But just sitting in a room when the time is still ticking on, eternity and infinity must not be used as if it is something that one owns like a table or chairs. Plainly doing so is just plainly illogical. — Corvus

We can own the idea or concept even if we don't own the manifestation of said concept. This is what philosophers do. Questioning why someone would own, discuss, and argue for a concept they see manifest in the real world could be easily turned into a question of why you might be on a philosophy forum. There is some emotional element to many of your posts, untangling them from the logic requires a bit of work.

Surely omnipotence means it can do both good and also bad too, but if the omniptencer is a divine being, then it would not do bad.  That is just a logic from the definitions.  However divine being seems also denying / restricting  the definition of omnipotence.  It follows that omnipotence and divinity seem clashing / restricting properties of each other. — Corvus

There is a lot here, doubt I will answer everything, but restricting power is never the denial of it. The strongest of men can handle a baby very gently, strength never has to be used to it's full potential. Now whether the "omnipotencer" can do bad, I suppose that depends on terms. I use the term "bad" as being that which is aimed against the infinite principles (yes, I know you hate the word infinite). I argue that power to create is greater than power to destroy, and destruction ultimately takes away power the more it is enacted thus it wouldn't be a principle of omnipotence. In this way, the Christian notion that we are eternal makes sense, regardless if good or bad (aimed at destruction). It wouldn't be in the nature of this being to annihilate us, so putting bad people in a place where they can destroy everything around them and attempt to destroy themselves as well (think demonic torture here) without being able to escape and spread destruction elsewhere seems to be a satisfactory solution.

The follow-up question: What does nonexistence mean/refer to?

It means/refers to,

3. The state of not being part of the mental world. Nonexistence is about non-things.

OR/AND

4. The state of not being part of the physical world. Nonexistence is about non-things. — TheMadFool

Good to see you joined the conversation again.

Using the word to say something doesn't exist in the world of ideas is very tricky because language operates in this world, so it would have to be used here in a way that would be quite ambiguous.

Specifying "physical nonexistence" operates just fine with no problems. You speak from the plain of ideas so you can label many things that exist as ideas that don't exist physically without issue.

You say there are only these two plains but I would say that space-time is another plain that both physical and idea plains exist within. The argument for this is simple: you can't move an idea out of your head with your hand because it operates on a different plain then your hand, and similarly you can't use either your hand or your mind to bend space or time because they likewise exist on another plain. Now, there is some very specific interaction between these plains in some very specific ways, but conversations over this is best reserved for another discussion.

Some people also believe in a spiritual plain, but I'm not going to argue over this concept here.

Needless to say, "nonexistence" is open-ended in what it refers to without specification, so I use it an "all encompassing" way unless I put some specification before the word.

Analogies don't work wrt to gods. — VincePee

I hear a statement of belief, not a logical argument.

It says that God is not interfering with human affairs. — Alkis Piskas

What is this "it" and and what are the arguments for it? Or is it just a statement of your beliefs.

Perhaps I should give an analogy:
A glass full of water is different from a glass which is empty, even while the water has no direct effect on the glass itself. The glass can revert from the former state to the prior state with no distinction.

They can. But you can't imagine because you are bound. — VincePee

I'm doing a bit of a play on words here. Not timeless, all time, not changeless, all change, but these operatives don't necessarily have to leave a direct influence on the thing which holds them.

I'm taking it that 'God' is timeless/changeless, aka eternal, absolute, fundamental, 'IS' and thus a 'God' operating in time would be a changing 'God'. — PoeticUniverse

Can a God who encompasses all time be timeless? Or encompass all change and be changeless? These words operate differently on different properties, and thus I'm not convinced you can wholly establish either stance. Some aspects of this concept "God" could interact with time with no contradiction (think omnipotence), other aspects no (we can interact within omnipresence, but not with it as a separate entity), and some aspects require such interaction as "that which has no effect nor affects anything doesn't exist." Perhaps this is part of what has the concept of a three-in-one God intrigue me, that there can be an element which is timeless and distant, such as the "first person" of the three, with progressive interaction from the second to the third.

Human nature must be imperfect. — PoeticUniverse

If there is an all-existence God which owns all perfection infinitely, then creation without him would necessarily be imperfect. But, we aren't completely and totally imperfect, we haven't destroyed ourselves (yet), so if this is true then there must be at least a little of this infinite perfection present and not a true absenteeism.

The Great Scientist Deity sits back in his plush chair to watch this long great adventure movie or soap opera that He's never seen before… — PoeticUniverse

Scientist deity to some, teacher deity to others. This "adventure" without him could be a lesson or it could be a show. It could have a point, or it could be pointless, meaningful or meaningless. The concept of "Love" gives eternal meaning to things across all time, it is an infinite concept and thus exists in eternal opposition to death. It promotes creation and rejects destruction, thus we see it as the desire preceding family and the desire rejecting war and death. If this infinite existence truly is aimed in the direction of infinite creation, the true fulfillment of omnipotence, we can assume it carries this trait, "love." And thus, perhaps we can assume this is a lesson and not a show, and a powerful one at that as we see our own constant aim against the principles of the infinite across time in history. Our "Death" is simply the manifestation of our desire against the infinite coming true for us at last.

Shouldn't the space inside a totally sealed cube, container or ball be regarded as divided (separated) space from the outer space? — Corvus

If the cube moves, then the space inside the cube moves also, thus it is not technically the same space. It is the same amount of space, yes, but not the same space technically speaking. For example, if that cube is in New York, it is a space in New York. If in Boston, then a space in Boston, etc. And, if we simply chose to demolish the cube, the same space still exists, just now without the cube, it can't be demolished with the cube...

Omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience are only meaningful real attributes, if a subject with such attributes demonstrates omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience in action in front of us any time when asked. — Corvus

This is the definition of magic. For those who believe the greater existence has free will and can choose to completely ignore you if it chooses, then the way to go about this is prayer which may or may not be answered.

Omnipresence is really meaningful when the subject is visible and contactable whenever required — Corvus

You can only see what is finite and exists separate from you, so whatever is truly omnipresent extends everywhere so you could never go outside it and never see or contact it externally, everything must occur within it.

omnipotence doing and manifesting the right things (divine beings cannot perform bad things by definition?) — Corvus

I wouldn't use the term "bad" to explain it, but there is an obvious contradiction if omnipotence is used to remove omnipotence thus establishing the reality that the being doesn't truly have omnipotence...In other words, the greatest power is to create, destruction is a lesser power, creating can go on indefinitely but there are only so many things you can destroy--it is no surprise here that in Christianity, the Devil who opposes God strives to destroy all things...

omniscience telling us what is right from wrong, good from bad, and all the controversial topics such as being able to answer how the universe had been created, if it had, what happen to living beings when dead etc. — Corvus

I personally see the word omniscience as a tricky word, and there is a reason this has been used as a way to attack the concept of "God." You could say it means knowing what is going on everywhere all at once, knowing all future, knowing all good and bad, etc. I think the least contested of these would be knowing what is going on everywhere all at once. The reason I am not inclined to not accept the "know all future" idea is because I don't consider an all-existent being as being required to establish all future. It actually creates problems for omnipotence to say this being "decided" all things and can decide no more, but if you open to door to say not all things are decided, then not all future is set in stone, and not all future can be known. Christianity, at the very least, seems to embrace this idea with Bible passages that confuse many people (things were declared changed by God from the original plan).

As far as "knowing" bad, I reject this concept also on the premise that what is "bad" is simply a negation of everything which is "good," and what is "good" is that which is sustainable for an eternity without destruction: a destruction which unfortunately we see all too much of in this world which many religions have described as "broken" or "fallen." To put this simply, lets say you lecture me on a subject, then I go through and change everything you said to be the opposite. For example, you say "climate change is occurring due to the industrial revolution and the use of fossil fuels and is causing great harm" and I then alter it to say "fossil fuels are good for the environment, solar panels are bad, we need to abolish them from all rooftops!" I then study this opposite version and hold my head high at my "knowledge." But you, who realize it is just the opposite of what you were lecturing on, say "it isn't knowledge." I reply, "you think knowing bad things is knowledge, and this is a bad thing, therefore by your own definition I have knowledge!"

Well, there's Roe v. Wade, which (broadly speaking) holds that a woman has a qualified right to terminate a pregnancy, — Ciceronianus

A precedent isn't the same as a law, a law on the federal level could overturn this, or it is technically possible for the supreme court to change it's stance, but the bipartisan fight over it seems to just keep things in limbo generally.

The Justices of the Supreme Court of our Great Republic ("the Supremes") have decided on a 5-4 vote not to grant an injunction staying enforcement of the law. — Ciceronianus

The big problem is there isn't much in the way of federal law regarding abortion, so much of what the supreme court decides on this matter is more of an opinion, from my view. I personally don't view the supreme court as a method by which to subvert the lack of ability of the legislative process to create laws around this. And the reason the legislative process struggles to create laws is because it is a highly contested topic, and many voters don't want it and so likewise they vote for representatives who don't want it either.

From a philosophical standpoint, I see the abortion issue as being a slippery-slope for morality and societal values. Drawing a fine line at "no" doesn't take us down that slope, but when we say its justified there are many opinions about when and how long, etc. On the most extreme end, there are philosophers who believe it is acceptable to kill toddlers because "they don't have a personality so aren't a person." That is obviously a big extreme, but nevertheless demonstrates my concern.

So, back to this is all politics, all show, and lots of opinion with little logical debate. It's a big fist-fight. If we really want truth, then delve into the facts without all the opinions. But, we've already established our opinions here, and nobody is going to change their mind...

The unborn future is inherent in the past,
Its ‘will be’ is real, with no unreal contrast class,
As there’s no opposite to existence—no Nil;
It’s not just that future is going to exist.

The present ‘now’ undergoes an updating,
In a fleeting swoosh that passes it away,
For the ‘now’ fades, consumed, as future becomes,
Yet, what will become past can’t just non-exist. — PoeticUniverse

There's a lot of interesting philosophy that can be made here. The past carries its existence in the present so long as as the present is built up on the past. So then, if the universe were to collapse back together and "reset," would the past have been erased? Perhaps the concept that the past builds up the future is a necessary one. This goes back to my idea that time is change, so if there is no change--a reset--then there is a challenge as to if any time passed at all. And I think we both agree at this point that time must be infinite. Or, perhaps a better, "always indefinite"--without borders, continuously flowing.

I still think there needs to be some work into the possibility of time being eternal and linear all-in-one. If you have true determinism, which I've already argued operates against the concept of the infinite in multiple ways and can be derailed by previous arguments about the infinite, then perhaps you could have a true eternalism. But continuous determinism seems to be most logical here, and I would even argue we see this principle in our universe. For example, whether or not our universe would be made up of anti-matter doesn't seem determined, but once it was established to be matter there was no going back, and this is what makes up the whole universe today. This principle of continuous-determinism is ever present in our lives--we make decisions, and there's no going back. You can't "undo" having a child, you can't "buy back" years waisted to drugs, you can't "go back" and fix waisted college years. There is a continuous determination that happens in our life, and that is the principle of free-will, not "indeterminism" as so many falsely claim.

Perhaps a better way of phrasing this is "what is determined exists in eternal time, what is undecide belongs to linear time, and they coexist without contradiction."

I fail to see logical linkage between those attributes, "defined as all-encompassing" and the undivided existence. Where does this inference come from? — Corvus

Undivided existence would have the attribute of "all encompassing" among other things. Perhaps a fun mind game here would be to talk about holes in the fabric of space--something some scientists have proposed as a hypothesis. A hole in space would have no space, so it would be a hole 0 units wide by 0 units tall. Similarly, a "break" in time would encompass no time, so it would be a break of 0 seconds and no fraction.


It has already been extensively argued that there is more to the idea than semantics, if you want to argue this then read those arguments.


I hastily summarized for you while telling you to go back and read past arguments. If you want to argue this, go read them so I'm not forever repeating myself.

This was a pleasant exchange! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

It has been!

if God is "in" those things he is finite. Perhaps a better phrase is permeate, expand across, or even say those things exist within him. Either way, for the argument to work he would have to be the greatest existence with no limit.

You are not maximally powerful if you lack the power to do something — Bartricks

That is your definition, not mine, and is riddled with contradictions.

Sure, I could kill myself but is that a power?

I've had 15 foster kids in my home, and many struggled with the issue of power. Sure, an 8 year old can present himself as powerful lighting houses and schools on fire, but now at age 11 they still keep that kid locked up. Doesn't seem to be a power to me. And the teenager who put many holes in my walls and trashed my house, all it got him was more detention, more constraints, and less freedom. Again, doesn't sound like a power to me.

I've already written it in this thread and put it in the video. Has to do with space, time, affect and effect, for further explanation look at past posts.

I can't do much more arguing for tonight, but the general concept is we get rid of the concept of nonexistence, accept existence is infinite and eternal, then establish the universe isn't completely infinite and eternal and thus establish there must be something greater than the universe which is this "infinite existence." We then attribute qualities to it which would ensure that it exists for all time and with no end that's where we pull in the omni's and then say it has all the descriptors of God, thus it is God. That is how it is supposed to go anyway, currently trying to strengthen the metaphysical portion of this argument with PoeticUniverse.

Reality is we aren't even using the same terms, we would have to agree upon that before getting anywhere, we are simply not using the words the same at all.

Again, what would be the nature of the forced Eternal Necessary Existence?

Random?

Everything, either as linear or all once? — PoeticUniverse

As odd as it might be to say, I have a sort of meshed view with eternalism and linear time, although I can't say this idea is well formed. I would say that anything which is to become an existing thing anytime in the future carries the property of existence in a sort of eternal sense, even before it is created. But, I also view the future as changeable and non-determined (not the same as indeterminate!), so what those things are which exist but haven't come into being yet can't always be known, even with "omniscience." I view this as necessary, but would prefer not to get into an argument with Bartricks over it!

Now, in explaining this, I've also negated my personal belief the concept of randomness.

The views of "determinism" and "indeterminism seem to leave out the possibility of "continued determinism." To explain this concept, I'll go back to the idea of omnipotence. If there is an omnipotent force, and that omnipotent force extends it's reach out to determine all things for all time, then it has done two things: 1. make time finite as it reached the end and 2. make itself be not omnipotent any longer, it would become past-tense: it made it so, but doesn't continue to do so. It just follows the path.

Thus, there can be "determinism," but it is a continuous process by which all the future isn't decided, and this is necessarily so.

This further edifies my point that there must be an infinite creative source, omnificence, but this is not the same thing as "randomness."

"Randomness" can achieve repeats, and this can happen for randomness on a macro-level as well. But a repeat isn't a change, and so a repeat of the universe can lead to the question if time continued or went back. If it can't be decided if time continued or went back because "randomness" led to a repeat, then we pose another interesting problem we can explore. But infinite creativity entails within it that there be no repeat thus this problem wouldn't occur.

There is much to say on this topic, I'm unsure if my words have done justice to my position here, I'm finding myself exhausted for today!

It really is beautiful you keep stumbling upon the contradictions the Bible presents clear as day as a necessary truth. I suppose that is to say, perhaps the Bible is both logical and philosophical? But anyway, Christians at the very least do believe that the "more powerful" are "less powerful" and vice-versa. The first will be last and the last first as they say.

But it is worth saying, at this point the only real answer to give as you hammer your point in without strong logical points to explain the contradictions you create, God did "constrain" himself in Christianity by becoming man and dying. So yes, technically God died, so that constraint is over with.

But still, I don't see much logical argumentation to be had here.

I hear you, hopefully I can get you to understand it as intended and then maybe it will make more sense.

I'm using the word "nonexistence" as a state of being that is permeating and all-encompassing. So, think of a "great abyss." In this great abyss all forms of existence are gone. So no space, no time, no ideas, no physical matter, no God either if you believe in that. Now, if you try to explain the properties of this abyss you begin to have problems. How big is it? Well, there's no space in it, so none. How long does it last? Well, time doesn't exist to it, so none. What ideas does it impress upon your mind? Well, none, it vanished from my mind after realizing it had no size and no time component to it, there is nothing to say here.

I just see a blanket statement, not an argument. "God can do anything" is not the same as "God is all powerful." And "all powerful" is very different than the human conception of power. For example, the ability to create is far greater than the ability to destroy. It can take 40 years to create a cathedral, but 1 day to tear it down. So--which one is more difficult, or requires more "power?"

"Destroy" typically means to remove the order or structure. If I bulldoze a house, the house is gone but the material that went into it still exists. This seems to correlate to how God destroys in most religions. It isn't the creation of a "nonexistence," going back to that fun contradictory word.

Ok, I will go about this the other way that seems to confuse the living daylights out of half of the people on this forum. "God can do all things," "no thing" is not a thing, thus he can't turn "all things" into "no thing."

God can't do anything, and he can't do everything either for that matter. It is a commonly upheld religious belief, the quick example I'll give for that before delving into the philosophy around it is found in 2 Tim 2:13 "If we believe not, yet he stays faithful: he cannot deny himself."

The simple philosophy is, if God is all powerful (omnipotent), and God uses that to wipe away his power (omnipotence), then he wouldn't truly be all-powerful. In other words, baked in the cake of the word is the built-in recognition of he can't take away his own power, or any of the other omni's either for that matter.

There is a lot there, and a lot to unpack. I will pounce on the spot where I think I can make the most headway, remember I'm trying to make the leap from this to the metaphysical realm of existence, or the "beyond the cosmos." One thing I found myself thinking about a lot today is randomness. You mention some physicists as viewing randomness as the "bedrock of reality." Some quick research into this topic showed that apparently this concept of randomness was at odds with the views of Einstein. Reason is leading me to take Einstein's position, and it also places me in a good spot to promote the "omnificence" concept.

For this, I pose the question: Can randomness occur without being deliberate? Zeilinger argues that light reflecting off a mirror or being absorbed is a completely random phenomenon. But if it is truly random, then it could be the case that no light is absorbed, or all light is absorbed, and everything in between. But we don't see variation in the reflectivity of a mirror, so while it may be random at the individual level, it is patterned at the macro level, and what governs this to ensure that this "randomness" is patterned in such a way?

But really, there is no "random" at a macro level anywhere, everything is deliberate. Even human acts of obtaining "randomness" such as rolling a dice revolve around a deliberate act. At a macro level, there is randomness nowhere, but at a micro-level there seems to be randomness everywhere, and the governance of this--to my knowledge--is not fully known.

There is no "true" random, and presuming this statement is true, there is no "random" to the Big Bang and universe either. Everything is patterned, organized chaos. Even the logic we have been discussing demonstrates a necessity for pattern. But where things really get ambiguous is where the patterns are no longer necessitated by any logic, and yet they are patterned anyway. Here I find a kind of border line where arguing "omnificence is necessary" can be done. But if you have omnificence, you have a mind, you have a force that can create patterns, designs, uniqueness, etc. It organizes the "chaos" that exists out of necessity into a pattern that keeps changing and morphing but never dissolving back into chaos.

It is the odd thing about this universe, everything that is "chaos" can be zoomed out of far enough to look beautiful. Black holes are one such example...So, back to the original question, can randomness exist without being deliberate? Especially when there seems to be two choices: random or patterned, and patterns seem to be the far more common choice than random.

"Nothing" can be use as a pronoun, adverb, noun, and adjective. Saying "nothing exists" uses it as a noun, so you can't then separate it as "no thing."

Regardless, the first part of this argument should sound confusing because I'm trying to use reductio-ad-absurdum. The whole entire idea of "nonexistence" is quite absurd, and many words have been spilled talking about that reality. But yes, the first part of the argument should sound confused because I talk about it as though it were a possibility, but really it isn't, infinite existence is what we have.

There is getting to be some repetition here which is wearing me out, but for what it's worth this thread has convinced me a different angle of approach might be better. When you say nonexistence is a concept, you're saying it is something which creates a contradiction. The whole word and every use of it creates endless contradictions. The point of this introductory statement was to show the absurdity of it, thus negate the possibility thus we must accept the concept of an infinite existence. Concepts are ultimately things, as I have previously stated, so even when you talk about things that don't exist, all you're saying is they don't exist as a material reality, but they will always exist as a concept.

You are an open book with no cover and no pages. Thus, it's not really open, but it is.

You are very entertaining to argue with, but perhaps not the best person to put a theory through the fire with. Your last post opens many rabbit holes, but perhaps it's best I not jump into them this time...

I already stated previously I fat-fingered my last name and this was the only way to fix it. This forum doesn't provide a "help and support" link I already tried that. I intended to switch completely except for a mistake with login on a different device. If your intent is to remove this argument/discussion on that basis I think it says it all right there.

That being said, your comments have little to do with philosophy. I advise looking into reductio-ad-absurdum and how it works. The whole intent is to demonstrate certain ideas as absurd, thus negate them. But you must first suppose them to be true. This is philosophy, this is logic, if you don't understand it there is little I can do for you there.

Perhaps another way of putting it, you have enough understanding to create problems, but not enough to solve the problems you've created.

Grass is green and grass is yellow. Grass is not green and grass is not yellow. All of these are true. The reason is because "grass" is a broad category, which can include many states the plant goes through from germination to life to death. But as with anything, the category can be subdivided to make it more specific. Make it specific enough, and the apparent contradictions dissolve. The real question is, do we have the patience for that or do we just want to over-generalize and call it green. The problem here is what I call the knowledge-understanding distinction. Understanding is very open-ended, knowledge is a closed box. People with understanding like you are good at cutting open that box, but all that really does is show the superiority of understanding over knowledge. It does nothing to prove understanding as lacking truth.

There is a lot baked in that cake to say annihilation is redemption...is that truly what is stated here? That can justify a lot of evil--assuming you even believe in the concept of evil.

Quick FYI: using a different account to respond from here, I'm tired of seeing my fat-fingered mistake in my last name with no way to fix it.


Let's just say, it exists.


No arguing about your subjectivity. The real question is, why come on a philosophy forum that deliberates over the truth and say there is no truth assertively as though you have it?


The word "nonexistence" is not coherent, and that is precisely the point. If you prefer I don't use that word, I can argue all the same without it and say existence is infinite. But it eliminates a deliberate reductio-ad-absurdum argument I am using here.


Eternity is the driving force of all infinites. Remove that, and you remove the infinite. Without eternity, space becomes limited, ideas are limited, creative potential is limited. But with eternity they can operate without an end. Thus, eternity isn't on-par with the rest of the infinites, it is a precursor.

Perhaps it is a harsh view of reality, but our parents choose death for us at the same time they choose life. We all know the fate as we marry and bring children in the world, but for some reason or another we decide it is better--for some in a selfish way (they want kids for their own desires sake), and for some selfless (they view the experience as being better than it is bad ultimately, and wish to share it with new life). For me, the only downside to death is knowing I lived a worthless life, and so I strive to make it difference with what I have. But this, ultimately, borders the edge of the physical component of life and the metaphysical. That is to say, a worthless life is truly lifeless...death then is just a physical manifestation of a metaphysical reality.