

I get the feeling your reply will be to continue to try and convince me of the logic based on classical premises. I can assure you there's no need - I need to stress that I get your argument, and the validity is fine, just not the soundness. It's the premises that both logic and evidence show to need tweaking, and I can see you're firmly convinced by the definitions you're using. So I don't see the infinity/nothing discussion going anywhere fast - but at least that leaves my actual argument open to discussion instead, which as I explained doesn't rely on infinity or nothingness:

It's quite the step to add the qualitative (perfect) to the quantitative (infinite). And even if we could, perfection and infinity would be within human conception just like anything else within a mundane universe, so what then would divine be? Beyond perfection? Beyond infinity? What would be special about the divine? Would we then be able to entirely conceive of God? What then would be particularly godly about just another thing of which humans could entirely conceive? See, I could even grant you infinity AND perfection, and still we couldn't get to "God".

[Certainly real]

S: No Quantum fluctuations appear to have always occurred, even though for all intents and purposes there was "nothing" existing in the classical sense. But including the existence of the kind of "potential" of the uncertainty principle, it wasn't exactly "absolute" nothing. It both was and wasn't - the classical definitions, preconceptions and biases had to be revised after we gained a glimpse into quantum mechanics.

I am still unclear as to what your stance is on this issue. Does no mean yes? Or does it mean no and yes at the same time? You say: "It both was and wasn't". So x both is x and isn't x. x both is a triangle and a square. x both is existence and non-existence. How is this not blatantly absurd? Why do you hold on to it?

But I mean, these blue additions are theoretical physics.

If x is an absurd proposition, then it is an absurd proposition regardless of whether it is a part of 'religion' or 'theoretical physics'.

You're not even a bad philosopher: your weakness is not your ascertaining of logical validity - that seems fine to me this far. It's the evaluation of logical soundness that is holding you back.

All xs have y, therefore, that could be an x because it has y. This is a valid argument. What semantics get attached to x and y, will determine if the argument is sound or not. For example if x = triangle and y = sides, the argument is sound. If x = triangle and y = four sides, then the argument is not sound because it is paradoxical. There is never an instance of x being both x and not x at the same time. If an argument is invalid (as is the case with x is both x and not x), then it is definitively not sound.

I'm saying an advanced level of intellectual agility allows you to gain better insight into what's actually going on at the smallest of scales, which can free you from the shackles of classical thinking that had to go through a theological phase before it really got to a sufficient level of physical understanding.

I am all in favour of not being dogmatic and stagnant. I am not in favour of being paradoxical by embracing or believing in paradoxes. Believing in paradoxes is the root of all problems/wars/conflict/disease/evil/loss of good.

"If we can understanding infinity, then a finite being can understand infinite being", you mean? It's quite the step to add the qualitative (perfect) to the quantitative (infinite).

I was trying to accommodate and respond to your line of reasoning. Whether x is qualitatively or quantitatively greater than us (in the sense of finite to infinite and imperfect to perfect...not in the sense of there are more John's than me in this room, or, John is taller (a quantitative measurement) and better looking than me (finite to finite, imperfect to imperfect) makes no difference. The core of your argument is that we cannot understand greater than us. If I prove to you that it is impossible for us to reject that we understand the Infinite, your argument regarding an imperfect being being able to understand that which is greater than itself (a perfect being) falls.

And even if we could, perfection and infinity would be within human conception just like anything else within a mundane universe, so what then would divine be? Beyond perfection? Beyond infinity? What would be special about the divine? Would we then be able to entirely conceive of God? What then would be particularly godly about just another thing of which humans could entirely conceive? See, I could even grant you infinity AND perfection, and still we couldn't get to "God".

But you are not accepting these semantics that you are surely aware of and have access to. This seems to be the closest you've come to considering them so it warrants that I reiterate the following:

Our understanding of Existence/Perfection is incomplete and will always be imperfect and incomplete...because we are imperfect and incomplete. Existence/Perfection will have additional layers or aspects to it such that if we were exposed to them, we would be in utter awe of them (like a blind man being able to see for the first time). If we then conclude "this is truly divine/perfect", we would be doing wrong. No matter how in awe of Existence/God we may be at any given point in time, the truth is that only God Knows what it's like to be God. Knowing what it's like to be God is Truly/Perfectly/Completely Divine. Despite us knowing that God Knows what it's like to be God, we know that we don't know what it's like to be God and that we will never know this. This does not rule us out of being aware of the fact that an Infinite and Perfect Existence/Being exists. Yes, certain aspects of it will always be beyond our understanding, but not all aspects of it. For example, the fact that it is at least as real as us, or that it encompasses at least three spatial dimensions, are absolute truths in relation to Existence/God such that rejecting them is blatantly paradoxical.

And if you say to me that we can understand Existence because it is not greater than us, but we cannot understand God because it is greater than us, then I say to you the following: Is Existence Infinite or not? Can you non-paradoxically describe Existence as non-infinite? See all the above, you cannot.

[obsrvr524]

All xs have y, therefore, that is an x because it has y. This is a valid argument.

All humans have toes, therefore, Bowser is a human because it has toes. Dogs everywhere should be proud.


I'm sure you aren't going to win your argument with Sil either.

[Certainly real]

All xs have y, therefore, that is an x because it has y. This is a valid argument.

All humans have toes, therefore, Bowser is a human because it has toes. Dogs everywhere should be proud.

You're right. My mistake. Thank you for pointing it out. I'll go correct it now.

[Ecmandu]

CR:

I’m going to repeat this...

Your concept of god is what you’d want to be if you were god. It shows more about you than god.

Look up and seriously study strange loops and holograms.

There is a way to make everyone god, not only that, there’s a way to make everyone god for loving each individual being for who they are without hurting another person.

Edit: the best life you can have is to be loved for who you are by everyone. Everyone wants that for themselves. Stop thinking in terms of the supreme beloved over all. Everyone wants that!

Your psychology is currently repugnant. Your ignorance to this regard ... astounding.

[Silhouette]

S: No Quantum fluctuations appear to have always occurred, even though for all intents and purposes there was "nothing" existing in the classical sense. But including the existence of the kind of "potential" of the uncertainty principle, it wasn't exactly "absolute" nothing. It both was and wasn't - the classical definitions, preconceptions and biases had to be revised after we gained a glimpse into quantum mechanics.

I am still unclear as to what your stance is on this issue. Does no mean yes? Or does it mean no and yes at the same time? You say: "It both was and wasn't". So x both is x and isn't x. x both is a triangle and a square. x both is existence and non-existence. How is this not blatantly absurd? Why do you hold on to it?

Me saying "it both was and wasn't" is saying x both is y and isn't y, not "x both is x and isn't x". Clearly many things are both one thing and something else, so there really isn't any logical issue on that account. But if y and not y are absolutely mutually exclusive and exhaustive of all options, as you conceive of something and nothing due to your classical definitions, then of course there's going to appear to you to be a logical issue on that account. That's why I'm saying your logical validity isn't your problem, it's your logical soundness. Unfortunately it's not as simple and clearcut at the quantum scale, as it is in your mental conception. Therefore I suggest adjusting your mental conception of "something" vs "nothing" in order to accept that the quantum scale messes with your everyday human intuitions. Quantum physics is infamous for this - there's really strange stuff going on down there, like "superpositions" where states really can be both one way and their opposite simultaneously. It should be easy to see how this applies to the something/nothing debate that we seem to be inescapably sidetracked on. If a state is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from nothing, yet there are quantum fluctuations that you might also want to think of as something, then which is it? Does it really have to be either one or the other according to the simplistic clearcut classical intuition? I'm not even trying to argue against your repeated rewordings of your validity - just the soundness. And I'm doing it because of what really happens at the quantum level, not just to "hold on" to some "blatant absurdity" as it would be on the normal everyday human level.

If you can't see what I'm getting at here, then unfortunately you're going to have to remain unclear with regard to my stance. That's why I keep referring you to quantum physics, because we're not going to be able to move past this impasse if you keep protesting your validity based on your classical framework.

But I mean, these blue additions are theoretical physics.

If x is an absurd proposition, then it is an absurd proposition regardless of whether it is a part of 'religion' or 'theoretical physics'.

Then it's fortunate that it only seems absurd according to classical intuitions about the normal human experience above the quantum level.
It probably wouldn't be unwarranted to call the quantum level "absurd" in a colloquial sense, because it seems so crazy, but technically it isn't actually absurd because it's what's literally happening according to repeatable experiment. So the only thing we can do in this case is to accept that the real world isn't absurd (because it's existent) and it's out definitions that are absurd. The definitions become what we need to revaluate in light of the evidence. It's "dogmatic and stagnant" to insist on the classical intuitions and reject the evidence - that certainly is a root of many "problems/wars/conflicts/diseases/evil/loss of good". Adaptability is what humans are forced to do to survive, forcing us to evaluate our traditional intuitions in light of new evidence. How many conflicts have historically risen between traditionalists and progressives? It doesn't make you wrong to "prefer" the simplicity and clarity of classical intuitions, and you don't have to completely throw them out just to acknowledge that empircal experiment shows them to not always apply. So don't feel like you've "lost" this argument just by acknowledging "quantum weirdness", which you already have done when you commented on the double slit experiment. This is something you already know, and I agree that it's regretable that it muddies the waters. That's the hazard of new ground - it always seems to mess with what you always took for granted before - surely you agree?

I was trying to accommodate and respond to your line of reasoning. Whether x is qualitatively or quantitatively greater than us (in the sense of finite to infinite and imperfect to perfect...not in the sense of there are more John's than me in this room, or, John is taller (a quantitative measurement) and better looking than me (finite to finite, imperfect to imperfect) makes no difference. The core of your argument is that we cannot understand greater than us. If I prove to you that it is impossible for us to reject that we understand the Infinite, your argument regarding an imperfect being being able to understand that which is greater than itself (a perfect being) falls.

You're not doing yourself any favours by phrasing "the core of my argument" as "we cannot understand greater than us".
"Greater" could mean anything, like "infinity", which I keep saying has nothing to do with my argument - so more specificity is needed than "greater".
I'm saying we cannot even conceive of that which has to be by definition beyond our finite conception of "somethings". If it were just size or scale that were a problem then infinity would be an appropriate avenue for you to go down - but that doesn't get to the core of my argument: it's extraneous as I keep trying to explain for you. There's nothing specifically divine about how big something is, because size and scale are just normal human measures of the mundane natural universe. In fact any kind of evaluation that applies to the mundane natural universe isn't really appropriate to get at the core of what constitutes divinity, because to get at the essence of divinity has to go sufficiently beyond normal mundane natural measures. There has to be some "x-factor" involved to take something from mundane to divine - which at the very least gets us beyond how big something is. This x-factor has to be something beyond our human conception, and might even include "infinitude" as a side - that's extraneous - but ultimately it has to be something beyond our human conception to qualify as divine to us. Given "God", He could be as perfect and awesome as you like, but what (beyond infinitude and perfection) is it that really shifts the balance from mundane to divine here? Surely something beyond our human measures of which we mundanely conceive and mundanely apply to the mundane natural universe routinely? You see the critical difference here that "the core my argument" is actually getting at? The whole problem that I'm highlighting is that all we can do is think in terms of how finite or otherwise something is, or how relatively "perfect" it is - when what's required of us to be conceiving of divinity is something that has to be by definition beyond our human conception in order to qualify as godly. So we have no chance when it comes to "God" - we just invariably end up with something conceived in mundane terms that we mundanely conceive, as conceivable by us only through the fact that they can apply to the mundane world. So God doesn't and cannot exist to our merely human conception - it's something else, "lesser" and mundane that exists to us that we only mistakenly think of as divine and "God", and it has to be this way by definition.

And even if we could, perfection and infinity would be within human conception just like anything else within a mundane universe, so what then would divine be? Beyond perfection? Beyond infinity? What would be special about the divine? Would we then be able to entirely conceive of God? What then would be particularly godly about just another thing of which humans could entirely conceive? See, I could even grant you infinity AND perfection, and still we couldn't get to "God".

But you are not accepting these semantics that you are surely aware of and have access to. This seems to be the closest you've come to considering them so it warrants that I reiterate the following:

Our understanding of Existence/Perfection is incomplete and will always be imperfect and incomplete...because we are imperfect and incomplete. Existence/Perfection will have additional layers or aspects to it such that if we were exposed to them, we would be in utter awe of them (like a blind man being able to see for the first time). If we then conclude "this is truly divine/perfect", we would be doing wrong. No matter how in awe of Existence/God we may be at any given point in time, the truth is that only God Knows what it's like to be God. Knowing what it's like to be God is Truly/Perfectly/Completely Divine. Despite us knowing that God Knows what it's like to be God, we know that we don't know what it's like to be God and that we will never know this. This does not rule us out of being aware of the fact that an Infinite and Perfect Existence/Being exists. Yes, certain aspects of it will always be beyond our understanding, but not all aspects of it. For example, the fact that it is at least as real as us, or that it encompasses at least three spatial dimensions, are absolute truths in relation to Existence/God such that rejecting them is blatantly paradoxical.

And if you say to me that we can understand Existence because it is not greater than us, but we cannot understand God because it is greater than us, then I say to you the following: Is Existence Infinite or not? Can you non-paradoxically describe Existence as non-infinite? See all the above, you cannot.

I've been considering everything you've been you've been saying - I've not come any "closer" to considering you in this respect because I already fully understand your argument, but I guess it's promising that you think I'm getting closer.

I'm glad that we agree that "Our understanding of Existence/Perfection is incomplete and will always be imperfect and incomplete...because we are imperfect and incomplete".
I'm glad that we agree that "If we then conclude "this is truly divine/perfect", we would be doing wrong" - you're actually agreeing with my argument here, whether you realise/admit it or not.
Indeed "we know that we don't know what it's like to be God and that we will never know this", but we also know that we don't know what "godly" even is, because it has to be something beyond our mundane conceptions of mundane concepts in order to qualify as "divine". All we can come up with is mundane conceptions of mundane concepts, which surely don't present as "God" to us, but something "lesser" and mundane that exists, which we only mistakenly think of as divine and "God", and it has to be this way by definition.
So if we can't do any of this satisfactorily, how can we possibly still be aware of something divine? Even if there were tons of aspects of some supposed divinity that were mundane such that we could conceive of them, our conception would still solely be of mundanity. And our conception would still be of nothing divine - even if we could even conceive of divinity existing such as to say that one existed and we only see a bit of it (the wholly mundane bit). But the reality is that by definition we can't even conceive of being able to state the existence of such a thing. We can't even conceive of it to say it exists and we only see a bit. So how can we even begin to say "there's more" than our human conception at work here? How can we even conceive of divinity to say that that's what it is that is "more"? None of this is within our merely human capabilities. Three dimensions is humanly conceivable, more than three is conceivable - the list of mundane conceptions can go on as long as you like and it would still never touch what makes God "God" - the only thing we'd need to know such that anything at all could be "divine" to us. It's "blatantly paradoxical" to think we can do any of what we need to be able to do to even conceive of God with any consistency.

[obsrvr524]

It's "blatantly paradoxical" to think we can do any of what we need to be able to do to even conceive of God with any consistency.

If you are conceiving of consistency, you are conceiving of God.

"God is the fundamental Principle that causes the universe to be what it is - Consistency" - James S Saint

Quantum physics promotes belief in inconsistency - "a thing can be what it is and what it isn't at the same time" - anti-logic (anti- "A is A") - Godlessness.

[Ecmandu]

It's "blatantly paradoxical" to think we can do any of what we need to be able to do to even conceive of God with any consistency.

If you are conceiving of consistency, you are conceiving of God.

"God is the fundamental Principle that causes the universe to be what it is - Consistency" - James S Saint

Quantum physics promotes belief in inconsistency - "a thing can be what it is and what it isn't at the same time" - anti-logic (anti- "A is A") - Godlessness.

Obsrvr,

You have no nuance and neither does James ...

“A” as an equality to its own symbol cannot work with another symbol spatially distant from it: Say this “A”

So now you have to understand more about existence than James did. (Quantum and perceptual acuity equalities) I’m not even close to the same being James used to debate years ago. It’d be really be nice to talk with him here again with his username ...

But here we are.

[Silhouette]

If you are conceiving of consistency, you are conceiving of God.

Circular.

[obsrvr524]

If you are conceiving of consistency, you are conceiving of God.

Circular.

How is that in any way circular?

[Silhouette]

If you are conceiving of consistency, you are conceiving of God.

Circular.

How is that in any way circular?

If one defines God as consistency, then God is proven simply by the attempt to be consistent - which is already implied in the process of definition.

The conclusion of "God" is assumed in the premise. This is the very definition of circular reasoning. I thought this observation was obvious.

[obsrvr524]

If one defines God as consistency, then God is proven simply by the attempt to be consistent - which is already implied in the process of definition.

The statement had nothing to do with a proof. It was a statement - an assertion - "God = Consistency". And nothing at all circular about it unless 1=1 is somehow circular.

[Ecmandu]

If one defines God as consistency, then God is proven simply by the attempt to be consistent - which is already implied in the process of definition.

The statement had nothing to do with a proof. It was a statement - an assertion - "God = Consistency". And nothing at all circular about it unless 1=1 is somehow circular.

It’s more complicated than that.

Even James was aware of the proof that if everything is exactly the same that existence can’t exist.

1 /= 1 perfectly. It’s just a good enough approximation. (It’s utilitarian)

[Silhouette]

If one defines God as consistency, then God is proven simply by the attempt to be consistent - which is already implied in the process of definition.

The statement had nothing to do with a proof. It was a statement - an assertion - "God = Consistency". And nothing at all circular about it unless 1=1 is somehow circular.

Because statements/assertions don't need proving?
If one defines "1" as equal to 1, then of course 1=1. That would be circular. Fortunately proofs of the statement/assertion "1=1" are more fundamental than that - but even they rely on assumptions. There is always a set of assumptions at the base of any proofs built on further proofs - otherwise they are circular (like a dictionary). But this is the birth of Postmodernism, when the more interesting thing is that these things can work in practice, and consistently too. So there is truth after all, Postmodernism. If you were a philosopher you would know about all this - always a pleasure to debate with you, obsrvr...

[obsrvr524]

of course 1=1. That would be circular.

No.

If I said - "IF 1=1, and 1=2*0.5, and 2*0.5=1 then 1=1" - that would be circular. There has to be more than one statement to make a circle - a statement that leads to a statement that leads back to the original statement. A straight line or a single point does not a circle make.

Otherwise you become imbiguous and have to claim that every equation is circular.

[Silhouette]

If I said - "IF 1=1, and 1=2*0.5, and 2*0.5=1 then 1=1" - that would be circular. There has to be more than one statement to make a circle - a statement that leads to a statement that leads back to the original statement. A straight line or a single point does not a circle make.

Otherwise you become imbiguous and have to claim that every equation is circular.

Iambiguous isn't wrong, his philosophy is just uninteresting in the same way Postmodernism doesn't really tell us anything - notably that truths can consistently work for everyone in useful ways, regardless of their own dasein.

You don't seem to be showing appreciation that "1=1" isn't simplistically a standalone statement. It's not like somebody simply said "let 1=1, and 1 equalled 1 and it was good" - peripheral cognitive work went into that that is too easy to take for granted, especially if as a child you learn truths by rote and you don't learn to think for yourself. When you learn to think for yourself, you realise that every statement is implicitly based on another - and that is where statements can reveal themselves as circular to some extent. It's akin to no longer seeing a circle from the side such that it no longer appears as a straight line, but curved afterall with the application of another dimension. "1=1" isn't proven by "1*0.5" by the way, it's proven by a further layer of abstraction (logic). We have nothing more fundamental than logic, which is taken to be self-evident, and without which we cannot prove anything from mathematics to anything at all beyond it. Everything at a lower level of abstraction than logic is not simply a statement, but based on something more fundamental whether you realise it or not - "1=1" included.

It's evident that "God = consistency" is uncomplicatedly circular with no value added simply by the implicit assumption that we just defined it that way. What reasoning goes into "God being consistency" that's embedded in empirical observation rather than merely stated?

[Certainly real]

I'm glad that we agree that "If we then conclude "this is truly divine/perfect", we would be doing wrong" - you're actually agreeing with my argument here, whether you realise/admit it or not.
Indeed "we know that we don't know what it's like to be God and that we will never know this",

We are in agreement on all of the above. Not on the following:

but we also know that we don't know what "godly" even is, because it has to be something beyond our mundane conceptions of mundane concepts in order to qualify as "divine".

You're not doing yourself any favours by phrasing "the core of my argument" as "we cannot understand greater than us".
"Greater" could mean anything, like "infinity", which I keep saying has nothing to do with my argument - so more specificity is needed than "greater".
I'm saying we cannot even conceive of that which has to be by definition beyond our finite conception of "somethings".

So you have literally just said: I'm saying we cannot even conceive of that which has to be by definition beyond our finite conception of "somethings". Do you see why I have chosen to focus on infinity (which you say is irrelevant to your core argument)?

Again, if I show you that we necessarily understand infinity, your argument about our finite and imperfect conception being such that we do not understand the Infinite or the Perfect, falls. To you the finite cannot conceive of the Infinite. If I show you that we necessarily conceive of the infinite, your argument falls does it not? So for now, let's focus purely on this point as I feel that is the most efficient way for us to move forward. You say:

Me saying "it both was and wasn't" is saying x both is y and isn't y, not "x both is x and isn't x". Clearly many things are both one thing and something else, so there really isn't any logical issue on that account.

Right, I will try and be clearer in what it is that I am asking of you. Call existence 'x'. Call not existence or non-existence 'not x' or 'non-x'. Was there ever not x or non-x? Or was there always x?

Also: Is that which you call 'nothing' an instance of 'not x', or is it an instance of 'x'?

[Certainly real]

If you are conceiving of consistency, you are conceiving of God.

Circular.

You are right in that it is circular. That is a triangle because it has only three sides is also circular, but it is a truth. As in it is circular but sound. Why is it sound? Because semantics are the way they are. Why are semantics the way they are? Because Existence is the way It Is. These are just brute/glorious facts (whichever way you want to look at it).

If one persists with reason in a consistent and sincere manner, they will see that what Obsrvr is saying is actually spot on. If you are truly conceiving of Existence, you are conceiving of the Infinite. This is also circular but sound because as I will hopefully show you, if you persist in this debate, you cannot believe in Existence without acknowledging Its Infiniteness. This is because it would be paradoxical to view Existence as not Infinite just as it would be paradoxical to view non-existence as infinite or an existent thing. Or to equate nothing with existence. When you contradict semantics, or use semantics in a contradictory manner, you know that you are saying what is not true of Existence. You know you are saying what is false. Some people are ok to do this, others are not. My hope is that you are not ok to accept these sorts of standards for yourself. My hope is, that you will opt for standards that are reasonable, understandable, sensible, intelligible and not absurd/irrational/unreasonable/nonsensical/paradoxical. My hope is that you will favour truth over falsehood, even if you don't like the way it looks at first glance (which would be odd given that nothing could look or sound or feel better than a perfect existence. It not existing, would surely be a shame.).

[obsrvr524]

For something to be a circular argument it must first be an argument.

In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements (in a natural language), called the premises or premisses (both spellings are acceptable), intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion

Is the statement "1=1" a "series of statements"?
If not then it is not an argument.
If not an argument then it cannot be in the set of circular arguments.

By analogy a single statement is a point. It is a single entity. If not conditional, it is a stand alone entity. Whether a true or false statement, it is but one point.

How do we make a circle out of a single point? A circle requires at very least 2 separate points and that is only if we accept bendy lines that equate the first and third points as the exact same point. To define a particular circle requires 3 separate points.

So why on Earth would either of you think that the statement "1=1" or "A=1" is circular?

[Meno_]

Bendy is sufficient for light before You become aware of it.

The third is an unintended premise.


May I not be wrong.

[Certainly real]

For something to be a circular argument it must first be an argument.

In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements (in a natural language), called the premises or premisses (both spellings are acceptable), intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion

Is the statement "1=1" a "series of statements"?
If not then it is not an argument.
If not an argument then it cannot be in the set of circular arguments.

By analogy a single statement is a point. It is a single entity. If not conditional, it is a stand alone entity. Whether a true or false statement, it is but one point.

How do we make a circle out of a single point? A circle requires at very least 2 separate points and that is only if we accept bendy lines that equate the first and third points as the exact same point. To define a particular circle requires 3 separate points.

So why on Earth would either of you think that the statement "1=1" or "A=1" is circular?

Good point. Thank you for making it.

Triangles have three sides. Triangles have four sides. That is a triangle because it is a triangle. Jack is happy because he is smiling. The latter two are circular, the former two are not. I viewed triangle = triangle as being circular because I wrongly thought it amounted to the statement 'that is a triangle because it is a triangle' (which I see as being circular but sound).

[obsrvr524]

Don't confuse tautology with circularity.

tautology ►
n. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.

tautology
the use of two words or phrases that express the same meaning, in a way that is unnecessary and usually unintentional

And the statement "God = Consistency" is neither tautological nor circular.

It is a single assertion of fact - whether true or false.

[Meno_]

Except when circularity takes a back seat to the awareness of it