Why Descartes' Argument for the Existence of God had the Right Conclusions but not the Right Premise
In this blogpost I will compare and contrast my argument for the nature of Existence being omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite and eternal with Descartes’ cosmological and ontological argument for the existence of God. I will then argue that Existence is perfect.
In a nutshell, Descartes’ cosmological argument for the existence of God stated that he had an idea of a supremely perfect being. Since he himself was not a supremely perfect being, he could not have been the cause of the idea of a supremely perfect being. Therefore, the existence of a supremely perfect being was necessary to make the idea at all possible.
Much of the argument I have presented in my first two blog posts were directly inspired by Descartes’ cosmological argument for the existence of God. Descartes’ argument that we cannot have an idea of a supremely perfect being without there actually being a supremely perfect being to make that a possibility was spot on. The paradox of something coming from nothing makes it so that we cannot rationally deny a supremely perfect being.
So how can his argument be countered? Some might argue that the idea of God is just a product of one’s imagination. It’s a combination of concepts that are expanded to maximums to generate the idea of a supremely perfect being. The problem with this kind of argument is that it does not metaphysically account for how the mind is able to do something like this.
If I’m not mistaken, the default position that most people seem to accept is that the mind is able to conjure up an infinite amount of ideas or semantical gaps as I’d like to call them independent of whether these semantical gaps could ever exist or not. However, when the mind takes up the challenge that I proposed in my previous blog post (can the mind think of something that has meaning but can never exist?), it will come to recognise the absurdities in such a belief.
In my previous blog post, I argued that omnipotence has meaning and that omnipotence is impossible without omnipresence, and given that nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state (see my second blog post for a detailed defence) it follows that the only way that existence could accommodate an omnipotent being, is if existence has always been and will always be omnipotent. The same applies to all other traits that are necessary to the perfect being (omnipotence, omniscience, infinite, eternal, omnipresence and so on). See my first and second blog post for a more detailed defence on why existence needs to accommodate all meaningful concepts and why existence is necessarily omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite and eternal.
We cannot say that it’s possible for something to become omnipotent just as we cannot say that it’s possible for something to become Existence/omnipresent. Existence has always existed and will always exist and nothing else can take its place. Similarly, the perfect being has always existed and will always exist and nothing else can take its place.
Mackie suggests that even if the Causal Principle applies to events in the world, we cannot extrapolate from the way the world works to the world as a whole (Mackie 1982: 85). On the contrary, that is exactly what we should be doing. Reason clearly dictates that there is nothing beyond existence (non-existence/absurdity). There is only one existence and everything that exists does so in existence. We couldn’t extrapolate and apply reason to another existence even if we wanted to. That would be absurd. Reason dictates that there is nothing beyond existence so it does not allow us the ability to apply reason to another existence. Again, you can have multiple worlds, realities, universes and beings within existence, but you cannot have more than one existence and you cannot have anything outside of it. Reason and language applies to all that exists.
Another objection that various philosophers have made is that we do not have a clear objective idea of the supremely perfect being or that we have different ideas about what constitutes the supremely perfect being. Whist I acknowledge that some attributes of the supremely perfect being may be unknown to us, the outline is objective to all of us and sufficiently clear to warrant the move of labelling a being as perfect. To further make my point clear, can anyone rationally argue for something being better than an omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, eternal entity whilst omitting these core traits? This part of the supremely perfect being is without controversy, it’s objective and it’s clear. Where it might get controversial is when we start to focus on other traits which only an omnipotent, omniscient being is able to have such as being perfect at measuring, punishing, rewarding, designing, planning, creating, designing and so on.
Essentially, the perfect being is perfect and does perfectly. How it is perfect is sufficiently clear. By this I mean, it suffices for us to say that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, eternal being is perfect even though there may be additional things about it that we may be unaware of. For example, we believe existence is all existing. It may have more dimensions than we think, but whether it does or not won’t change the core of our definition that existence is all existing. That existence is omnipresent or all existing is core to the definition of existence just as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, infiniteness and eternalness are core to the definition of the perfect being.
Some philosophers such as Anthony Kenny suggested that perfection is just the negation of imperfection. If my understanding of this argument is correct, it implies that by negating our own imperfections, we reach the perfect being. This is absurd. Per the dictates of reason, when you negate something, you get the negation of that thing. Not some other thing. For example if you negate existence, you get non-existence (although this is impossible and absurd) If existence was a triangle, and you were to negate it, you’d would be left with…non-existence.
If you negated all finite things within an infinite existence, you’d be left with the infinite existence. The infinite existence is there regardless of whether or not we negate finite things. On the other hand, If existence was finite and you negated all finite existing things, you’d be left with non-existence.
The idea of negating finite to get infinity is absurd. It’s actually more like a shift in semantical focus. You negate your focus on all finites so the only thing left to focus on is the infinite. Essentially, the infinite existence is there and negating finite things within it does nothing to its infiniteness.
In the exact same way, the same acknowledgement is demanded by reason with regards to the perfect being. If existence was not perfect and it only contained imperfect beings, negating all imperfect beings would result in non-existence. It’s not a matter of negating imperfect beings to reach the perfect being, it’s a matter of negating our semantical focus from imperfect beings wherein which the only thing left to focus on is the perfect being.
Moving onto the ontological argument; in the fifth meditations, Descartes wrote: But if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something entails that everything which I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God? Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature.
Omnipresence/existence is necessary to the idea of God/the Supremely perfect being just as three sides are necessary to the idea of a triangle. Descartes’ intuitions and conclusion was sound, but perhaps he failed to adequately explain why omnipresence is necessary to the perfect being.
Kant argued that existence is not a predicate and therefore irrelevant to the idea of a supremely perfect being. The idea that existing doesn’t make something better or worse has no bearing on the fact that being perfect demands omnipotence, and omnipotence demands omnipresence. So Kant’s argument fails because omnipresence is in fact necessary for omnipotence and omniscience which are necessary to fulfil the semantics of the perfect being. (see my second blog post for a more detailed defence).
Also, we can say that Kant is wrong by arguing that the quality of existing does potentially make something better or worse. A 3d world has the the potential to be better than a 2d world because it’s existence is such that there are more dimensions to it. It is therefore potentially better. Of course, a 2d heaven is better than a 3d hell, but a 3d heaven is better than a 2d heaven. The quality of existing is relevant to making something better in the way that if God simply existed in the confines of the imagination, rather than being omnipresent, if wouldn’t be as good and therefore not perfect.
Existence is perfect. Some may point to imperfections they see within existence to be in opposition to this, and some may simply say that existence would be better if it had more dimensions or aspects to it. The latter absurdly refers to unknowns whilst the former is just plain absurd. The absurdity in the latter could be removed if it was stated as, Existence/perfection may be better than what we can fathom in our current state. This is simply unknown without being absurd. We acknowledge that existence cannot be more perfect whilst also acknowledging that existence may be better than what we can fathom. Our lack of awareness or inability to fully fathom does not alter the actual truth of existence having always been perfect and always being perfect.
Just as our understanding of existence/omnipresence is sufficient but perhaps incomplete (there may be more dimensions in existence that we can’t fathom in our current state), our understanding of perfection is also sufficient (we are aware of core/outline of the definition) whether it’s complete or not is unknown to us.
The known is that so long as omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, infiniteness and eternalness are semantically sound (meaningful therefore neither absurd or unknown), existence is necessarily perfect because as discussed in my previous blog posts, it’s not a potential/hypothetical possibility, which just leaves having always necessarily existed and necessarily always existing.
As previously stated, the phrase “more perfect” is absurd. So comments such as existence would be more perfect if our universe contained less evil is absurd. This is just like saying existence would be more omnipresent or all existing if it contained more finite beings, dimensions or semantical gaps. The phrase “more omnipresent” is absurd. If there are more dimensions, beings or semantical gaps in existence that are unknown to us, that does not alter existence being all existing or omnipresent in any way. Them being unknown to us is not the same as them being non-existent/absurd. On the other hand, if there aren’t more dimensions, beings or semantical gaps in existence, then that also doesn’t alter existence being omnipresent. Existence’s omnipresence is the same whether we have awareness of additional dimensions or not.
Moving onto things like evil and injustice and their relation to existence; I can think of so many hypothetical ways wherein which a given observation that may appear unjust is in fact actually fully justified in the grand scheme of things. For example, I observe a child starving in a third world country. I have the belief that the world has enough resources to meet everyone’s needs. I also have the belief that the child is innocent and therefore should not be suffering. I then conclude injustice; full stop.
Per the dictates of reason, I would be misguided to think that that is all there is to that observation. It may appear to be injustice, but, it is not injustice full stop. That same child may starve for years but then be on the receiving end of something that counters the starvation experienced in such a way as to make things fully justified. So maybe the quality of that child’s happiness post starvation is such that even the child itself would conclude that the starvation was justified/well balanced/fair all things considered. Even if you change the parameters of the example to the child starving to death, there are still so many hypothetical ways in which that same child could be on the receiving end of something sufficiently good to counter the starvation it experienced. The semantics of the word heaven should give you plenty of food for thought with regards to available potential/hypothetical possibilities. The nature of existence is such that I can think of so many hypothetical ways in which what may appear unjust can be fully justified in the end.
In any case, to conclude, you’re not using reason right if you commit to absurdities or unknowns. For example, you cannot say I can conceive of a better existence that has more dimensions where the phrase “more dimensions” isn’t actually meaningful to you and is therefore something that you lack knowledge of. Nor can you say I can conceive of a better existence that designs and plans better because you’d have to be omniscient to be in a suitable position to make that statement, so again, something that you lack, a lack of knowledge. In both cases, the suggestion that one can conceive of “a better existence” is absurd. It implies the possibility of another existence. It also implies that existence is not perfect, which again, is absurd. A better reality is meaningful; a better existence has always been and will always be absurd/non-existent.
In a nutshell, Descartes’ cosmological argument for the existence of God stated that he had an idea of a supremely perfect being. Since he himself was not a supremely perfect being, he could not have been the cause of the idea of a supremely perfect being. Therefore, the existence of a supremely perfect being was necessary to make the idea at all possible.
Much of the argument I have presented in my first two blog posts were directly inspired by Descartes’ cosmological argument for the existence of God. Descartes’ argument that we cannot have an idea of a supremely perfect being without there actually being a supremely perfect being to make that a possibility was spot on. The paradox of something coming from nothing makes it so that we cannot rationally deny a supremely perfect being.
So how can his argument be countered? Some might argue that the idea of God is just a product of one’s imagination. It’s a combination of concepts that are expanded to maximums to generate the idea of a supremely perfect being. The problem with this kind of argument is that it does not metaphysically account for how the mind is able to do something like this.
If I’m not mistaken, the default position that most people seem to accept is that the mind is able to conjure up an infinite amount of ideas or semantical gaps as I’d like to call them independent of whether these semantical gaps could ever exist or not. However, when the mind takes up the challenge that I proposed in my previous blog post (can the mind think of something that has meaning but can never exist?), it will come to recognise the absurdities in such a belief.
In my previous blog post, I argued that omnipotence has meaning and that omnipotence is impossible without omnipresence, and given that nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state (see my second blog post for a detailed defence) it follows that the only way that existence could accommodate an omnipotent being, is if existence has always been and will always be omnipotent. The same applies to all other traits that are necessary to the perfect being (omnipotence, omniscience, infinite, eternal, omnipresence and so on). See my first and second blog post for a more detailed defence on why existence needs to accommodate all meaningful concepts and why existence is necessarily omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite and eternal.
We cannot say that it’s possible for something to become omnipotent just as we cannot say that it’s possible for something to become Existence/omnipresent. Existence has always existed and will always exist and nothing else can take its place. Similarly, the perfect being has always existed and will always exist and nothing else can take its place.
Mackie suggests that even if the Causal Principle applies to events in the world, we cannot extrapolate from the way the world works to the world as a whole (Mackie 1982: 85). On the contrary, that is exactly what we should be doing. Reason clearly dictates that there is nothing beyond existence (non-existence/absurdity). There is only one existence and everything that exists does so in existence. We couldn’t extrapolate and apply reason to another existence even if we wanted to. That would be absurd. Reason dictates that there is nothing beyond existence so it does not allow us the ability to apply reason to another existence. Again, you can have multiple worlds, realities, universes and beings within existence, but you cannot have more than one existence and you cannot have anything outside of it. Reason and language applies to all that exists.
Another objection that various philosophers have made is that we do not have a clear objective idea of the supremely perfect being or that we have different ideas about what constitutes the supremely perfect being. Whist I acknowledge that some attributes of the supremely perfect being may be unknown to us, the outline is objective to all of us and sufficiently clear to warrant the move of labelling a being as perfect. To further make my point clear, can anyone rationally argue for something being better than an omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, eternal entity whilst omitting these core traits? This part of the supremely perfect being is without controversy, it’s objective and it’s clear. Where it might get controversial is when we start to focus on other traits which only an omnipotent, omniscient being is able to have such as being perfect at measuring, punishing, rewarding, designing, planning, creating, designing and so on.
Essentially, the perfect being is perfect and does perfectly. How it is perfect is sufficiently clear. By this I mean, it suffices for us to say that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, eternal being is perfect even though there may be additional things about it that we may be unaware of. For example, we believe existence is all existing. It may have more dimensions than we think, but whether it does or not won’t change the core of our definition that existence is all existing. That existence is omnipresent or all existing is core to the definition of existence just as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, infiniteness and eternalness are core to the definition of the perfect being.
Some philosophers such as Anthony Kenny suggested that perfection is just the negation of imperfection. If my understanding of this argument is correct, it implies that by negating our own imperfections, we reach the perfect being. This is absurd. Per the dictates of reason, when you negate something, you get the negation of that thing. Not some other thing. For example if you negate existence, you get non-existence (although this is impossible and absurd) If existence was a triangle, and you were to negate it, you’d would be left with…non-existence.
If you negated all finite things within an infinite existence, you’d be left with the infinite existence. The infinite existence is there regardless of whether or not we negate finite things. On the other hand, If existence was finite and you negated all finite existing things, you’d be left with non-existence.
The idea of negating finite to get infinity is absurd. It’s actually more like a shift in semantical focus. You negate your focus on all finites so the only thing left to focus on is the infinite. Essentially, the infinite existence is there and negating finite things within it does nothing to its infiniteness.
In the exact same way, the same acknowledgement is demanded by reason with regards to the perfect being. If existence was not perfect and it only contained imperfect beings, negating all imperfect beings would result in non-existence. It’s not a matter of negating imperfect beings to reach the perfect being, it’s a matter of negating our semantical focus from imperfect beings wherein which the only thing left to focus on is the perfect being.
Moving onto the ontological argument; in the fifth meditations, Descartes wrote: But if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something entails that everything which I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God? Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature.
Omnipresence/existence is necessary to the idea of God/the Supremely perfect being just as three sides are necessary to the idea of a triangle. Descartes’ intuitions and conclusion was sound, but perhaps he failed to adequately explain why omnipresence is necessary to the perfect being.
Kant argued that existence is not a predicate and therefore irrelevant to the idea of a supremely perfect being. The idea that existing doesn’t make something better or worse has no bearing on the fact that being perfect demands omnipotence, and omnipotence demands omnipresence. So Kant’s argument fails because omnipresence is in fact necessary for omnipotence and omniscience which are necessary to fulfil the semantics of the perfect being. (see my second blog post for a more detailed defence).
Also, we can say that Kant is wrong by arguing that the quality of existing does potentially make something better or worse. A 3d world has the the potential to be better than a 2d world because it’s existence is such that there are more dimensions to it. It is therefore potentially better. Of course, a 2d heaven is better than a 3d hell, but a 3d heaven is better than a 2d heaven. The quality of existing is relevant to making something better in the way that if God simply existed in the confines of the imagination, rather than being omnipresent, if wouldn’t be as good and therefore not perfect.
Existence is perfect. Some may point to imperfections they see within existence to be in opposition to this, and some may simply say that existence would be better if it had more dimensions or aspects to it. The latter absurdly refers to unknowns whilst the former is just plain absurd. The absurdity in the latter could be removed if it was stated as, Existence/perfection may be better than what we can fathom in our current state. This is simply unknown without being absurd. We acknowledge that existence cannot be more perfect whilst also acknowledging that existence may be better than what we can fathom. Our lack of awareness or inability to fully fathom does not alter the actual truth of existence having always been perfect and always being perfect.
Just as our understanding of existence/omnipresence is sufficient but perhaps incomplete (there may be more dimensions in existence that we can’t fathom in our current state), our understanding of perfection is also sufficient (we are aware of core/outline of the definition) whether it’s complete or not is unknown to us.
The known is that so long as omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, infiniteness and eternalness are semantically sound (meaningful therefore neither absurd or unknown), existence is necessarily perfect because as discussed in my previous blog posts, it’s not a potential/hypothetical possibility, which just leaves having always necessarily existed and necessarily always existing.
As previously stated, the phrase “more perfect” is absurd. So comments such as existence would be more perfect if our universe contained less evil is absurd. This is just like saying existence would be more omnipresent or all existing if it contained more finite beings, dimensions or semantical gaps. The phrase “more omnipresent” is absurd. If there are more dimensions, beings or semantical gaps in existence that are unknown to us, that does not alter existence being all existing or omnipresent in any way. Them being unknown to us is not the same as them being non-existent/absurd. On the other hand, if there aren’t more dimensions, beings or semantical gaps in existence, then that also doesn’t alter existence being omnipresent. Existence’s omnipresence is the same whether we have awareness of additional dimensions or not.
Moving onto things like evil and injustice and their relation to existence; I can think of so many hypothetical ways wherein which a given observation that may appear unjust is in fact actually fully justified in the grand scheme of things. For example, I observe a child starving in a third world country. I have the belief that the world has enough resources to meet everyone’s needs. I also have the belief that the child is innocent and therefore should not be suffering. I then conclude injustice; full stop.
Per the dictates of reason, I would be misguided to think that that is all there is to that observation. It may appear to be injustice, but, it is not injustice full stop. That same child may starve for years but then be on the receiving end of something that counters the starvation experienced in such a way as to make things fully justified. So maybe the quality of that child’s happiness post starvation is such that even the child itself would conclude that the starvation was justified/well balanced/fair all things considered. Even if you change the parameters of the example to the child starving to death, there are still so many hypothetical ways in which that same child could be on the receiving end of something sufficiently good to counter the starvation it experienced. The semantics of the word heaven should give you plenty of food for thought with regards to available potential/hypothetical possibilities. The nature of existence is such that I can think of so many hypothetical ways in which what may appear unjust can be fully justified in the end.
In any case, to conclude, you’re not using reason right if you commit to absurdities or unknowns. For example, you cannot say I can conceive of a better existence that has more dimensions where the phrase “more dimensions” isn’t actually meaningful to you and is therefore something that you lack knowledge of. Nor can you say I can conceive of a better existence that designs and plans better because you’d have to be omniscient to be in a suitable position to make that statement, so again, something that you lack, a lack of knowledge. In both cases, the suggestion that one can conceive of “a better existence” is absurd. It implies the possibility of another existence. It also implies that existence is not perfect, which again, is absurd. A better reality is meaningful; a better existence has always been and will always be absurd/non-existent.
Comments (115)
No, you CAN be a source of the idea of God. The idea that you cannot be the source is EXACTLY what the evil genius wants you to think (since you wanted to use Descartes)
A unicorn has meaning but doesn't exist. A dragon has meaning but doesn't exist. A goblin has meaning but doesn't exist. A flying cow has meaning but doesn't exist. I don't see the problem with imagining things that have meaning but don't exist.
What's the problem with becoming omnipresent from a limited state of omnipresence? If you were omnipotent you would be able to do so. Also if you were omnipotent you would be able to transcend the limits of presence and cause action at a distance so you wouldn't need to be omnipresent (Again, this is probably a dumb argument but I couldn't find your previous posts)
An omnipotent perfect being could create a world such that there would be no suffering in the first place to be "justified" and where everyone is experiencing the maximum state of bliss possible for eternity
(1) There is existence/Existence exists
(2) Everything that exists, does so only in existence
(3) We are fully dependent on existence
(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows
(5) Given 4, anything that is either rational/comprehensible/understandable, necessarily belongs to existence (existence accommodates it; as in either it is necessarily existent, or existence has the potential to create it or produce it. This why our minds classify it or recognise it as a hypothetical possibility and this is why it has meaning. So a unicorn is a potential thing that Existence can produce) On the other hand, anything that is either irrational or incomprehensible is necessarily non-existent (existence does not accommodate it. The potential for it to exist has never been there and will never be there. For example, no square-circles or married bachelors can ever exist. Such phrases iare absurd and makes no sense)
(6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational concepts that we have an understanding of. So Existence must accommodate these concepts. As highlighted by 5, to deny this is to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing. Therefore, either:
6a) The potential is there for something to become omnipotent and omniscient, or 6b) Something is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
(7) Only Existence/that which is all-existing/omnipresent can be almighty/omnipotent and all-knowing/omniscient because the semantics of omnipotence are not satisfied if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence. Similarly, you can't be all-knowing if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence.
(8) Given 7, 6a must be false as nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state as nothing can substitute Existence. So the potential for something to become omnipresent is not there which entails that the potential for something to become omnipotent or omniscient is also not there.
(9) Given that 6a is false and that the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are not absurd, it follows that 6b is true.
(10) Only Existence/that which is all-existing/omnipresent can be almighty and all knowing.
(11) Given 5-10, Existence is necessary omnipotent and omniscient.
Top
Not don't exist, but can't ever exist. There's a difference. I can imagine a unicorn, but I've never seen a real one.
It's possible for unicorns to be real is what I'm saying and that is the same as saying Existence has the potential to produce unicorns.
Existence is all-existing. How can something else take it's place or substitute it?
Semantically, what you're describing, sounds like heaven to me. The process of purifying/filtering/testing/enhancing free-will/the spirit is what I believe is happening in our reality. Once we're pure, I think then we'll get to heaven. Again, that requires that we be worthy/deserving/sufficiently pure/suitable for that kind of reality.
Why?
Quoting Philosopher19
How?
Quoting Philosopher19
How and Why? (respectively)
Because it would be paradoxical to think otherwise:
All minds exist in Existence. They are a part of Existence. They don't surpass or go beyond Existence. What's beyond Existence for them to go beyond? Do you see rejection of 4 is irrational/paradoxical?
Because we can define them. Because they have meaning and we can talk about them meaningfully. If we didn't have an understanding of them, we wouldn't be able to talk about them meaningfully or define them in an objective manner.
Because you can never have something that is meaningful but can never exist. Can you think of something that is meaningful but can never exist?
That argument probably didn't originate with Descartes. It looks very similar to the fourth of Aquinas' "Five Ways".
In Descartes' version, it seems to depend on whether or not Descartes really did have an idea of a supremely perfect being in mind.
I'd be inclined to say that human beings like us are able to imagine many properties and qualities that hold true in differing degrees. From size, weight, hardness or velocity all the way to vaguer things like goodness and beauty. Once we have defined a scale or hierarchy of values, we can imagine something possessing whatever quality we are imagining to the utmost "supreme" degree. We do the same thing with infinity in mathematics.
In none of these cases do we really seem to have a clear and distinct idea in mind of what such a thing would be like. We aren't really imagining some ultimate number at the end of all integers, nor are we really imagining a perfect deity. (Many theologies would insist that the true nature of the deity is beyond all human conception.) We are just imagining a scale and an operation on the scale (extending it), then imagining the operation being applied without bounds without having a clear idea of what would result.
By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality
not sure how convincing, but it is elegant
Let's pretend that the universe has a beginning. I can imagine before the beginning of time, but that doesn't mean such a thing exists.
It could be that existence allows minds to imagine things which existence could not allow outside of the (potentially faulty) imagination of minds
Quoting Philosopher19
You say that we can define them in an objective manner because we can talk about them meaningfully, but that is rather circular. How do we know that we have defined omniscience and omnipotence sufficiently or objectively, especially given we are not ourselves omnipotent or omniscient.
Perhaps one must experience omniscience and omnipotence before they can define it properly.
Quoting Philosopher19
Faster than light travel of energy or information, for one. (A timebefore time as well, as I've already mentioned).
"Superman" (Clark Kent), from a planet called Krypton (since destroyed) who when exposed to light from Earth's sun gains practically endless strength (including the ability to rewind time by flying around the earth so fast its rotation reverses). Superman cannot exist because there's not enough energy in the tiny amount of sunlight that strikes his body, making the whole concept thermodynamically impossible.
Superman is very meaningful to very many people, but it cannot possibly exist, nor must it.
A) A unicorn must exist or have the potential for existing
B) Only that which has a horn can be a unicorn
C) Since horns exist, a unicorn must exist and not just be a potentiality
To better understand your view of reason, let me start by saying: In order to use reason effectively, avoiding paradoxes is necessary. Right? I'll try and demonstrate what I mean: Reason is always right when used correctly because anything other than this is paradoxical. Is this correct, false, circular but correct, circular but false, or none of what I've just mentioned?
With regards to omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience, I say it's sufficient and objective because the meaning is sufficiently clear. It's objective because rationally speaking there can be no other definition that is paradox free. Can you think of another definition?
Existence has to be infinite and eternal otherwise you have the following paradoxes: Something coming from non-exsitence. Existence bordering non-existence.
The Universe does have a beginning, which means the Universe is encompassed by/sustained by something else as it cannot be sustained by non-existence/nothingness.
On the other hand, Existence doesn't have a beginning, nor will it have an end. That would be paradoxical. What's it gonna go into, non-existence?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Whenever the mind is faulty or incorrect in its use of reason, paradoxes occur. For example square-cirlcles, or things existing and not existing at the same time or something coming from nothing, are just some examples of faulty use of language which reason reveals by way of paradoxes.
We can all imagine a shape with straight lines. But we cannot imagine a shape with straight lines in our universe because gravity makes it impossible for straights to exist within it. This essentially amounts to a bendy straight lined (which is absurd). Can you picture a bendy straight line?
What I'm trying to say is the following:
Consider the sentence: Nelson Mandela lifts a 25,000 pound bus. Now picture it. We can all picture Nelson Mandela doing this and Hollywood can produce a video clip where Nelson Mandela is lifting a 25,000 pound bus. However, given the traits we associate with Nelson Mandela, given the definition of Nelson Mandela, and given the semantical gap that is Nelson Mandela, we cannot coherently imagine Nelson Mandela doing this.
If we saw an advert that shows this, we automatically assume special effects or some other kind of mechanism wherein which the images of Nelson Mandela doing this have been produced. As in we change the semantics of the sentence somehow to make it mathematically or scientifically add up. For example we could alter the semantics of the bus in question. So we think something like maybe it was a picture of a bus that Nelson Mandela actually lifted.
Nelson Mandela cannot lift a 25,000 bus, the math and science don’t add up, so it goes in the absurd category and you cannot imagine it coherently unless you alter semantics appropriately and adequately in some way.
Do you see where I'm coming from?
How then do you account for the paradox of something coming from nothing? All minds are limited to Existence and what Existence allows. If Existence does not have the potential to produce something omnipotent, then either:
1) Omnipotence will never be, or 2) something is necessarily omnipotent.
The reason it can't be 1 is because we have an understanding of omnipotence. Existence has made this possible. So It's not an absurd concept like non-existence or a square-circle which are impossible.
Therefore if the potential for it to exist isn't there, and the concept has meaning (just as the concept omnipresence has meaning), in order to avoid the paradox of saying that the mind has gone outside/beyond Existence, we are rationally force to acknowledge 2.
Try the following challenge and what I'm saying might become clearer:
Can you think of something that has meaning (as in it's not absurd/paradoxical/contradictory) but can never ever exist?
Omnipotence = that which can do all that is doable. There is no contradiction in this definition.
Now, something that is paradoxical does not constitute something that is doable. Your boulder example is just like saying: Can that which is omnipotent create a square-circle, can it exist and not exist at the same time, can it know what a bendy-straight line is.
The boulder example essentially amounts to: Can it be omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time.
You can't really say: Can that which is omnipotent/omniscient do/know followed by a paradox because anything that is paradoxical is meaningless.
I don't think you saw my previous comment so I'm gonna repeat it. My main problem is with 8. I think it's a non sequitur. 6 is perfectly true. There must either be the potential of omnipotence or there must be omnipotence. 7 is also true in saying that only that which is omnipresent can be omnipotent. However, it doesn't follow from that that what is omnipresent is necessarily omnipotent and so it doesn't follow that there must be an omnipotent being. It's sounds to me like:
A) A unicorn must exist or have the potential for existing
B) Only that which has a horn can be a unicorn
C) Since horns exist, a unicorn must exist and not just be a potentiality
A square circle. It is not, as some think, a contradiction in terms because a circle is defined as the set of all points on a two-dimensional surface that are equidistant from a point called the 'centre', and a square is defined as a shape on a two-dimensional surface that consists of four 'straight' (geodesic) paths that meet at right angles.
It can be proven that no such shape can exist but, because it is not a contradiction in terms (in Kant's terminology, the fact that it cannot exist is not an analytic* truth), one can imagine it existing, and what one imagines is meaningful.
* Earlier I wrote 'a priori' here, which was the wrong term, and refers to something else. I have corrected this now to 'analytic'.
I'll try and highlight the difference as best as I can by comparing:
A) An omnipotent being must exist or have the potential for existing
A) A unicorn must exist or have the potential for existing
Both sentence are true.
B) Only that which has a horn can be a unicorn
B) Only that which is omnipresent can be omnipotent
Again, both true.
C) Since horns exist, a unicorn must exist and not just be a potentiality
I think false. You can have horns exist and then have unicorns come into existence independently of those horns. Right? If yes, then C is false. Do we agree?
A unicorn can be a potentiality. But omnipotence cannot. That's the key difference.
Don't forget, you cannot have something that has meaning but can never exist. If you think you can, give me an example. With that in mind, let's look at C:
C) Since omnipotence has meaning and it cannot be potentiality, then it is necessarily existing
Do you see the difference?
Unicorns have meaning. They are a potentiality which is the same as saying they are hypothetically possible. So we can rationally account for how Existence accommodates them.
Omnipotence has meaning but it is not a potentiality, so how does Existence accommodate it? The same way it accommodates omnipresence. Existence necessarily is omnipresent and omnipotent.
Having an understanding of any concept means that it's not absurd. Which means that it's not like a square-circle that can never ever exist...so either it has to be able to come into existence, or it necessarily exists. Unicorns can come into existence, omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence cannot.
You say "I think false. You can have horns exist and then have unicorns come into existence independently of those horns. Right? If yes, then C is false. Do we agree?". Yes, but C was supposed to be modelling YOUR argument. This applied to your argument too. You also said that omnipresence is necessary for omnipotence HOWEVER, omnipresence clearly doesn't imply omnipotence so, similar to the horn being able to develop separately, omnipresence can develop separately. So yes, while we agree C is false, C is supposed to be mirroring your argument so C being false makes your argument false.
C) Since horns exist, a unicorn must exist and not just be a potentiality (horns do not necessarily mean a unicorn)
C) Since omnipresence exists, omnipotence must exist and not just be a potentiality (omnipresence does not necessarily imply omnipotence)
Both of these are false because of the parenthesis
You say "Don't forget, you cannot have something that has meaning but can never exist" correct, but the unicorn I'm imagining DOESN'T exist. I'm imagining a rainbow crapping unicorn that flies through space. That has a very specific MEANING yet it doesn't exist. It only exists as a POTENTIALITY. I can see how it might exist somewhere but I know it doesn't exist here. Similarly, an omnipotent omnipresent being exists as a POTENTIALITY but I have no reason to assume it exists here. And even if I assume an omnipresent being exists I can't logically conclude that it is all powerful in the same way horns don't imply the existence of unicorns
Is it just me or are you contradicting yourself? This was all in the same comment
A unicorn can be a potentiality. But omnipotence cannot. That's the key difference.
Me: How so?
Since omnipotence has meaning and it cannot be potentiality, then it is necessarily existing
Me: ok then everything that has meaning must exist and not be a potentiality
Unicorns have meaning. They are a potentiality
Me: Wot?
Since omnipotence has meaning and it cannot be potentiality
Me: but so do unicorns
You said:
"How then do you account for the paradox of something coming from nothing? All minds are limited to Existence and what Existence allows. If Existence does not have the potential to produce something omnipotent, then either:
1) Omnipotence will never be, or 2) something is necessarily omnipotent.
The reason it can't be 1 is because we have an understanding of omnipotence"
I don't get the last statement. I thought it was because we understand it it can EITHER be 1 or 2. For example, my understanding of a rainbow crapping unicorn is real, but the unicorn is only a potentiality, I have no way to confirm that it exists. Similarly, my understanding of omnipotence is real yet I cannot confirm that an omnipotent being exists. It is only a potentiality. You keep asserting it cannot be and I don't understand why
This is what your argument sounds like to me
P1: If the mind can think of it it either exists or CAN exist
P2: The mind can think of an omnipotent being
P3: An omnipotent being exists or CAN exist
P4: The mind can think of an omnipotent being
C: An omnipotent being exists
Quoting Philosopher19
This is ridiculous. No matter what linguistic acrobatics you can use... If the statement "God exists" were analytically true, then it would only be true by virtue of the meaning of the words, which is an utter tautology. If the statement is synthetically true then the existence of God must be shown to be, and its existence must sit elsewhere.
Quoting Philosopher19
Then you do not know what it is you are referring to and therefore Anselm\Descartes argument makes no logical sense. And this is the same for anything. It is supposed that we know. It is only supposed. Nothing more. I say, "It is a shell!" and thus you have Aphrodite.
There is indeed something greater than the idea of a supremely perfect being, namely the idea of something greater than a supremely perfect being, which, with the logic of the ontological argument, must exist. It is not 'necessary,' you say? The necessity of asking questions is prior to the so-called necessity of a prototype of thought. So you say, the existence of God has been necessitated... Then why do I still doubt? Nothing can be proved by a priori logic alone. And these prototypes are illusions. There is no absolute, perfect fruit, apple, tea, orgasm, god, etc. etc. It is all isolated and fragmented. These are bombastic constructs; psychological at best. The massive mistake is in assuming that we would be capable of even apprehending a God. If there were indeed a God... Why would such means be necessary in an apprehension?
Quoting Philosopher19
I see a circulus vitiosus here. But furthermore, It seems that the very premise of the implied illogic of an affirmative reply is the answer to the question.
Quoting Philosopher19
I am not sure I agree with this, and neither do I, in any sense, believe anyone should agree with this. If I negate my focus on all finites, the only thing left to focus on would be the infinite... Which would thus be finite. How could you focus on the infinite? You cannot, unless it is finite. The opposite of something is nothing, but it is precisely because we are the origin of nothingness that we can even consider the negation of existence to be nothing. In negating the idea of an imperfect being, which is remaining an idea, you would get the idea of a perfect being... This is inescapable. Furthermore, if a perfect being exists, then a supremely imperfect being exists, and what then? Would that not cancel out any remote relevance of the existence of either to our existences?
Quoting Philosopher19
This is absurd. So, a woman being brutally raped and murdered would somehow be justified or compensated for? Or, a woman who was brutally raped and lived the rest of her life with intense PTSD, who managed to have other good things happen to her... These good things cancel out the wrong and the unjust is thus compensated for?
Foedus!
In any case... Something coming from nothing... This is outdated.... If being was conceived in or from a subjectivity then it remains a mode of intra subjective being. Such a subjectivity is bereft of even the representation of an objectivity, much less with the will to create it.
Existence, in Sartre's words, is more-so uncreated... And is neither active nor passive but is beyond both.
"[Being] is an immanence which can not realize itself, an affirmation which can not affirm itself, an activity which cannot act, because it is glued to itself."
I think paradox isn't the right word. Here is an example of a paradox "This statement is false". It is self-referential and therefore contradicts itself despite not being deductively invalid.
I think what you're trying to say is that valid deductive reasoning always leads to truth when used with true premises. This is what we call "sound argumentation".
Quoting Philosopher19
Correct, but circular.
In a given case, we can only know if "reason" was used correctly if we have the ability to directly test the truth of the conclusion. Once we inductively establish the consistency and reliability of a given piece of reasoning, we can be confident that using that bit of reasoning from true premises will result in true conclusions, and we can carry on without the need to test every conclusion immediately and directly.
In a way you're sayingreason determines truth, but empirically and epistemologically it's the other way around; results/"truth" reveal what "reason" is. Reason as we know it is a human-invented heuristic that is refined on reliability of predictions. Apriori we cannot actually know the rules of logic. We might be capable of imagining worlds where A=A, but until we actually check that against the real world, how can we know we've imagined it correctly?
If we discovered that a given piece of reasoning wasn't always right when used correctly and from true premises, we would decide therefore that it is not deductive reasoning (we would acknowledge that the world isn't necssarily ordered the way the piece of reasoning describes).
Here's a useful analogy: The champions are always the winners because anything other than this is paradoxical (they would not be called champions if they did not win).
Quoting Philosopher19
How are their meanings sufficiently clear? Are you capable of imagining infinite power? Are you capable of imagining infinite presence and awareness? You should not kid yourself about this. The concept of abstract infinity in and of itself is already fleeting enough without the addition of energy and perception thrown into the fray. You might be able to imagine something that you feel is omniscience-like or omnipotence-like, but it could be just be limited, inaccurate, and inaccurately described as relatable to the real McCoy.
What are your definitions of omniscience and omnipotence? What makes them sound definitions? (paradox free; valid reasoning from true premises)
I could propose a quality like "omni-pasta" which describes a noodle quality of infinite length. Could I carry on with your argument and conclude that a noodle must exist out there somewhere of infinite length?
Quoting Philosopher19
Minds and conclusions can be faulty despite correct use of reasoning, and minds can also use faulty reasoning directly.
The logic of abstract quantities is so well explored that we might as well set basic truths like 1+1=2 in stone, but applying the most abstract rules of logic to the real world comes with pitfalls. 1+1 on the quantum level can get confused, and basic presumptions like if p then q are merely provisional heuristics with inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness given the unexplored and unknown complexity of real world Ps and Qs, and their complete relationships, at any scale. For all we know, some aspects of our best scientific models are actually paradoxical when viewed from a position of better or full understanding.
Quoting Philosopher19
Here's the rub: If Mandela actually turns up and lifts 25,000 pound bus, instead of concluding that we live in an absurd universe, we would instead need to alter our clearly incorrect science and system of reasons which alleges it to be impossible (we would need to investigate).
Epistemologically, science and physics, doesn't use the models to prove the way the world is, inexorably we use evidence from the world to establish what the models should be. Once we have great models those models make great predictions, but they're not perfect or necessarily meaningful outside of the finite and linear human frame of perception.
----------
Some of the latter parts of your argument also can be easily broken into questionable assumptions: "anything that can be coherently imagined could possibly exist" somehow turns into "since we can imagine X, and since things we can imagine can possibly exist, and since X cannot possibly come into existence from a state of non-existence, in order to 'possibly exist' it would need to always have existed, therefore it must always have existed".
If X exists, it has either always existed or it came into existence. Since X cannot have come into existence, it must have always existed... If X exists...
Because you can have Existence generate/produce a unicorn. But can Existence generate/produce Existence/omnipresence? In other words can something become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state?
For something to become omnipotent, it needs to become omnipresent. But nothing can ever become omnipresent. So either that which is omnipresent is omnipotent, or it is not. If that which is omnipresent is not omnipotent, then omnipotence cannot be a potentiality.
Do you see how omnipotence cannot be a potentiality?
Don't forget, you cannot have something that has meaning but can never exist. That just leaves one option: That which is omnipresent is omnipotent.
Because it would be paradoxical. I'll demonstrate. Any step you disagree with, let me know:
0) All absurd/contradictory things are necessarily non-existent and will always be non-existent
1) You cannot have something that has meaning but can never exist
2) Provided that unicorns crapping rainbows is not paradoxical/contradictory, the concept/idea/sentence/item of thought has meaning.
4) Because it has meaning, it can exist
5) An infinite existence/that which is omnipresent has the potential to generate a universe/reality that contains unicorns crapping rainbows.
No paradoxes encountered. Reason has been adhered to. Now apply reason to omnipotence:
0) All absurd/contradictory things are necessarily non-existent and will always be non-existent
1) You cannot have something that has meaning but can never exist
2) Provided that omnipotence is not paradoxical/contradictory, the concept/idea/sentence/item of thought has meaning.
4) Because it has meaning, it can exist
5) An infinite existence/that which is omnipresent DOES NOT HAVE the potential to generate a universe/reality that contains omnipotence because omnipotence requires omnipresence and that which is omnipresent cannot create another omnipresent being
Paradox encountered. There is a problem with 4. Reasoning has not yet been complete with regards to this concept. So we continue:
Give 0 and give 1, just as Existence/that which is omnipresent necessarily exists/must exist, that which is omnipotence necessarily exists/must exist too. Existence is necessarily omnipotent.
5 determines that 4 is wrong. Because of 0, 1 and 2, 4 must be changed to: 4) Because it has meaning, it must exist
Do you see the difference?
You miss out some key premises:
P5: Only that which is omnipresent can be omnipotent
P6: Nothing can ever become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state
P7: Because of P5 and P6, nothing can ever become omnipotent from a non-omnipresent state
P8: P1 states that either A) omnipotence exists or B) something can become omnipotent. Because B is false, A must be true.
P9: Existence is omnipresent and omnipotent.
True. All counter arguments against God would only amount to paradox/absurdity.
Ok, forget what Descartes said. I'll put my argument in a premise by premise format. Tell me which premise is paradoxical or false and how.
(1) There is existence/Existence exists
(2) Everything that exists, does so only in existence
(3) We are fully dependent on existence
(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows
(5) Given 4, anything that is either rational/comprehensible/understandable, necessarily belongs to existence (existence accommodates it; as in either it is necessarily existent, or existence has the potential to create it or produce it. This why our minds classify it or recognise it as a hypothetical possibility and this is why it has meaning. So a unicorn is a potential thing that Existence can produce) On the other hand, anything that is either irrational or incomprehensible is necessarily non-existent (existence does not accommodate it. The potential for it to exist has never been there and will never be there. For example, no square-circles or married bachelors can never exist. Such phrases are absurd and makes no sense)
(6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational concepts that we have an understanding of. So Existence must accommodate these concepts. As highlighted by 5, to deny this is to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing. Therefore, either:
6a) The potential is there for something to become omnipotent and omniscient, or 6b) Something is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
(7) Only Existence/that which is all-existing/omnipresent can be almighty/omnipotent and all-knowing/omniscient because the semantics of omnipotence are not satisfied if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence. Similarly, you can't be all-knowing if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence.
(8) Given 7, 6a must be false as nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state as nothing can substitute Existence. So the potential for something to become omnipresent is not there which entails that the potential for something to become omnipotent or omniscient is also not there.
(9) Given that 6a is false and that the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are not absurd, it follows that 6b is true.
(10) Only Existence/that which is all-existing/omnipresent can be almighty and all knowing.
(11) Given 5-10, Existence is necessary omnipotent and omniscient.
I would agree with you... But this would render existence incomprehensible, would it not? For all we have for certain is our own existences, existences in concern for existence.
Nevertheless, nothing you have said necessitates an all knowing, singular being, but rather that which is infinite, ego-less.
Lastly, that which is irrational does exist. Emotion.
There is no rational cause of emotion lest one resorts to a fatalism.
We use reason to make sense of our observations, it's not the other way round. We have paradigm shifts in science and we alter the foundations of science every time we make an observation that reason dictates as being paradoxical/at odds with the rest of the scientific theory we're working with when making the observation.
It's not just science. Whenever we use language, (be it in science, maths, law, any field for that matter) we acknowledge that we cannot have absurdities/paradoxes. We don't dictate this, reason dictates this. It's a correct/sound circle.
Apriori we can categories everything in the following way. Necessary (Any thing which has always existed and will always exist, for example: Existence/that which is omnipresent) potential (Any thing that can change in existence/things that existence has the potential to bring about. Examples include: trees, humans unicorns, a super mutant Nelson Mandela etc. Unknowns (a 10th sense) and Absurdities (a married-bachelor, non-existence, a bendy-straight line etc.)
From an empirical point of view, we don't know if there are unicorns in our universe. But apriori, we know that unicorns can exist. As in the potential for them to exist is there. Not simply because they may be in our universe and we haven't observed them yet, but simply because reason dictates the following to be paradoxical: You cannot think of something meaningful that can never exist.
This, along with so many other ways that paradoxes occur (such as something coming from nothing) dictates that Existence is necessarily infinite and eternal. With it being such, we can see how all hypothetical possibilities are possible. How the potential is there for every meaningful/paradoxless concept/story/sentence/universe/world/reality to come to pass or be generated.
In this way, we avoid so many paradoxes which is absolutely necessary for the correct use of reason.
In an infinite existence why would you not be able to have something that is infinitely long? Where would there be a paradox in that, it seems to have meaning does it not? So the potential for something to be infinitely long is there.
Omnipotence (that which can do all that is doable)
Omniscience (that which knows all that there is to know)
They are sound because any other definition is paradoxical. They are paradox free because they contain no paradoxes. Where is there a paradox?
It is important to note that I am not proposing that our understanding of these class of concepts is complete. I am proposing that our understanding of these concepts are sufficient. For example our understanding of Existence/omnipresence is sufficient. It = that which is all-existing. Omnipotence = that which is almighty (can do all that is doable)
We don't have a full understanding of omnipotence just as we don't have a full understanding of omnipresence/existence but our understanding is sufficient. We don't know if Existence has a 100th sense or not, but we know that it's all-existing. We don't know if that which is omnipotent can create a being with a 100 senses or not, but we know that it's almighty.
Reason dictates that we would be forced to change the semantics such that the science and the math add up simply because reason and Existence are not absurd. Non-existence or the incorrect usage of reason is absurd/irrational/paradoxical.
Reason is a part of our existence. It authoritatively dictates things without compromise such as: you cannot use reason to doubt reason as that would be paradoxical. Reason dictates paradoxes are unacceptable. Are we in agreement on this?
Our understanding of Existence is not complete. But it is sufficient.
For example we know that Existence has to be defined in the following way: Existence = that which is all-existing. We also know that it has to be infinite and eternal. We know these things because reason dictates that the contrary would be paradoxical. I'll demonstrate:
A temporally finite Existence amounts to something coming from nothing (paradox). A spatially finite existence amounts to existence bordering non-existence (paradox). Existence not being omnipresent/all existing entails that [i]existent things can be separate by non-existence (paradox)[/I].
These are examples of things we know for certain. They are certain because as demonstrated, reason dictates it. They suffice in saying that we have a sufficient understanding of Existence.
Our understanding is not complete because, for example we don't know if Existence can accommodate beings with a 100 senses or not. We don't know if such beings are possible. We don't know if existence has the potential to generate such beings. But this does not render our understanding of Existence as false. Does it?
The same applies to omnipotence and omniscience. We have a sufficient understanding but it is not complete. We know that that which is omnipotent = that which is almighty/can do all that is doable. We know this because reason dictates any other definition to be paradoxical.
We don't know if that which is omnipotent can produce a being with a 100 senses or not. We know it has the potential to produce unicorns but we don't know if it can create a creature with a 100 senses.
So, does this render our understanding of omnipotence as false?
But is omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence a rational concept? I think this premise is taken for granted.[/quote]
I've not taken that premise for granted. If you can think of any problems with the concepts, then let me know. I'm confident in my ability to give rational replies.
So this is contradictory then is it not? You cannot have a square-circle. Right?
If something is a square, how can it be a circle at the same time? How can this be imagined in any way whatsoever? You can have a square, and then have a circle inside that square. No problems with it being meaningful here but to have a square that is also a circle at the same time generates absurdity/paradox/meaninglessness.
I see what you're saying. In order to better communicate what I'm saying, let's leave the concept of perfection for now and perhaps come back to it later. Consider the following premises:
(1) There is existence/Existence exists
(2) Everything that exists, does so only in existence
(3) We are fully dependent on existence
(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows
(5) Given 4, anything that is either rational/comprehensible/understandable, necessarily belongs to existence (existence accommodates it; as in either it is necessarily existent, or existence has the potential to create it or produce it. This why our minds classify it or recognise it as a hypothetical possibility and this is why it has meaning. So a unicorn is a potential thing that Existence can produce) On the other hand, anything that is either irrational or incomprehensible is necessarily non-existent (existence does not accommodate it. The potential for it to exist has never been there and will never be there. For example, no square-circles or married bachelors can never exist. Such phrases are absurd and makes no sense)
(6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational concepts that we have an understanding of. So Existence must accommodate these concepts. As highlighted by 5, to deny this is to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing. Therefore, either:
6a) The potential is there for something to become omnipotent and omniscient, or 6b) Something is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
(7) Only Existence/that which is all-existing/omnipresent can be almighty/omnipotent and all-knowing/omniscient because the semantics of omnipotence are not satisfied if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence. Similarly, you can't be all-knowing if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence.
(8) Given 7, 6a must be false as nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state as nothing can substitute Existence. So the potential for something to become omnipresent is not there which entails that the potential for something to become omnipotent or omniscient is also not there.
(9) Given that 6a is false and that the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are not absurd, it follows that 6b is true.
(10) Only Existence/that which is all-existing/omnipresent can be almighty and all knowing.
(11) Given 5-10, Existence is necessary omnipotent and omniscient.
Do you see any problems with the argument?
I can imagine it. You need to erase your mental image of a square and a circle, which contains many more properties than are stated in their bare definitions, and focus only on the bare definitions. It might help to start visualising what triangles on the surfaces of spheres look like. They have sides that from some perspectives look curved, and the sum of the angles is greater than 180 degrees. This is admittedly, quite difficult for those that have not worked with n on-Euclidean geometry before.
But what dictates reason?
Humans don't have magical access to an infallible set of axiomatic laws from which we can reason, we have to first discover and model those laws, and therein lies the fallibility.
Quoting Philosopher19
By meaningful you mean non-paradoxical, and by non-paradoxical you mean rationally valid and sound. What you're saying is I cannot think of something that is rationally sound and valid that can never exist. This statement is kind of incoherent though: for something to be rationally sound and valid (non-paradoxical (meaningful)) it has to be a conclusion that rationally follows from true premises. So what you're asking for is if something can be a conclusion that rationally follows from true premises but not exist... I don't know how premises and a conclusion can be true but pertain to something which does not exist, so by virtue of that alone, no.
You say that omniscience and omnipotence are "meaningful" concepts, but do they rationally follow from true premises?
I don't think you can.
I can draw a picture of a battery next to the symbol for infinity, but that doesn't show I comprehend whatever it omnipotence is. "The power do do anything that is doable" isn't sufficient; we don't know what is or isn't doable so we don't know what omnipotence is.
Quoting Philosopher19
So you agree that your argument would also establish the existence of an infinitely long pasta noodle?
Quoting Philosopher19
How do you know other definitions are paradoxical? (read: not sound and valid) (note: omniscience and omnipotence have never been established as extant by any valid arguments from any true premises).
Mandela lifting a car is not a paradox. Mandela is a coherent and non-paradoxical definition for omnipotence. Why not?
Quoting Philosopher19
We change the models themselves. The kind of reason you're now referring to is called trial and error, and it's not deductive, it's inductive. We're not being led to truth through reason when we change science or math, we're being led to reason by showing evidence for truth directly (science is a system of reasoning, math is a system of reasoning; inductive reasoning is what underlies them as descriptions of the world, and we cannot do apriori induction whatsoever.
--------
In 6a-b you state that something meaningful must either potentially exist, or always have existed.
Why must meaningful things "potentially" exist, and why if they cannot "potentially exist" must they have always existed? Can't they just have never existed in the first place?
Sartre wrote a book maintaining this. 'Being and Nothingness'
Saying that it is rational that 'something' singular could be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent seems to be overstepping our boundary of knowledge. If all metaphysics presupposes a theory of knowledge then all theories of knowledge presuppose a metaphysics. Knowledge is as if, nothing more. Furthermore, knowledge is human, and reason is human, and there is nothing that proves that reason is infallible, and that our conclusions do indeed mean anything other than the meaning we give it, according to the faith we have in what it can do for us. In the end, knowledge is for us, not for anything else, and thus it is dictated not by reason itself but that which contains reason and uses it as an instrumentality. In any case, knowledge a priori can not suffice. There must be a synthetic conclusion, lest it remains imaginary.
But... Who is to say that what is imaginary is not real?
This primacy of knowledge is an illusion lest one dissolves into an idealism or realism, which is the source of endless philosophical debate devoid of coherent conclusion and thus completely absent of any knowledge.
All I maintain anymore is that I do not know. Probability seems to be the paragon of knowledge... And this is utterly unstable.
"An infinite existence/that which is omnipresent DOES NOT HAVE the potential to generate a universe/reality that contains omnipotence because omnipotence requires omnipresence and that which is omnipresent cannot create another omnipresent being"
Why not? There is no contradiction in 2 or more omnipresent beings. I read your premise based argument and it sounds to me like you're proving "existence" is omnipresent and omnipotent and I'm like "duh". I thought you set out to prove the existence of God but you proved the existence of the laws of physics. You cannot assign perfection to this entity you just proved, all you know, is that it knows everything, is everywhere and can do everything possible. That sounds like the laws of physics more than God to me. I totally agree with you if that's the case.
An actually infinite being is perfect, you cannot add to it, it has everything already, nor would it need anything more, it's perfect.
Also, it is impossible to think that two gods could co-exist, one would kill the other, maybe feign a truce that lasts a trillionth of a femtosecond, and then one stabs the other in the back.
Love is of God because God is inifnite and one, therefore there's no hostility, all is peace. Love is the taste of an infinite actual lone God.
My point is: If there were more than one God, there would be mutual annihilation or at least constant war. The mere existence of Love proves this not to be the case. Also as l said: infinity is perfect, it already contains everything, needs nothing extra.
^^^^ at least 2 contradictions for multiple omnipotent beings, off the top of my head for you :))
What is God?
Reason itself is infallible otherwise using it would be absurd/paradoxical. One day reason would say the definition of a triangle is x another day it says something different. Reason is always right without fail. Our usage of it, is fallible. For example, when we say that Existence is finite, and think that this has meaning, it's like we haven't used reason at all because reason would always show that such a thing is paradoxical. Does reason tell you anything different to this?
I believe so. Correct me if you see an error with any of the premises. 1) All meaningful/rational things are devoid of paradoxes
2) Omnipotence = that which can do all that is doable, Omniscience = that which knows all that is knowable
3) These are meaningful/understandable definitions (if you think the concepts are paradoxical, please demonstrate how it is impossible for something to be omnipotent/omniscient)
4) Any alternative definition would amount to something entirely different
5) Given 4, these definitions are accurate
We don't have a picture of omnipresence/Existence yet we understand/comprehend it. We don't need to have a picture of omnipotence, we just need to understand it. You say the definition is insufficient. Consider this:
Existence/omnipresence = that which is all-existing
Omnipotence = that which is almighty (that which can do all that is doable)
I acknowledge that we don't have a full understanding of these class of concepts, but we do have a sufficient understanding of these concepts. I'll demonstrate:
We don't know if Existence can accommodate beings with a 100 senses or not. We don't know if such beings are possible. But this does not render our understanding of Existence as insufficient to the point that we don't understand what it is. Does it?
The same applies to omnipotence and omniscience. We have a sufficient understanding but it is not complete. We know that that which is omnipotent/Existence can generate a world with unicorns but we don't know if it can generate a being with a 100 senses.
Do you see where I'm coming from? To say that our understanding of omnipotence is insufficient is just like saying our understanding of omnipresence is insufficient. They are the exact same class of concepts that describe/denote the same semantical gap/thing
It establishes the possibility/potential of an infinitely long pasta noodle being produced by Existence. This concept is a potential/hypothetical possibility. This is not the same class of concepts as omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience that can't be produced/generated. They just necessarily are. An infinitely long pasta noodle does not rationally require to be omnipresent, but omnipotence/omniscience do and since nothing can ever become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state, that which is omnipresent, has necessarily always been omnipotent/omniscient and will always be omnipotent/omniscient. Can you see how any alternative to this would be paradoxical?
I've tried and I discover that omnipotence is just like omnipresence. You cannot define omnipresence as anything other than that which is all-existing/present everywhere/that which sustains all that is sustainable. You cannot define omnipotence as anything other than that which is almighty (able to do all that is doable) If you can define it differently, then please share your definition.
Mandela being omnipotent is paradoxical because in order for something to be omnipotent, it needs to be able to have reach and access to everything. In other words, omnipotence requires omnipresence. Only Existence is omnipresent. Mandela can never become omnipresent/Existence. In fact, nothing can ever become omnipresent/omnipotent from a non-omnipresent state. Omnipresence has always been omnipresent and will always be omnipresent. Anything other than this is paradoxical, is it not?
To better understand my view of reason and language, have a quick read of this if you have time:
Language is essentially made up of words that label semantical gaps. For example the Arabic word salam means peace in English. Here the semantical gap is what the words salam and peace refer to. There is an infinite amount of semantical gaps available.
It is important to note that just as there is only one existence, there is only one set of semantical gaps. Anyone that has awareness of semantical gaps or can focus on semantical gaps is aware of or focusing on the only set available in existence. How much of that set or which part of that set one focuses on or has access to may differ but the set itself has always been the same and will always be the same. So any suggestion that rational agents can have two different sets of semantical gaps is absurd. It would be like suggesting there can be two existences. Whilst there can be more than one reality, there cannot be more than one existence. I can create my own language, but I cannot create my own semantical gaps. I can only attach labels or sounds to the semantical gaps available in existence.
Even if I try to create my own concepts, for example a unidragon (a hybrid of unicorn and dragon) I haven't created this concept, I've essentially focused on a semantical gap available in existence and labelled it. If I then draw a picture of a unidragon and show it to people who speak different languages, they will probably label it differently but the semantical gap that their mind would focus on would either be exactly the same or at the very least, sufficiently similar to the one that I had focused on when drawing the picture and attaching the label unidragon to the semantical gap in question.
To be fair, even the label unidragon that I've attached to this semantical gap is what existence allows me to produce. There is a spectrum in terms of the sounds or words that any existent being can produce. Humans have their own limits. What sound or word you attach to a semantical gap is up to you. You can even change these labels as you please, however what you cannot do is alter the available semantical gaps. You'd require a different existence for that, and there is only one existence. Anything other than this is absurd.
My argument hinges on pure reason. Pure reason dictates that whilst we are in Existence, we are not Existence. To say that we are Existence is paradoxical.
Reason is not human just as sight is not human. We have access to these things. Reason is infallible. If reason wasn't infallible, then one day the definition of a triangle would be x another day it would be y. But this is never the case. Reason is infallible, our use of it is fallible.
We're not overstepping the boundary of our knowledge because these concepts have clear and sufficient meaning. If they made no sense like a square-circle or were entirely unknown like a being with 100 senses, then yes, we'd either be overstepping the boundary of our knowledge or falsely believing that absurdities were meaningful.
Reason clearly shows that rejecting omnipresence is absurd/paradoxical. We'd be failing reason by rejecting what it highlights to us as clearly paradoxical. If you acknowledge my argument, omnipotence and omniscience cannot be rationally denied either.
I strongly disagree with this. Just because some gave up on reaching a paradox-free view of Existence, doesn't mean there isn't one for reason to show us.
How can there be no contradiction in 2 or more omnipresent beings? Can you have two separate existences? What are they separated by, non-existence? Is this not absurd/paradoxical?
Then the laws of physics clearly demonstrate the existence of God do they not? Is God anything other than omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite and eternal? If the laws of physics demonstrate this, then they are in line with reason.
Descartes postion holds with respect to the imaginary. What he is showing in the argument is not the existence of God, but the self-sufficiency of reason.
God's perfection is an account of reason and knowledge itself. Descartes has a concept of the difference between a truthful experience and a falsehood. How is a truthful experience distinguished from a false one, despite them seemingly being inseperable in appearance?
The truthful reflects the perfection of God (and reason) It's the difference between an experience truthful about the world and"illusion" of the evil demon. In God, Descartes is effectively posing both a conceptual realism and empirical one. Truths are defined on the basis independent from experience or a representation.
Comparing this to Sartre, Descartes God is much like the existence which precedes essence. For Descartes, God is the reason for saying one thing is true rather than another, much like one's own existence and choices are for Sartre.
In this respect, Descartes argument holds even for the context of imaginary things. What am I imagining? In trying to answer this, I am trying to give not just an experience of some imagining, but a description of what I have imagined.
So what makes it true I have imagined something? It cannot be just an experience or representation I imagined it. Anyone might have that experience as an illusion. I need the reason for why it would describe me or not.
For Descartes, this reason is what I imagined is in the perfect mind of God. That's to say, the truth of what I imagined is defined independent of my representation. Or in Sartrian terms: I existed (and chose) imagining this.
A "perfection" which cannot be countered because it would for a contradiction in reason. If concept a reflects what is true in the perfect, all knowing mind, it's a contradiction to say it false. Similarly, if we try to say something than your own choices (and existence) are responsible for your being, we will find a contradiction.
Then what are we? A monad?
I would say, instead, that we are indeed existence. A facet of existence. There is an infinite series of images that could constitute the whole of something, nevertheless unless one is referring to those empty husks (Hegel), the essence of something can be ascertained in the apprehension of any hemimorphic crystallization of it the base of which is clearly different. And as we are inevitably referring to being as hylomorphic, a glimpse into our existence as separate from 'Existenz,' we are a piece of which can be seen to be of form, and unmistakable differentiation, But it is not that we are separate. We are it. Are we to resort to Lacan's "I think where I am not therefore I am where I do not think."? If we, in any sense, take Lacan's statement as containing some sort of truthfulness, then the idea that pure reason constitutes a substantiation of the idea that we are not existence but rather of something else the truth of which is shown in pure reason (thought) is clearly not well based. I agree with Lacan in this regard. We are not nothing. But are everything we are not, and are not what we are... And that is precisely existence.
Wittgenstein said that if an animal could speak, we still would not be able to understand it. According to this logic, sight is human... It is the only reference we have. How could we make any inference about a quality when it is fundamentally formed into an image... Our image! Anthropomorphized? To say that reason is not ours... That is grandiose.
Quoting Philosopher19
As long as humans are reasonable, perhaps they are infallible... But they can be unreasonable by virtue of reason itself. An example of this is synthetic a priori judgments, which give us absolutely no insight into the true nature of existence... And yet reason is infallible in understanding existence? We wish to make observations and gestures towards truth and knowledge of existence... And all we have is this lamely functioning reason, which has given us... ?
A triangle is analytically true a priori to be something with three sides equaling 180 degrees. This is not the only form of reason. Synthetic a priori judgments have absolutely no justification in reason, but in experience, in existence itself as human. And thus you have the inescapable dilemma of knowledge... Which, as I constantly maintain, is nothing but a game.
Quoting Philosopher19
Omnipresence is an illusion. What is everywhere all at once? God. God has not been shown to exist. Your circumlocution does nothing but uncover this unsturdy premise. Why should we even think that we know what omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience would be when we absolutely know nothing?
You think we know because we are part of a Godhead given to us by reason. And this is nothing more than a modern mutation of ancient mythology.
Depends what you mean by God. If you mean the notion of a being of the world, who you then try to pass off responsibility of existence to, sure.
On the other hand, if you mean independence of being, which amounts to the definition of truths without reference to representation, no. Sartre outright advocates we accept that-- e.g. our existence as beings is responsible, not any representation (i.e. essence).
Anyway, my point here is not to suggest Descartes didn't also have an existence of God in mind. The baggage of the time and the political context usually mean a God as an existing being is somehow attached. It's just that Descartes' argument about the perfection of God in relation to knowledge is not really talking about whether a being God exists. He's making a logical point of how truth is defined independent of representation.
Though Descartes also supposedly brutalized dogs.
When I said perfect I meant morally perfect and this being (omnipotent and omnipresent) is BY DEFINITION not morally perfect since it is the CAUSE of all the evil by your definition
P1: Existence is a permanent, omnipotent, omnipresent being
P2: Existence encompasses all that exists
P3: Evil happens
C: Evil is due to existence
Yeah sure you can't ADD anything to an omnipotent, omnipresent being but neither can you REMOVE anything either. Since evil clearly exists in the world it's source MUST BE this being by your own argument.
Now as for the supposed "paradoxes" with two or more omnipresent omnipotent beings, think of it as the law of gravity and the law of electromagnetism. They're both omnipotent and omnipresent and they interact with each other without destroying each other. The ONLY properties we agree on for this being so far is 1) omnipotence, 2) omnipresence. Nothing there says "desire to be the only God" or "envy" or "bitterness". Omnipotence and omnipresence does not encompass those properties so no, 2 Gods wouldn't destory each other according to our definition of a God so far
I never said the laws of physics demonstrate the existence of God, I said that the laws of physics ARE God as you've proven. They're omnipotent, omnipresent and perfect by definition but that does not make them morally good or bad. You've said in your original comment that those attributes are attached later (and I don't think they should be). We only agree on the existence of an omnipotent omnipresent being, which is the laws of physics
I have satisfied your query about whether multiple omnipresent beings can exist, by extrapolating that (at least, in an infinite setting) an ominpresent being will also be omnipotent, and thus that being will be actual infinity, and thus that being will be God.
I then went on to say that God being actual infinity, is perfect because he is everything, therefore nothign is lacking.
Nothing is lacking, thus no need for an extra deity, nor will it even be logically possible to add an extra deity to actual infinity.
At a tangent to this, l showed that the existence of love points to one God, because mutliple Gods = endless war, whereas Love is both transcendant and peaceful, which can only be an exponent of one God, because that one actually infinite God will be perfect (being actual infinity) and at peace (being the only one, hence no wars) i.e. bliss.
Define: "Actual infinity". I always hear words like "the infinite" and "the transcended" from spiritual individuals (not saying you are one) and no one seems to say what that actually means. There is no reason to believe that omnipotence and omnipresence = constant war with any other omnipotent, omnipresent being. It is very easy to imagine the existence of 2 omnipotent omnipresent beings working in tandom without any warring and as the main commenter has said, the mind cannot imagine something that is not at least a potentiality. Also, if there truly was one God then as you said, there should be no war and there should be constant bliss. But clearly, that's not the case. What about murder? What about nuclear weapons, wars, genocides? Under a perfect omnipotent, good God, none of those things could happen. This could only mean 2 things
A) this God is willingly causing the unnecessary suffering
B) there are multiple Gods
And there is no way to tell between A and B. The Gods in B can also all be omnipotent and omnipresent and conflicting with each other and that would still satisfy the current state of the world. It's like seeing a ball in motion and trying to guess what are the forces acting on it. You can easily get the net force (A) but you can never know how many forces are actually acting on the ball and in what strength and direction to produce said net force (B). It could be the case that the net force is the result of only one force (A) but there is no reason to assume so (B)
An infinite quantity that is tangible to our senses e.g. infinite energy.
Omnipresent would mean infinite latent energy which would mean omnipotent. Energy is tangible, and thus we are are really talking about an actual infinite God, God being that which is actually infinite.
Yes, brother deity, let's work together, in harmony, without any warring. *Evil Smirks*
In a world with more than one God, the ONLY possibility is war. It is no longer pathological it is virtuous to murder the rival deities. Maybe draw it out by raping their offspring's wives and romancing statues etc. as per the pagan pantheons of old. But ultimately, kill all the others. It's the only way to be sure.
Give me some credit :) I know these things exist. We are not deities though. I am talking about war between deities.
Also, as l've explained, we cannot be real (well, l'm sure our souls, our essences, are real, but these are of God's soul), so much for interpersonal murders and whatnot.
"In a world with more than one God, the ONLY possibility is war"
Again, why? Reassertion is not proof. As long as it is imaginable it is potentially possible as the first commenter has said so yes, deities working together is a possibility you can't just rule out
"Also, as l've explained, we cannot be real (well, l'm sure our souls, our essences, are real, but these are of God's soul), so much for interpersonal murders and whatnot."
Wot? When did you explain that "we cannot be real". Also I'm pretty sure interpersonal murder would seem pretty real to you if it was about to happen to you (I know it would to me at least lol)
You say it's possible for mutliple deities to live in peace because you can conceive of it.
But you cannot fully conceive of it as you are not infinite. Nor am l but l can give trenchant arguments as to why it will result in war e.g. can you trust me, forever? Really? If so, then you're a fool for trusting me and as you are a fool, you will die because you are thus weaker than me, unless this was your ploy all along and you will exit stage, then sneak around the back and kill me whilst l'm still smirking to myself at your idiocy, proving me to be the real idiot.
So really, can you trust me forever? Yes or no, either way, you die. Or l die.
"You die or i die" sounds like war to me.
Or hey, let's go by actual human experience. Still waiting for infinite peace to kick in after World War 1? What precedent is there, in human history, for lasting peace? Where are you getting the idea of infinite harmony between more than 1 deity from?
Multiple infinite deities will not be materialistic because they are infinite? But actual infinity = everything, already. How can you add a deity to that?
Re: we cannot be real, l've explained this already.
When? Was it on this discussion or somewhere else? The we are not real thingy. I can't exactly address an argument I haven't heard
"can you trust me, forever? Really?"
Yes.
Reassertion is not proof. You are dealing with one hypothetical (Greek gods with emotions, drama, etc) and not addressing the simple fact that the other hypothetical (emotionless, cold omnipotent entities) is also possible and wouldn't lead to the same conclusion. I don't understand why you keep personifying and characterizing this deity if yours and giving it attitudes, thoughts and emotions. The only properties that are agreed upon here are omnipotence and omnipresence and those do not cause any inconsistencies when there are multiple of them. Add "desire to be the only God" to the mix and THEN your hyoothecials make sense but that is not a property of omnipotence or omnipresence so it should not be assumed
I said materialism = anything beyond 1.
Yet the infinity of an infinite God = beyond 1.
So l said, okay, materialism = anything limited, finite.
BUT you are talking about multiple infinite deities.
OK so my counterargs are:
- Actual infinity (= the omnipresent, omnipotent that we were talking about originally) cannot have stuff added to it, so how can there be an extra infinite deity? Unless they have always co-existed?
- Evenso, the number of gods would be >1, and less than infinity, thus there would be a sort of materialism, and thus war is on the cards (= a struggle over something finite).
I have not merely reasserted. Please view my arguments.
What, you say l am projecting my own personal views of how a deity should behave / react to another deity? So are you, by insisting on infinite harmony, merely because you can conceive of it.
Well, l can conceive of infinite harmony being impossible, even the very notion of it. I can conceive of a camel passing through the eye of a needle and coming out alive. The devil is in the detail, i.e. how you actually reason it out. You are absolving yourself of reason, and moreover dismissing my reasoning. Things are getting really arbitrary, not philosophical.
OK good that you can trust me forever. Now turn around. I dare you. *Evil smirks*
Let me put it another way. You say you will trust me forever and will live harmoniously with me forever.
Can i trust you forever, then? From my POV, am i justified in trusting you forever? Yes or no.
If the answer is No, there is only one way that will end, because infinite paranoia is infinite pain, and l wouldn't want that. You'd have to die. Sorry.
Let me clear something up here. The only properties we have agreed on for this deity are
A) omnipotence
B) omnipresence
Now as for your counter arguments
"Actual infinity (= the omnipresent, omnipotent that we were talking about originally) cannot have stuff added to it, so how can there be an extra infinite deity? Unless they have always co-existed?"
I maintain that they have always co-existed
"Evenso, the number of gods would be >1, and less than infinity, thus there would be a sort of materialism, and thus war is on the cards (= a struggle over something finite)."
Agreed. As I've said before, this war could be what's happening right now and it would still fit an emperical observation of the world. Just as there are infinite potential combinations of forces that can create the force A, so are there infinite combinations of gods (as defined above) to create the current state of the world
I don't understand how either of these pass as a counter argument when I've already addressed them
"What, you say l am projecting my own personal views of how a deity should behave / react to another deity? So are you, by insisting on infinite harmony, merely because you can conceive of it."
I am not insisting on infinite harmony because I can conceive of it I am insisting on it because God, as defined above, does not have emotions, thoughts or attitudes. Notice how I made no assumptions about this deity in any of my arguments other than the two above where you keep using hypotheticals where the god has children, brothers, wives, drama, etc. My version makes the fewest assumptions thus passing Occam's razor while yours does not.
We are within a Monad but we are not Monad.
You can't because it's paradoxical/meaningless. We are in Existence is not paradoxical, nor is it the same.
Existence and reality are not the same thing. That would be paradoxical. Different realities/potentials exist in Existence/the necessary. We can empirically observe that which is in our reality (the stuff we sense) we can theorise and describe these observations so long as they never ever amount to paradoxes like a particle going in an out of Existence. Going into another dimension or reality is fine, but certainly cannot say going into non-existence (absurd). Reason and language clearly dictate 4 categories: The necessary, the potential, the absurd and the unknown.
I think the mistake you make is that you treat Existence and reality as having the same semantics. Existence being infinite, has the potential to generate all hypothetical possibilities (see how this is paradox free?) Now if you consider any alternative to this, I guarantee you absurdity.
Reason dictates that Existence is not beyond what can be sensed. It is beyond/more than what we can sense but reason dictates that sensing something and understanding something are two different things. We understand that Existence may have aspects that we are unaware of (this is not paradoxical). 1) Reason tells us that we don't know if Existence has the potential to generate/sustain a being with a 100 senses, but we know it can generate/sustain a unicorn. 1 is not something that we sense, it is something that we understand.
We understand that there is Existence, because non-existence is absurd. We understand that Existence is infinite, because Existence being finite/us is absurd. So reason clearly dictates and demonstrates that we understand Existence is infinite (therefore, beyond/greater than our senses, as we are not infinite/Existence) Do you see the circle of truth?
You're saying two different things can be omnipresent. If the law of gravity is x an the law of electromagnetism is y, then either these laws have no presence or if they have presence then only one of them is omnipresent because rejecting it is like saying something can be x all over and y all over at the same time. Do you see the paradox?
Omnipotence requires omnipresence and you can only have one omnipresent being.
You can't be omniscient if you lack consciousness. You can't be omnipotent if you lack consciousness.
God is perfect and so God does perfectly. Anything other than this is paradoxical.
It might be worth mentioning the following: People fault our universe as containing pain and suffering. The short version of how this does not contradict God doing perfectly is that whilst we know what being perfect constitutes (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, eternal) and what doing perfectly constitutes (God doing it), we also know that we lack omniscience and so we know we can't fully understand why our creation is the best that it can be. It's unknown to us, but not absurd. On the other hand, the perfect being doing imperfectly, is absurd. Absurdities are impossible, unknowns are not impossible.
So something like our full potential and the best way/environment to bring about our full potential, is unknown to us. Reason is clear, we don't deal with unknowns. We deal with knowns: God does perfectly.
Yeah, dude you've proven the existence of the laws of physics not God. Certainty not the Abrahamic God. An omnipresent omniscient entity that is morally questionable by humans, whose working we'll never understand. That is the laws of physics not God. I still don't agree with the impossibility of multiple omnipresent beings existing at the same time because there is nothing paradoxical about the definition. A exists everywhere, B exists everywhere. Nothing there spells contradiction for me. Think of it as an electric field and gravitational field overlapping. Nothing paradoxical there. You also CAN have knowledge without consciousness, like a computer so consciousness is not necessary for either omnipotence nor omnipresence. Also, your definition of "perfect" will never be grasped by a human because we don't know "God's plan" so to say and so you cannot assign moral perfection to your God. It is a morally ambiguous force of nature, in other words the laws of physics, not God, that you have proven
Existence being infinite? I am really not sure what this means. What is infinity but a demarcation of a lack of further insight? Is infinity not absolutely incomprehensible? It is obviously a concept. But because we have a concept for something... this does not make it any more understood. Heidegger took this very premise and wrote Being and Time. If existence is infinite then it must be imcomprehensible, and furthermore reason must be a reductio ad infinitum... Reduction ad absurdum, if a may... And therefore reason itself is absurd...
But I am not afraid of the absurd. I am afraid of no concept. And I trust no concept.
Quoting Philosopher19
Because I am not deluded by the seemingly necessary distinction between subject and object, which has been reconciled in the principle of intentionality, explained by Husserl originally but culminated in Sartre, I think.
Quoting Philosopher19
Which brings me back to reiterating that there is absolutely no synthetic a priori truth per reason itself, as if it could be proven... An example of this is 7 + 5 = 12. The 'conclusion' '12' is obviously synthetic and true absent of experience, which would render 12 a posteriori. But this truth, the course of which 12 is reached by this synthetic a priori method is quite different than what would be easily understood logically, piece by piece, causally, concatenated like what would be analytic a priori or synthetic a posteriori.
How does reason dictate that there is a difference between sensing something and understanding something? What would reason be without a posteriori 'knowledge?' Existence is known through sensation. Understanding is precisely sensation. "I sense that is correct." Or perhaps this is a vague, worthless metaphor?
What makes us 'aware' that something is such and such anyway? How could it go any further than the anthropomorphization it is based in?
Saying that existence is in a monad...
You are definitely in bad faith saying existence has the capacity to generate whatever. Why does there have to be something doing the generating?
Avoidance of responsibility?
"I see what you're saying. In order to better communicate what I'm saying, let's leave the concept of perfection for now and perhaps come back to it later. Consider the following premises:
(1) There is existence/Existence exists"
Ok, I can accept that.
"(2) Everything that exists, does so only in existence"
I'm not sure what you are saying there. It kind of sounds like you are sneaking in the idea that existence is a kind of space in which everything that exists is located. I'm not convinced that's the best way to think about existence.
"(3) We are fully dependent on existence"
We wouldn't exist if we didn't exist. But I don't really want to think about existence as something separate from existing things upon which they are all dependent.
"(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows"
We can certainly imagine counterfactual possibilities that don't actually exist. I can think of a square circle, even if I can't visualize it with my mind's eye. I can imagine Madrid being the capital of France.
"(5) Given 4, anything that is either rational/comprehensible/understandable, necessarily belongs to existence (existence accommodates it; as in either it is necessarily existent, or existence has the potential to create it or produce it."
[b]Are you including the realm of possibility in what you call "existence", so that anything imaginable must therefore be a possibility and all possibilities are somehow real?
I'm unclear on what the relationship is between conceivability, possibility and existence. I think that we might be sliding over some serious metaphysical questions there.[/b]
"On the other hand, anything that is either irrational or incomprehensible is necessarily non-existent (existence does not accommodate it."
I'm not convinced that an organism's limits of cognition define the limits of ontological possibility, even if the organism is human. That idea certainly isn't true for earthworms, cockroaches or chimpanzees. So I'm just skeptical that human beings represent the apex of all possible cognition. There may be space-aliens out there that are as far beyond humans as humans are beyond clams, able to conceive of aspects of reality that we can never even imagine. Which would suggest the possibility of something incomprehensible (to us) that nevertheless exists. One could make the same sort of argument for any and all cognizers, leaving open the possibility that there are aspects of reality that nothing that exists can conceive.
"(6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational concepts that we have an understanding of. So Existence must accomodate these concepts. As highlighted by 5, to deny this is to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing."
I certainly don't want to agree that anything that I can imagine must therefore exist. I think that we have the power to generate ideas, but that doesn't guarantee that something corresponding to the idea exists.
"Therefore either
6a) The potential is there for something to become omnipotent and omniscient, or 6b) Something is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient."
[b]Just because we can (supposedly) imagine omnipotence and omniscience?
Just because we can imagine things with varying degrees of power, and can therefore imagine power increasing more and more, doesn't have to suggest that we can actually picture a being with infinite power. We are just imaging a scale (of degrees of power) and an operation on the scale (extending it). We aren't really forming any clear conception of what might lie at the end and be the result of the operation.
And even if we could imagine such a thing, imagining it wouldn't guarantee that it has to exist.
What's more, what about the familiar old chestnut: Can God (supposedly omnipotent) create a task too difficult for God to perform? If he can create an impossible task, then there's something he can't do (the task), and if he can't create such a task, there's something he can't do (create the task). So omnipotence would seem to fall prey to logical problems much as 'square circle' does.
I certainly applaud the effort that you put into your argument (which reminds me of Aquinas, which is not a bad thing by any means). But I'm not personally buying it, for the reasons I suggested up above.
Dude, you can have information on a computer just as you can have information on a piece of paper. You need a conscious being to understand the information. Understanding information is knowledge. Information on its own is not knowledge.
So omnipresence doesn't amount to omniscience or omnipotence if it lacks consciousness.
Dude, consider this:
A square-circle = Something that is both a square and a circle at the same time. This is absurd. Right?
Having a circle inside a square at the same time is fine.
So, if x is omnipresent and y is omnipresent. That's like a thing being two different things at the same time. That's like a square-circle. Do you see the paradox? It doesn't matter what y or x is, it can never be both...at the same time.
We know what true perfection is objectively because any other definition than the one I've given would be paradoxical. Our understanding of true perfection is not complete but it is sufficient. This is the same for our understanding of Existence. Our understanding of it is not complete (how many different sense/dimensions does it sustain?) but it is sufficient (It is all-existining/omnipresent)
It means we used reason wrong somewhere. Think about the usage of language in every context. Law, science, maths, conversation with friends. Whenever what we say amounts to a paradox, It creates problems. Unless of course, the goal is humour. Chuck Norris once finished Super Mario without pressing the jump button once (that's absurd, but it may be funny depending on your sense of humour)
We say that guy's the killer but his alibi is solid (so he can't be the killer otherwise it would be paradoxical)
We make an observation that a particle is going in and out of Existence. We can't accept a bridge to non-existence so we say: Either our observation is faulty or incomplete. Incomplete in that perhaps the particle went to a another reality or dimension that we are unaware of.
We find ourselves with access to reason and we find it dictating things with authority. Of course we can deny it by saying things like I saw a square-circle, but nothing would make sense. Absurdity is literally the conclusive absence of meaning. It's literally absolute non-existence.
We can pick and mix what part of reason we adhere to but that creates problems. Things like war and poverty are the cause of our failure to fully adhere to reason. The world has enough to meet everyone's needs, not everyone's greed. It's because some pick and mix when they want to adhere to reason (purely because their desire is in excess of their will-power to exercise reason) that we have such problems.
Yes, but this has to be correctly exercised. Reason dictates that a schizophrenic man (provided that what he describes is accurate) is actually seeing what he says he's saying. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean he can't. There is no paradox here. Only an unknown/unobservable for us and a known/observable for him. Rationally we cannot deny him as we have no way of observing what he observes and no paradox to counter him with. So we cannot deny him as it is not an instance of paradox. If he said something like I can see a square-circle, then we deny him and think that he is just inaccurately describing what he is seeing.
Him claiming to see something that we can't see (a man shouting) is an unknown. Him claiming to see a square-circle, is paradoxical.Paradoxes and unknowns are not the same.
I agree. But paradoxes aren't opposites of things. They are the incorrect use of language that generate meaninglessness. Like a square-circle. Like the existence of non-existence. Non-existence is not the opposite of Existence. It is the negation of Existence which is absurd.
If our reality or universe ends, does that mean Existence ends? I know for sure that even after our reality ends, Existence would continue to exist. Perhaps Existence creates other realities/beings (This, I don't know) Again, reason clearly distinguishes between that which is unknown and that which is paradoxical/irrational
There is a clear difference between 1) understanding something completely, 2) understanding something sufficiently, 3) not understanding something.
Infinity is not 3, it is 2. Your understanding of our Universe, is not 3, and it's not 1, so it's 2.
If reason itself is absurd, then how is anything at all meaningful? How are we able to use language to communicate if reason is absurd? As I mentioned in the first paragraph of this post, we find ourselves with access to reason and we recognise that it dictates things with authority that we cannot deny rationally. To doubt or to deny reason is paradoxical is it not?
If we truly believe that reason is absurd, then any activity that involves using reason is an act of hypocrisy.
Again, we find ourselves with access to reason and it dictates things with authority. We would be deluded/irrational to deny reason the authority it dictates. We cannot rationally deny an infinite Existence and we cannot pick and mix when we acknowledge reason and when we don't. We would be grossly inconsistent.
7+5=12 is something that is necessarily known and will always be the case without fail. What 7 things plus 5 equals 12 is a different matter. A matter of potential that is.
You can have 7 ducks and add another 5 ducks to get 12 ducks (this is aposteriori)
Aposteriori is essentially a matter of potential. Apriori is that which is necessary and always the case.
Because it shows us that we understand things that we have not sensed or experienced. Our existence is experienced. Our experiences include sensation such as sight, yet we don't deny what we see. Our existence/experiences also include reason. And reason dictates with clear authority that we are not Existence. We are in Existence. It also dictates that Existence is infinite because it highlights the absurdity in something coming from nothing. Why deny reason here?
We have access to sight. We see further with telescopes because our sight is limited. What exists is not limited by our eyesight. We don't deliberately limit our own eyesight with regards to how far it can see.
We have access to reason. Just as we don't deliberately limit the application of our sight with regards to how far it can see, we shouldn't deliberately limit the application of our reason, which is what we would be doing every time we deny something that is meaningful/rational as not being meaningful/rational.
It would be like seeing something clearly, and then denying that we're seeing it.
If Existence isn't some kind of thing, then what is it? Non-existence? Do you see the paradox?
There isn't an alternative though. Something has to sustain all existing things otherwise all existing things would be separated by non-existence (which is absurd). So, that which is all-existing/omnipresent sustains all existing things. Existence; we are in it, but we are not it.
Both a square, and a circle have meaning. But the statement: something that is a square and a circle at the same time is absurd. We understand what amounts to the paradox. This is not the same as understanding the paradox. Do we agree on this?
Madrid cannot be the capital of both France and Spain at the same time. This amounts to a paradox. It conclusively amounts to something that is not understandable/meaningful.
None of what I'm proposing here is beyond what reason gives us access to.
Think about the following: Can you think of something that is meaningful but can never exist? If you see how this always amounts to a paradox, you will reach the following conclusion:
Existence being infinite and eternal means that it has the potential to produce all potentials (hypothetical possibilities)
I agree. Our understanding of Existence is not complete, but it is sufficient.
We know that Existence is all-existing/omnipresent. We know it has the potential to produce all hypothetical possibilities (some of which, our imagination has access to). But we don't know, for example, if it can sustain an alien being with a 100 senses (this is what we don't have access to). These are unknowns to us and therefore we cannot apply reason to them. But existence being infinite and eternal is not unknown. It is necessary.
Yes but that's not what I'm proposing. There is a clear distinction between that which is hypothetically possible and that which is necessary. I'll try and demonstrate what I mean:
1) All meaningful things are possible
2) This means that existence has the potential to produce them
So I imagine a unicorn. This doesn't mean that unicorns are real, it means that it's possible for them to be real. An infinite and eternal existence can easily bring about a universe filled with unicorns.
3) All meaningful concepts fall into two categories: The potential (unicorns) and the necessary (Existence/omnipresence)
So necessary concepts like Existence aren't hypothetical possibilities. They are by default, have always been and will always be, existing.
4) We understand omnipotence. Our understanding dictates that only that which is omnipresent can be omnipotent.
5) You cannot have something become omnipresent/Existence from a non-omnipresent state.
6) So it is impossible for something to become omnipotent.
7) Therefore either omnipotence is absurd, or it is necessarily a trait of Existence.
8) Omnipotence is not absurd, so Existence/that which is omnipresent is omnipotent.
Omnipotence is different to something like a unicorn or Zeus. Existence has the potential to produce these beings but it does not have the potential to produce something omnipresent because it is itself omnipresent and you cannot have two omnipresent beings. Similarly, Existence cannot produce an omnipotent being because omnipotence requires omnipresence. So either that which is omnipresent is by default omnipotent (has always been and will always be) or omnipotence is an impossibility/absurdity/paradox. But just as omnipresence is clearly not paradoxical, omnipotence is also not paradoxical.
Do you see any paradoxes?
The definition omnipotence is that which can do all that is doable. Saying something like can God/Existence do...and then follow it up with a paradox/irrationality/meaninglessness does not amount to something that can be done. It amounts to a paradox.
It's like saying can God know what it's like to exist and not exist at the same time. Or can God know what a square-circle is. If there are no such things to be known, then they are irrelevant to being omniscient are they not?
Similarly, saying can God create a square-circle is like saying can God do what is not doable. The definition of omnipotence is meaningful and without paradox. The statement: can a being do what is not doable, is paradoxical.
I concede that you need consciousness for knowledge but omniscience does not follow from omnipotence or omnipresence. We only agreed on omnipotence and omnipresence, not omniscience.
Quoting Philosopher19
Why?? Isn't that begging the question? You already assumed that x and y could not coexist when you said: "That's like a thing being two different things at the same time". Why did you say A THING, not THINGS? It is perfectly conceivable for two omnipresent beings to coexist and according to you, that must make it a possibility. I still don't see a paradox unless you define omnipresent as: "Exists everywhere and of which there is one instance" but we did not define it like that
You can't be omniscient if you're not omnipresent. So either there has never been and there never will be an omniscient being, or there has always been and there always will be an omniscient being. If omniscient is meaningful, then that means something has always been and will always be omniscient, otherwise you'd have the paradox.
How is it begging the question?
Can two things exist in the same place at the same time? Existence/that which is omnipresent is everywhere. This means it covers all space and time. So how can you have two omnipresent beings/Existences?
Dude, that's what my definition amounted to. I always maintained that there is one Existence/Omnipresent being. Do you see the paradox now?
Seriously? Ok then, I define a new word. Omniticklishness. An omniticklish being is a being that tickles all beings to death in whatever universe it is in (is omnipresent) and of which one instance exists. Since an omniticklish being exists by definition, and since it has meaning, an omniticklish being exists. Ok now why am I not dead?
Quoting Philosopher19
Yes. Fields in physics for example.
Quoting Philosopher19
Incorrect. You yourself said that meaning means something EITHER exists OR is a potentiality so you can't say that because it has meaning it exists. It could be a potentiality like a unicorn. You also went from "you can't be omniscient if you're not omnipresent" to "since an omnipresent being exists, it must be omniscient" which is false. It's like saying "you have to have a horn to be a unicorn and since horns exist therefore unicorns must exist". You've already made this fallacy before but I let it slide
There's a clear difference between being omnipresent, and being present. No finite beings can ever be omnipresent, so they can only be present. Agreed?
Our universe is finite. So it can't be infinite can it? And if it can't be infinite, it can't be that which is omnipresent/Existence can it? So your word, omniticklish doesn't require omnipresence in it's definition does it? Omnipotence and omniscience do require omnipresence. You can't be omnipotent if you're limited to a finite presence can you? You can't be omniscient if you don't have reach and access to all of Existence/omnipresence can you?
Do you see the difference between omniticklish and omniscient/omnipotent?
No universes can be omnipresent, so you're word omniticklish is at best, a hypothetical possibility/potential.
Dude, I think you make the mistake of viewing our universe as Existence. This would be blatantly paradoxical.
And I'd like to reiterate that even in our universe (or any universe for that matter), you cannot have two things be present in the same location at the same time. That is paradoxical. If A is in location xyz at time t, how can B also be in location xyz at time t? Such a paradox is meaningless so it could never be a theory or a part of science.
I'm not just saying because it has meaning it exists. Check my reply to you on the difference between omniticklish and omnipotence/omniscience.
See my response to your comments on omniticklish. If that doesn't clarify, let me know.
Quoting Philosopher19
Yes it obviously does. You can't tickle someone if you're not there. There is no difference between it and omnipotence. Also it shouldn't matter whether or not it "needs" omnipresence in the definition or not. It is a perfectly unambiguous definition that has meaning so therefore according to you it must exist
Quoting Philosopher19
I don't understand what that means at all
Quoting Philosopher19
Quantum mechanics has things popping in and out of existence as well as existing in multiple locations at the same time and sometimes overlapping so no, there is nothing paradoxical about two things being at the same place at the same time
Do you see the difference between being present and being omnipresent? Being present is not the same as being omnipresent (present everywhere)
It means the universe is finite. It's not omnipresent like Existence is. The universe exists in Existence. The universe is not Existence. It's like saying that the universe is present in the omnipresent. If you're present in the omnipresent, then you're not omnipresent are you? You're just present.
No it doesn't. Show me one credible source that says something like virtual particles pop in and out of existence. They may pop in and out of our universe/reality, but they certainly don't go into non-existence and then come back into existence. What bridges/borders Existence and non-existence? Do you see how this amounts to a paradox?
There's nothing paradoxical about this
I don't see what's paradoxical about things overlapping in Existence[i][/I] but you can't have something overlap Existence itself. Do you see the difference?
If X is Existence, then Y can't be Existence as well.
Ohhhhhhh. You make a distinction between existence and the universe. I get it now. My bad I didn't notice earlier. I was using existence and universe interchangeably. Ok now it sounds to me like you're proving the existence of existence not of God. X is existence, therefore it is also omnipotent. I'm fine with that.
They said the laws of physics are omnipotent.
Makes sense; we all do what we are told by the laws of physics so they are god-like in a sense.
Well, no. Just because you cannot presently imagine how omnipotence could emerge doesn't mean that it cannot emerge. You're using an unverifiable assumption.
How do you know omnipotence cannot emerge from a state of non-omnipotence (note: you not being able to imagine it is not satisfactory evidence. I'm sure before radio communication you could never have imagined long distance wireless communication. Absence of evidence (of omnipotence emergence) is not evidence of absence (of omnipotence emergence)).
Quoting Philosopher19
I now find these definitions to be at best misleading and at worst incoherent; there's a paradox between the two.
Agent X is omnipotent and omniscient
Agent X uses omniscience to make a prediction
Agent X uses omnipotence to obviate the accuracy of its prediction
Conclusion:
Agent X is not capable of using omniscience to make reliable predictions if its omnipotence can interfere?
The more something is free to be omnipotent, the less free it is to be omniscient (maximum omniscience is not rigid or necessarily coherent unless you can predict your own future decisions)
-----
Agent X is omnipotent and omniscient
Agent X is capable of using omnipotence to take action Y
Agent X uses omniscience to predict that it will not take action Y
Conclusion:
Agent X is not capable of taking action Y?
The more agent X wishes to be omniscient, the less it can interact with the world, and if agent X can predict its own future decisions; in a sense it is not free to do anything other than what it is destined to do, and cannot alter its own course.
Quoting Philosopher19
I'm at least willing to entertain the notion of either, but once you put them together they become relative/limited/misleading/incoherent.
Quoting Philosopher19
The problem is your definitions are so poor that basically everyone looks at them and sees something entirely different.
We don't know what a list of "all that is doable" would look like. we don't know how long it would be, how variable and changing it could be, or what would be on it. You're alluding to a set of undefined powers, the extent of which we cannot know or even consistently imagine.
Quoting Philosopher19
Strictly speaking the observable universe is quickly becoming devoid of "stuff" and energy is becoming unusable. It's getting harder and harder to coherently imagine these things the more you repeat your given definitions. In a sense I am omnipotent because I am capable of doing all that I am capable of doing. If I was something different then I could be capable of doing different things. What kind of thing is capable of doing all the things? Can the almighty do all the things I can do, like brush my own teeth? But wouldn't it have to actually be me?
Quoting Philosopher19
Yes it does. It places us firmly in the "does not understand existence" category. We understand many things, but not the scope, scale, extent, or intent of existence.
Quoting Philosopher19
It's not a semantic gap, it's a semiotic one. The problem is that you don't render your concepts meaningful (read: rational merit) just because you can offer vague allusions to what they are. We cannot lay hands on them, we cannot view them; we can only uniquely and impartially allude to them by warping aspects of the human perspective (things we can know, things we can do) to an incoherent extreme in our own imaginations.
You can understand the behavior of a single rain drop, but that doesn't mean you comprehend or can speak with confidence about the machinations of the storm.
Quoting Philosopher19
How can we generate an infinitely long noodle? It's exactly the same kind of concept, and by your own logic we should be able to conclude that an infinitely long noodle necessarily exists, right?
Quoting Philosopher19
Then I should propose an infinitely long pasta chef, so that I can use one proposition to explain why the other necessarily exists.
The non-paradoxical alternatives are that our understanding of omnipotence/omniscience, whatever they are, is flawed, or that neither of them exists.
Quoting Philosopher19
You've made it clear that there is no God. Nothing can be omnipotent or omniscience except for "Existence" (capitalized why?), because that is the only thing that is omnipresent.
It’s rationally verifiable because A) you could not have omnipresence/Existence emerge from non-existence. Nor can you have something that’s within the omnipresent/Existence, to expand to the point of omnipresence (thereby substituting Existence).
The thing about omnipotence is that B) you can’t be almighty/omnipotent if you don’t have reach or access to all of Existence. This is the same as saying you can’t be omnipotent if you’re not omnipresent .
Because of A and B, omnipotence is necessarily a trait of Existence. It’s not a potential as nothing can ever become omnipresent, but it’s a meaningful concept like omnipresence. Therefore it’s necessarily a trait of Existence.
Agent X never makes predictions as that would contradict it’s omniscience. Agent X always knows. Give me an example of something that agent X would have to predict whilst bearing in mind that agent X has full access/presence to the time dimension.
That which is omniscient doesn’t need to predict. It knows all things. Prediction is exclusively an act that only those who lack full knowledge/omniscience do. So I’m guessing that you might say that there can be no omnipotent being because an omnipotent being can’t predict.
There are two ways to go about addressing this point. Both ways rationally retain the definitions of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience.
Omnipresence entails that whatever we do in Existence, a part of Existence is doing it too. So if we predict, then a part of Existence is also predicting. That which is omniscient knows what it’s like to predict because a part of that which is omnipresent is predicting.
If for some reason this doesn’t satisfy you rationally, consider the second way:
That which is omnipotent never predicts
That which is omnipotent never predicts, but that’s because that which is omnipotent never lacks omniscience. But this does not render it non-omnipotent because (if the first way I proposed is rejected), your argument about prediction would ultimately amount to the following: Can that which is omnipotent, make itself non-omniscient. Which is paradoxical. Again, the definition of omnipotence is as follows:
That which can do all that is doable:
A) Making predictions whilst lacking omniscience/being a part of Existence is doable (not paradoxical)
B) Making predictions whilst being omniscient/omnipresent/the whole of Existence is paradoxical
Parts of Existence (us), make predictions. Existence as a whole, never makes predictions. But this is not the same as saying Existence never makes predictions. (Correction: Actually, I'm wrong here. Existence never makes predictions).
This isn’t a paradox in the definition of omnipotence. It’s a paradox in what is being proposed as a doable act. If you reject my first way, then what you’re proposing amounts to: can Existence be omnipresent and non-omnipresent at the same time/place. But this can never happen as all existing things in Existence lack infiniteness in terms of time and place/space. So at the same time and place is impossible as non-infinite beings cannot be in the same time/place as the infinite, whereas the infinite is in every time and place the finite are.
So Both the infinite and the finite are existing. The finite exists in the/by virtue of the infinite, and the infinite exists by virtue of being infinite.
It would be paradoxical to separate them. You can't be omnipotent/omniscient if you're not omnipresent.
See my reply to your argument about prediction. It addresses this very point.
Of course we do, anything that is meaningful, is doable. They're not undefined/unknown like a 100th sense. They have clear meaning/definition.
It's not the same kind of concept. Infinity = that which has no beginning and no end. A noodle, by definition, must have a beginning. Do you agree that there is a clear difference in semantics? A distinction needs to be made between the infinite and the semi-infinite. Semi-infinite is that which has no end but has a beginning. I did not make this distinction clear in my last reply to you. I apologise.
You can have a semi-infinitely long noodle. No paradoxes in this; therefore it is a hypothetical possibility. It is not an absurdity (as is the case with a square-circle), and it is also not a necessity (as is the case with omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience)
Yes but all of this would amount to semi-infinites and not infinity. So you can have an immortal pasta chef (where immortal amounts to semi-infinite in the time dimension) and a semi-infinitely long noodle. Everything, that isn't omnipresent is either semi-infinite or finite. Only the infinite can be omnipotent/omniscient/ominpresent.
I'd say I've highlighted the nature of Existence via reason.
You say:
[b]Let me clear something up here. The only properties we have agreed on for this deity are
A) omnipotence
B) omnipresence[/b]
Are you implying that l have said something arbitrary, something not logically derived from the above?
Let me clear something up: I have reasoned everything, and it falls to you to counter it, which you have consistently failed to do.
Your counterargument appears to be:
[b]"It is very easy to imagine the existence of 2 omnipotent omnipresent beings working in tandom without any warring"
"As long as it is imaginable it is potentially possible as the first commenter has said so yes, deities working together is a possibility you can't just rule out"[/b]
Now as for your counter arguments
I say: "Evenso, the number of gods would be >1, and less than infinity, thus there would be a sort of materialism, and thus war is on the cards (= a struggle over something finite)."
You say: Agreed. As I've said before, this war could be what's happening right now and it would still fit an emperical observation of the world. Just as there are infinite potential combinations of forces that can create the force A, so are there infinite combinations of gods (as defined above) to create the current state of the world
You tell me that infinite harmony between multiple deities is conceivable therefore an absolute possibility. My counterargument is that conceiving of it is a fine thing but can you reason your concept out? For example, as l said: l could conceive of infinite war between multiple deities (at least until one dies) to be the only possibility. The difference between our opposition ideas is how we reason them out.
You seem to be offering, as reasoning, that there is war in the world.
How does that prove that infinite harmony between multiple deities is possible?
In my reasoning l said / am now saying such things as:
- Material world, the world of quantity = world of conflict
- We know from our own history that there has never been infinite peace, and that there has always been conflict over quantity of some sort (e.g. relative sphere of influence, ownership of resources)
- If we were both deities, you might want infinite peace with me, but you are unable to prove that l have any reason to trust your peaceful intentions
- Thus there will be infinite paranoia
- Infinite paranoia = infinite pain = absolute certainty that one deity will want to kill the other, if it were at all possible, assuming both deities want to exist (if any of them did not want to exist, then they would commit suicide if they could and if they could not, then they would at least war with, hopefully kill, whoever was adding to their misery by causing them infinite paranoia aka infinite pain)
- Also never forget that one deity may kill the other purely for the giggles
You say: I don't understand how either of these pass as a counter argument when I've already addressed them
No, you never addressed to me anything in the above list, never mind the new stuff l added to the list; you never addressed the old stuff in the list:
- about how the material world, the world of quantity = conflict,
- and how in our human history, we have never experienced infinite peace, thus your thoughts are unprecedented,
- moreover you have not addressed my assertion that infinite paranoia would result, and that would mean infinite pain, thus it would be reasonable, virtuous even, for one deity to eliminate all other deities.
I say: "What, you say l am projecting my own personal views of how a deity should behave / react to another deity? So are you, by insisting on infinite harmony, merely because you can conceive of it."
You say: I am not insisting on infinite harmony because I can conceive of it
Let me remind you of your counterargument as you have presented it to me:
[b]"It is very easy to imagine the existence of 2 omnipotent omnipresent beings working in tandom without any warring"
"As long as it is imaginable it is potentially possible as the first commenter has said so yes, deities working together is a possibility you can't just rule out"[/b]
You then say:
I am insisting on it because God, as defined above, does not have emotions, thoughts or attitudes. Notice how I made no assumptions about this deity in any of my arguments
I say: No assumptions? Other than the assumption that God has no emotions, thoughts or attitudes, which l fail to even see the relevance of
You also say: you keep using hypotheticals where the god has children, brothers, wives, drama, etc.
I say: Hello? This is because we are debating the possibility of multiple deities existing, and you are saying this is impossible, plus l never created a hypothetical where God has a brother or wives or drama (though l made reference to Greek dramas and called you a brother deity to bolster a subtle point that you missed). Also, hypotheticals are not assumptions ...
You say: My version makes the fewest assumptions thus passing Occam's razor while yours does not.
I say: I make zero assumptions as far as l'm aware, whereas you assume the following:
[b]- Multiple deities can exist, because multiple deities can live in peace, because you can conceive of multiple deities living in peace (which you then add to by saying the constant war on our world is an expression of conflict between multiple deities born at the same time)
- God has no emotions / thoughts / attitudes (not even sure how it relates to the discussion on whether it's possible for multiple deities to exist).[/b]
Let me restate my argument:
- Multiple deities cannot exist as they will wipe each other out or at least they'd destroy all creation in endless wars, in which case our existence proves that only one deity exists.
- The fact that love exists is demonstration of, if not proof of, the existence of one infinite God, a God who has no wars, a God who is at infinite peace, a God who is perfect (actual infinity = perfection). Peace + Perfection = Bliss. Infinite Peace + Perfection = Infinite Bliss = the wellspring of Love that we feel.
Love is transcendant, and thus that bolsters the idea that it is otherworldly, of the reality of God, which is infinite bliss unlike our reality.
So yeh, Love is another sign of One Infinite God, not multiple deities.
Did you switch accounts or something? I don't remember talking to you but nonetheless.
Quoting BaldMenFighting
Yes that is exactly what I'm implying. You have NOT reasoned everything and you DO keep adding properties to these dieties as I will show.
Quoting BaldMenFighting
Implies dirties have wants.
Quoting BaldMenFighting
Implies dieities have emotions.
Quoting BaldMenFighting
Again, implies that not only are these dieties killable but also implies they have emotions.
See the problem yet? You keep thinking of dieties as "super powerful humans" essentially. You keep thinking Zeus, Ares, etc. Again.
Quoting BaldMenFighting
Yes it's me Snorring Kitten, back to answer a few criticisms.
You say that l imply that deities have wants. However, it was you that said you want eternal peace. I was answering to that. Plus the entire debate is predicated the reaction (= a positively existing thing, a new thing) of one omni deity to another.
In other words: something new that creeps in when one deity coexists with another. You could say there is no change, but that would mean they don't even acknowledge each other, which is hard to believe when they are omnipresent and omnipotent. Ignorance is not a trait one would associate with that.
So therefore, there a new thing that occurs between them.
I say the new thing is mutual annihilation or at the very least, eternal war. I gave my reasoning, much of which you have left unanswered.
You say the new thing is eternal peace, and then you say l am implying wants. However, your want for eternal peace (and it is a want, because it is a new thing that crops up between the deities) is a want, and moreover, the infinite paranoia - yes l suppose that is an emotion.
As is infinite pain.
However, it remains for you to show how infinite paranoia is avoidable.
Also, it now remains for you to show how such grand beings have no sense of emotion, no aesthetic, such that they cannot distinguish a Jackson Pollock from an infant messing around, and would invest heavily in the latter only to find out they've been had. Because they're not so grand if they fall so hard like that, over relatively basic stuff.
Peace is not a new thing that emerges between them. It is a predicted behavior of both beings having omnipotence and omnipresence and nothing else. I am not implying a "want for eternal peace", in fact, I am not implying anything at all other than omnipotence and omnipresence. All of your reasoning is based on extra properties you associate with the diety like emotions, consciousness, familial ties, etc. If you assume nothing but omnipresence and omnipotence then you get eternal peace (I don't like that phrase because it makes it sound mystical but that's what you used so here it is). You keep saying "prove to me that they don't have emotions" or "prove to me that they are not ignorant", I don't have to prove those things because the burden of proof is on YOU. You're the one adding emotions to these dieties (and very human emotions at that) and you expect me to prove to you why they don't have them? That's like a Christian saying "God must exist because you can't prove to me he doesn't". The burden of proof is on the Christian to prove God exists not the person he's talking with. I do not answer your reasoning because every time you keep appealing to properties we have not agreed upon for these dieties
Dieties cannot necessarily trust. Trust is a human specific emotion that you have no reason to ascribe to dieties as we have defined them. Omnipotence and omnipresence do not imply ability to trust/distrust therefore the question itself is meaningless
What does it mean to have the ability/might to do something? Can it be anything other than: To make a decision and have the sufficient resources to make it happen?
So if I choose to lift rock A and I have access to sufficient resources to do it (a strong enough body, a forklift, essentially whatever gets the job done), then lifting this rock is doable and I can do it.
That which is omnipotent has reach and access to all things (omnipresence) so it can do anything that is doable. We saw how lifting a rock was doable for a being with access to limited resources, so lifting a rock for a being that is omnipotent is not a an issue.
Anything that is meaningful.
The list is endless
Let's unpack this sentence fully. You have a body (your mind has access to a body) Your mind decides to do things to your body, like brush it's teeth. You decide (mind), you have the resources (Access/control over your body), you can do it.
That which is omnipresent also has access to you and your body. So it can get you or allow you to brush your own teeth. It can get someone or something else to brush your teeth. There are many hypothetically possible ways that accomplish the task of your body's teeth being brushed.
Now with regards to prediction. What is it to predict? One definition is: To say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.
That which is omniscient can say a specified thing will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.
We on the other hand, may not do it accurately. We lack omniscience so we don't always know if our measurements or our predictions/projections into the future are accurate.
So that which is omniscient can predict, but it can't do it inaccurately. It would amount to knowing x and not knowing x at the same time (being omniscient and non-omniscient at the same time), which is like saying can it make a rock so heavy that even it cannot lift (being omnipotent and non-omnipotent at the same time), which is like saying can it be x and not x at the same time (being omnipresent and non-omnipresent at the same time)
These are all paradoxical sentences. But they are not paradoxical as a result of the definitions of omnipotence or omniscience. They are paradoxical because they are essentially taking those definitions and using them paradoxically in a sentence: Can x be not x at the same time. Never can you have any definition x be not x at the same time.
Quoting Philosopher19
Boiling it down:
(1) Things exist (true)
(2) Things that exist, exist. (redundant tautology)
(3 and 4) Minds depend on things (true)
(5) Things we imagine could exist (assumption, ambiguous)
(6) We can imagine omnipotence/omniscience (assumption)
(6a) Something could be omnipotent/omniscient OR: (false dilemma, (possible equivocation))
(6b) Something is omnipotent/omniscient (false dilemma)
[s](6c) Nothing is omnipotent/omniscient[/s] (excluded option from false dilemma)
(7) Only everything that exists can be omnipresent (assumption, redundant, lacks coherence)
(8 and 9) Given 7, 6b is true (does not follow from false dilemma or supporting assumptions)
(10) only everything that exists can be omnipotent/omniscient (ambiguous, lacks coherence)
Conclusion: everything that exists must be omnipotent/omniscient (does not follow given 6c)
If you want to prove that everything is everything, I'm sold, but beyond that the argument as is riddled with holes and ambiguities. If you could refactor your argument (condense and simplify if possible) taking the above into account, it would go a long way to sorting out exactly where and on what we differ about "the nature of everything".
True.
Can you give me an example?
In similar fashion to how we understand omnipresence. What's your understanding of omnipresence?
But we can't imagine things that cannot exist. This is often taken for granted. Can you give me an example of something that is meaningful that can never exist?
I did not say (7). Not everything that exists can be omnipresent. Only Existence can be omnipresent. It separates non-omnipresent beings and sustains them. It would be paradoxical to say that everything that exists can be omnipresent.
Are we in agreement that when it comes to infinity, there are no limits? If yes, then we agree that there is an endless number of possibilities.
So when the nature of infinity is such that all hypothetical possibilities will never be exhausted, then how can omnipotent/omniscient x be powerless to change the future of something that it contains within itself?
It can't change itself. That would be paradoxical. But all things within it can change. Knowing what change leads to what outcome does not takeaway from the ability to bring about that change. I don't see how omnipotence or omniscience is lost in any way.
Please reference my article on this Forum entitled "Why I Think Descartes' Ontological Argument is False" and the associated thread comments and answers. It constitutes a response to your contention that "Descartes had the right conclusions but not the right premise." Instead, for reasons stated in my article, I think Descartes had both the wrong premises and the wrong conclusions when it came to arguing for the existence of God.
Hi Charles
Here's your article which I found on google now (I don't understand why you didn't post the link yourself, but no worries)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5024/why-i-think-descartes-ontological-argument-is-false
And here's my all my work:
philosophyneedsgod.wordpress.com
I had a very very brief read of what you wrote and you seem to accept the following paradox:
'Things can go in and out of existence.' I concluded this based on the following which I found in your article: 'the human person's thinking activity can cease to occur and can go out of existence'
I can accept things being switched on and off as that is not paradoxical. I cannot accept things going in and out of existence as that is clearly paradoxical.
If you are interested in a solution to this paradox, I recommend you read all my work. Amongst other things, it contains the following conclusions:
Semantics are infallible
There exist an infinite number of hypothetical possibilities purely because existence is actually infinite (if existence was not truly infinite then there wouldn't be an infinite number of hypothetical possibilities or meaningful items of thought. How can a finite existence sustain an infinite number of anything?)
Kind regards,
Nyma
Hello Nyma:
The paradox you cite is, to me, not a paradox.
I am not claiming that "things" can go in and out of existence.
Along with Descartes, I am claiming the validity of the possibility that a person's thought can cease to occur. And that, if and when the person's thinking should cease to occur, then the person's awareness of his/her own existence would also cease to occur.
The possibility of such a scenario was accepted by Descartes when he said, "For it might indeed be if I entirely ceased to think, I should thereupon altogether cease to exist." He, also, did not consider the possibility of such a scenario to be paradoxical.
Both the person's thinking and the personal existence dependent upon the occurrence of the person's thinking are CONTINGENT because both can cease to occur. This is NOT paradoxical!!
There is no intuition available to human beings which yields an indubitably certain confirmation of the fact that human thinking will always continue to occur i.e., is NECESSARY.
Also, existence does not have an essence. Having no essence, existence cannot be described. So how, then, can the terms finite existence and infinite existence have legitimate meaning?
By the way, how do you define the terms finite and infinite? Limited/Unlimited? Bounded/Unbounded? Ending/Unending? Immanent/Transcendent? Phenomenal/Noumenal? Etc.??
Stay Healthy,
Charles
I am not in disagreement with this. The idea of something (even an item of thought or a hypothetical possibility) going out of existence is what I believe to be paradoxical. But I think I need to define what I mean by existence.
Are we in agreement that there has to be one omnipresent entity? If so, then I call this entity existence. If we are not in agreement on this, I will show paradoxes in rejecting an omnipresent entity. Once I establish where you stand on this, we can go from there.
Infinite = has no beginning and no end through and through
semi-infinite = has a beginning but no end
finite = has a beginning and an end
The activity of thinking (my thinking, your thinking) is not a something with essence (a what), it is not an essential entity; in fact, thinking is, in a sense, a non-thing, a non-entity which is best defined as an activity that is always oriented toward that which it distinguishes from itself and which it recognizes to be precisely not itself. Thinking is an activity (not a something, an item of thought, or a hypothetical possibility) that can cease to occur. Death is when a person's thinking ceases to occur.
I am not sure what an omnipresent entity is. But from the point of view of the individual person, I suppose his/her personal consciousness could be called omnipresent; though I would hesitate to characterize it as an entity.
You have what I would call a limited temporal (primarily past and future oriented) definition of the finite/infinite. Your definition seems to lack the dimension of the present. Also, how would you characterize the "has an end but no beginning" option?
How about the finite exhibiting the temporal dimensions of past, present, and future; whereas, the infinite is unlimited in the sense of being devoid of, or beyond, such temporal dimensions; infinity as timelessness?
If it's an activity, then surely it's a thing, is it not? 0 activity = nothing/non-existence. Thinking activity = something.
An omnipresent entity is that which exists everywhere. Your consciousness cannot be this because your consciousness recognises that it is only in one place. As in your consciousness recognises other places in Existence that it is not present in. So you know you are not omnipresent.
Aren't we rationally obliged to say that there is an existing thing within which all existing things exist in?
Quoting charles ferraro
I would describe it as absurd because only Existence has no end and only Existence has no beginning. Existence has no end because just as Existence could not have come from non-existence, Existence cannot go into non-existence.
Quoting charles ferraro
The past does not cease to exist. We move past the past but the past does not go out of Existence. This is purely because Existence is Infinite. Thus the finite cannot do this. All pasts, presents, and futures, exist, in Existence. We, as members of Existence, travel through time. Infinity is not timeless in that it is devoid of time, rather, Infinity/Existence contains all pasts, presents, and futures of all beings because all beings exist in Existence. No being exists in non-existence. It is paradoxical to say being x exists in non-existence unless x is in fact non-existence itself or any other absurd things such as a married bachelor. Absurdities/paradoxes/hypothetical impossibilities are things that do not exist in any way shape or form.
If my consciousness is a thing, then, certainly, it is a very unique and peculiar thing.
My consciousness does not exist in one place. In fact, it does not occupy any space, or place, at all because it is not a physical entity, like my brain.
My consciousness may be said to be "omnipresent" in the sense that I can never actually step outside of it, or transcend it. It is one with me. It follows me everywhere and it insists on accompanying me whenever I reflect upon my past, my present, or my future.
As long as I exist, I will remain a prisoner of my consciousness and everything I experience, whether in my dreams or when I am awake, will presuppose my consciousness as an indispensable condition of its existence. My consciousness is an inescapable, omnipresent being that is oriented, primarily, toward physical entities; but it is not their container.
Consciousness is omnipresent, but it contains nothing; it is not a container. It is a dimensionless, non-spatial being. An active being that is oriented toward and capable of encountering and recognizing entities which, unlike itself, are spatial and have essences.
Certainly, from the frame-of-reference of my consciousness I can "assume," or infer, that other consciousnesses exist, but I can never experience them "from their frames-of-reference." And, as long as I can't, I cannot "prove" to myself, or others, definitively, that they exist. I can only surmise that they exist.
Also, it is consciousness, not existence, that generates past, present, and future as ways for consciousness to be.
We can say that all physical entities exist in space-time; that space-time is omnipresent in this restricted sense. But we cannot say that all beings exist in existence. To me, this is just a meaningless tautology.
We might have to agree to disagree. To me, if something is meaningful, then by definition, it exists. How it exists and what sort/grade of reality it has, is a different matter.
Since I cannot view meaning/semantics as coming from nothing, and since I view semantics as being a priori and our labels for them a posteriori, and since there are an infinite number of semantics, and since I cannot be the container of an infinite number of semantics, I therefore view that which I am in, or that which sustains me, as being the container of an infinite number of semantics. I call this entity Existence/God/True Infinity.
If I do not root all semantics into that which is truly infinite, I find myself in a paradoxical position. For how can a finite entity contain an infinite number of semantics? It cannot. We know that an infinite number of semantics exist, thus a truly infinite entity exists to make such a thing true.
You state that "if something is meaningful, then by definition it exists."
But descriptions of certain forms of mental illness clearly demonstrate that it is possible for persons to have sensory delusion(s) that are meaningful to them, but which do not exist. Are these sorts of meaning also contained in, or caused by, your Infinite Semanticist? To me, this would be paradoxical, since it would conflict with such a deity's Infinite Benevolence, would it not?
"That which I am in, or that which sustains me" and that which is "the container of an infinite number of semantics ... Existence/God/True Infinity" possesses that NECESSARY Thinking and that NECESSARY Existence which, unfortunately, I, and others, cannot PERSONALLY EXPERIENCE.
They elude me because both my Thinking and my Existence, which are the only kinds I can experience, are inherently CONTINGENT. The only kind of thinking and existing that I can directly, personally experience is the kind that is vulnerable to the possibility of complete cessation.
I cannot directly, personally experience the kind of NECESSARY thinking and NECESSARY existing exhibited by the Infinite Semanticist that are invulnerable to the possibility of complete cessation. They may exist, but, I submit, human beings are, by nature, incapable of experiencing them.
In other words, you can entertain an infinite number of simple, or complex, arguments for claiming that a truly Infinite Entity may exist, and it may very well exist, but human beings, by their very nature, are perpetually excluded from having a PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of that entity.
I cannot experience, in the first person present tense mode, the necessary thinking and the necessary existing of the Infinite Semanticist. If I could, then, and only then, would I be able to prove to myself that such a deity did, in fact, exist; perhaps, along with its infinite plethora of word meanings.
Mentally ill people believe in wrong hypothetical possibilities. Perhaps they think they've seen a unicorn (and maybe they actually have...who knows) a unicorn is not semantically absurd. No mentally ill person can say they've seen a round-square because such a thing is semantically absurd. If a mentally person claims they have, then they are being irrational. They are mistaken.Quoting charles ferraro
God is not Omnibenevolent. God ensures everyone gets what they truly/perfectly deserve. Some deserve more good then others. Some deserve more bad then others. I do not know the souls of people. So I do not know if they are getting what they deserve or not. I know pure reason. And pure reason dictates that it is perfection for everyone to get what they truly deserve.
Quoting charles ferraro
Indeed, we will never know what it is to be Infinite or God. One cannot be God and not God at the same time. Similarly, we will never know how many senses there are in Existence/God or the Omnipresent. This does not mean that we are unaware of the semantics of Omnipresence and Infinity. We have the known a priori outlines. Existence exists. It is Omnipresent. We also have the unknowns in relation to us...how many dimensions does Existence have? There are many unknowns for us in relation to Existence, but this does not take away from the fact that there are also knowns for us.
We are not Infinite, therefore, we do not contain an infinite number of semantics. We have access to an infinite number of semantics. We have access to Existence. We exist in It.
Unfortunately, I still can't take away anything truly meaningful from your repeated assertions that "Existence exists," or that "We exist in it (existence)," or that Existence is Omnipresent. To me, the first two assertions are redundant, while the last statement assumes, or wrongly infers, that my personal existence can somehow extend beyond and/or occur independently of the limits of human consciousness.
As I stated previously, I still think my personal consciousness accompanies and defines me in a much more intimate, meaningful, and comprehensive way than my personal existence.
In fact, Descartes provides us with a unique method that enables us to actually prove to ourselves that our personal existence always depends upon, presupposes the occurrence of, and is inextricably bound up with our thinking (consciousness), and that our consciousness, therefore, can be experienced by each person as being, ontologically speaking, something more primordial and fundamental than our personal existence.
However, both my consciousness and my existing are fundamentally contingent, since they are both subject to the possibility of complete cessation. Neither one can be experienced as somehow being inherently necessary. Neither one, by its very nature, is immune to the possibility of complete cessation; which, one, or the other, would have to be if it were your divine, omnipresent, infinite container of an infinite number of meanings/semantics.
So, then, I have enjoyed very much interacting with you, but I will end our discourse by also agreeing that we will have to respectfully disagree.
Stay well!!
If you tried to reply, it didn't happen.
Sorry, I think I did reply. Double check.
This I contest.
A thinks of B. Therefore B exists.
This is clearly false. I can think of a unicorn; and it clearly does not manifest its existence.
B may exist, or may not. Its independence is completely removed from being a function of my thoughts or imagination.
=============================
If B existed BECAUSE A thought of it, there would be no god before creation. God exists in human thought; no human existed before the sixth day of the creation. (Take it as a metaphor of god creating man; and that it happened in one point in time.) (I don't believe in creation, but the Christian religious do.) So there is an inherent contradiciton, a reducitio ad absurdum: somebody who created the world did not exist when the world was created.
Thefore to accept Decartes ontological arument, one must accpet that there is a self-contradiction contained within its argument, that denies the possiblility that god created the world.
-----------------------
Either way, Descartes ruined it here for Christianity. If you accept the existence because you can think of it, then creation did not happen; if you deny the existence because of thought, there is no proof god exists.
Th e argument has three premises:
p1. God is the supremely perfect being. No more perfect being can be conceived.
p2. We can conceive of a supremely perfect being existing in reality.
p3. What exists in reality is more perfect than what exists only in conception.
From these three premises, the reductio proceeds as follows:
1. Suppose: God does not exist.
2. We can then conceive of a being that is more perfect than God. (p2 and p3)
3. This is a contradiction, since no being more perfect than God can be conceived. (p1)
4. Therefore, God exists.
From 1 it is clear that 3 is wrong. If god does not exist, then everything is greater than god, not just the greatest. So the greatest is not the theoretical greatest, it is only the greatest in ranking. Therefore the greatest is not god (since it does not necessarily be the theoretically greatest. Anything is greater than nothng.)
Quoting charles ferraro
I'm glad you enjoyed our interaction. I understand.
Thank you, and I wish you all the best!
Quoting god must be atheist
It means that a unicorn is a hypothetically possible being. As in, Existence is such that it can produce unicorns. If Existence couldn't produce unicorns, then unicorn wouldn't be a hypothetical possibility. It'd be a hypothetical impossibility (like a round square). Since there are an infinite number of hypothetical possibilities, we must acknowledge Existence as being Infinite. This would then mean that there is infinite time, space, and potential such that all hypothetical possibilities truly are hypothetical possibilities.
Quoting god must be atheist
B exists because you have imagined it meaningfully. Whether it is as real as you and me, is another matter. Some concepts we meaningfully understand, are necessarily as real as you and me. The following are examples of this: Existence, Infinity, Omnipresent.
All realities are in Existence (the Infinite, the Omnipresent)
Unicorn is meaningful, therefore, unicorn is at least a hypothetical possibility (courtesy of Existence being Infinite). Unicorns may be as real as you and I, but we don't know that. That's a maybe. That's an unknown. Unicorns being a hypothetical possibility, that is a certainty. This is because we are certainly meaningfully aware of them.
If Omnipotence is a meaningful non-contradictory concept, then it follows that it is at least a hypothetical possibility. For something to be able to do all that is doable (Omnipotent) it has to have reach and access to all of Existence. It has to be Omnipresent/Infinite. Since nothing can become Omnipresent/Infinite from a non-omnipresent/non-infinite state, nothing can become Omnipotent from a non-omnipotent state. So, Omnipotence is definitely not a hypothetical possibility.
If Omnipotence is hypothetically impossible, then it should be an absurd concept like a married bachelor. Where Omnipotence is a meaningful concept, it has to be explained in terms of Existence. Omnipresence and Infinity can be explained in terms of Existence by saying Existence is actually Infinite and Omnipresent (it would be paradoxical to deny this). Similarly, where Omnipotence is not absurd, Existence or the Omnipresent, is in fact...Omnipotent. Semantics do not come from nothing. They come from or are made possible or accessible to us by Existence. We must rationally account for them.
The same principle applies with True Perfection.
Infinity accounts for why an infinite number of semantics are meaningful. What about Perfection? Assume our Existence is infinite but imperfect. Now attempt to answer the following:
How can an imperfect existence, have any idea of what a perfect existence is independently of a perfect existence? How can an imperfect being, have any idea of what the Perfect Being is (there can only be one) independently of the Perfect Being? If the Perfect Being/Existence gave awareness of what Itself is to an imperfect being such as you and me, then we can conceive of all lesser beings such as Zeus or Odin as well as It (the Perfect Being). You do not negate imperfection to get to Perfection just as you do not negate finite to get to Infinity. The negation of anything, results in the non-existence of that thing. It does not result in something else.
Quoting god must be atheist
My argument has nothing to do with what scripture says. I do not sacrifice pure reason in the name of religion or science or anything else. That is insanity/irrationality/absurdity. Humans exist in God/Existence. All human thought is made possible by Existence/God the Sustainer of all humans and thoughts as well as Itself.
We exist because Existence exists. Existence exists because Existence exists. We are not Existence/God, we are in/encompassed by Existence/God.
(P.s. I agree that the existence of a "perfect thing" does not depend on whether or not anyone has thought of it. On the contrary, I never give up the notion that the most perfect thing imaginable necessarily exists; I reason with supporting my objection that it is IMAGINED, and imagination has nothing to do with reality, or at the most, very little.)
Quoting god must be atheist
Ok, I wish you all the best.