:up: :cool:

True, I agree with that.
Whether the notion of beauty always has to arise in correlation with rationality or not is an interesting thought. — Prometheus2

The reasoned beauty tends to be objective and universal in its quality and value, because that is the prime property of rationality and reason.

The emotional side of beauty would be subjective and personal. If you are feeling stressed out in your mind due to some daily life problems, then you might not feel the same from the objects which you used to feel beautiful.

Why is my existence as a person (and as an "Aristotelian substance") characterized by the factual properties that I have, instead of other factual properties? The perplexing thing here is that factual properties are contingent (in a modal sense), even though I experience them as necessary (in a modal sense). — Arcane Sandwich

Could it be space and time which makes every objects and events in the universe unique and contingent? There can be no object which can share the same points of space and the moment of time physically.

Being in different space and different time as different objects necessitates every events ever taking place in the universe contingent and unique. It is the principle of the physical nature of space and time which limits the facts, experiences, events and properties of the objects. If we were the particles in QM space and time, then the situation might be different.

If you can swap your particles of the body with someone else's, then you could experience multiple factual properties.

And the dogmatic slumber to awaken from? To critique the grounding principles for? That to which I wished to direct your attention, but apparently failed miserably? — Mww

When you were talking about the missed opportunity for waking up from Dogmatic Slumber, it reminded me of Kant's position when he rejected Wolff and Leibniz's ideas, having read Hume. That was all. :)

Though since usually beauty is seen as a type of feeling, could we still perceive it if we were completely rational beings? Or on the contrary, entirely emotional? Makes me wonder.. — Prometheus2

The art critiques would use rationality and reasoning in analysing the art objects such as paintings and sculptures. In this case analysis based on the fine observation on the colours, shapes and themes of the art would be the objects for their analysis for writing their artistic praise or critiques.

If you are to compare art works of different artists such as Picasso and Dali, or Van Gogh and Gogang, then you would heavily depend on your rationality and reasoning for making the critical analysis to come to the comparative commentaries on their works too.

But if you are perceiving the art objects or beautiful scenery in ordinary daily life, then I would reckon your aesthetic judgements on them would be more likely based on the emotional responses to the objects or scenes.

The reasoned beauties could give you the rational reasons why Picasso suits better than Van Gogh for the space with the modern furnishings, however, it might not be able to offer the psychological pleasure, ecstasy and peace of mind you would get from the purely emotional judgements and feelings of the beautiful objects or scenery you encounter in your daily life.

All this thinking about when, why and how we perceive something as beautiful made me question what 'beauty' itself even is or what it really means.
"Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.", is a well-known saying that might come to mind here. — Prometheus2

Beauty is a property of the object perceived by mind, and has psychological nature. In that sense, beauty is more subjective judgement rather than objective value.

If you find a scenery with the sunset or sunrise beautiful, that means your psychology is uniting with the image not just visually but also emotionally positive way because of the various psychological factors such as your past experiences connecting to the scenery, objects or person or personal aesthetic taste or deep religious faith, which reminds the deity or peace of mind from the images you see.

Of course the visual effect would be a critical factor in the aesthetic judgement, but more importantly the subjective psychological or emotional state responding the the sensory perceptions in aesthetic way plays critical part in judging and feeling beauty on something.

I am not sure if rationality or reasoning could be also basis for judging something as beautiful. I would guess Kant would say Yes, but Nietzsche or Schopenhauer might say No.

Same as it ever was…… — Mww

Doesn't it sound too pessimistic and prejudging? :D

One purportedly missed the opportunity to be awakened from “dogmatic slumbers”, — Mww

According to Kant, you fall into dogmatic slumber when you accept groundless ideas and beliefs of others without critical reflection and reasoning.

Maybe your two-party dialectical failure to continue, relates to a proposed affliction resident in the “nominalism thought virus”. — Mww

Everyone couldn't fail to notice that it was neither a wise nor intelligent choice of the words in philosophical debate.

Humans realise the human imagination and contribute to it, as aspects of the dreaming mind, as part symbolic reality, but whether it exists as an independent realm, as qualia, is a good question. — Jack Cummins

Some folks seem to think the platonic objects do exist in the real world, but it seems to be the cause for the confusion. As you say Platonic objects are imaginable, thinkable and describable as ideas, but they are not solidly existing objects in the real world.

And sadly some folks seem to confuse the symbols and signs in the external world which are to convey the ideas and information as physical objects, so the ideas must exist in the real world as solid entities.

But if they are coming from some religious background or upbringings, then maybe the confusion originates from their historical living experiences rather than their thoughts. Therefore would it be reasonable to say that the historical living experiences take priority in judgements over thoughts?

It is futile. ... There is no reason to continue this discussion. It is a waste of the value in good and necessary dialogue. — Mapping the Medium

Ok, fair enough. I declare the same. Please don't write poems in philosophical debates. That is my advice to you.

..... My answer to your question? ... Yes. The causality of semiosis occurs and is present in the external world. — Mapping the Medium

The meaning of exist from English dictionary seem too wide and loose. Of course people use words in all sort of different contexts and meanings in ordinary life. You could use exist to mean even a lot more different things if you were writing poems.

But if you were to reason for logical arguments, then I think it would be better to narrow it down the meanings of words you use into concrete and solid definitions. That process is what philosophy and logic must do.

And this does not exist in the external world? ... Consider that the next time you try to maneuver city traffic without traffic lights and signs. — Mapping the Medium

Of course things exist in the external world. I was not denying that. The traffic lights exist, and when the red light is showing, you must stop, and wait. But that is the legal contract and instruction you must abide in order to drive in the town. If you break that contract and instruction, then you will be in trouble physically and legally.

That contract and instruction is a form of information and knowledge given to you and you are aware of it, which causes you to stop when you see the red light at the traffic. The idea of the legal and civil contract is in the form of idea which you know of in your mind. It is not an external entity or existence.

We are using the physical device (the traffic light with red yellow green) as a sign post to convey the information and contract which is mental in nature.

My usage of the word 'narrative':
A causality of semiosis that results in a representamen of a situation or process, and in such a way as to reflect or conform to an overarching momentum. — Mapping the Medium

It still sounds a mental event or process resulted from perception and understanding. Would you say the narratives exist in the external world?

How may the development of ideas about 'gods' or one God be understood in the history of religion and philosophy?. — Jack Cummins

Could it be the case that the world with many Gods would allow the people more freedom to choose which God to worship, therefore allow more creativity in arts, diversity and the way of life?

One God system might fall into an authoritarian society which restricts people's freedom to choose their preference in choosing their own Gods, and the way of life, and also creativity in arts, as from the historical fact of the medieval Christianity in Europe.

After the fall of the ancient Roman empire, the Christianity took over the control of the governments and justice system. The one God based religious authority has ruled the whole Europe with the iron fist controlling every part of human life for almost 1500 years.

Anyway, I'm not debating with you anymore as it's clearly not going to be worth the effort, plus you were needlessly rude. — Clearbury

If you keep beating around the bush just trying to tell the same nonsense, then everyone would say to you, stop telling nonsense. That doesn't mean you are a nonsense, but what you were saying was nonsense.

Manifested, presenting beings acting as catalysts within a grander narrative... and that narrative exists. Otherwise, there would be no manifestation (existence), of whichever category we are speaking (Firstness Secondness Thirdness).
"The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws." - Charles Sanders Peirce — Mapping the Medium

Manifestation could be a good word for some abstract entities. Instead of saying "X exists", X manifested sounds more logical. I heard of some narratives, and I know some narratives, I could tell you a narrative for something, but narratives exist? I am not sure, if they exist anywhere in the world.

Why bother? ... Because of the necessity of being to becoming. That is the causality of semiosis. Thirdness in action. An open system is a living system. ... Take away Thirdness and all you have is static Secondness. The habits, laws, and momentum of Thirdness exists, and Thirdness is as real as any material object manifested in Secondness. I am speaking of manifestation in describing the word 'exist'. — Mapping the Medium

Maybe we could analyse different modes of existence? I still believe that physical existence is different from the conceptual existence. There are many entities and objects we describe as "existence" or "existing", but not visible or audible to our sensory organs such as God, Numbers and all the abstract entities. They only exist in our minds, and we just communicate about them and on them via language.

That seems conceptually confused on your part. God is by definition a person. If you're using the term 'God' as a label for a mindless object or something then you're just misusing the term. I think someone who misuses terms like that - or happily changes what they mean by a term whenever convenient - isn't worth debating with as it would just take too long to nail down what they're talking about. — Clearbury

I don't agree that God is a person. I have never heard anyone saying God is a person. Can you prove God is a person?

Just because I don't agree with your point, you claim that you don't want to carry on debating sounds absurd and senseless.

I am repeating myself, — Clearbury

That is exactly why I felt you have been talking nonsense. It seemed that there was no progress in the debate, because you kept coming back with the same denial of whatever I said. There was no coherence or cogency in your statements at all. But your point seems to be that whatever I said, I am wrong, and you are right.

Omnipotence is a paradoxical concept. In the real world, there is no such person who is omnipotent.
Therefore if a being is omnipotent, it must be a divine being. That is a inductive logical statement.
Divine being doesn't die. If it dies, then it is not a divine being. Therefore divine being wouldn't be able to kill himself. When the being knows he cannot die, he wouldn't kill himself.

Neither the title of the thread nor your OP mention God or religion. I thought the idea would be to discuss the concept of omnipotence. I didn't know you are only interested in discussing God, and how omnipotence fits a particular religion's needs. I have less than no interest in such a discussion. But we are all entitled to discuss what we want to discuss. This is your thread, so have at it, and enjoy! :grin: — Patterner

It is not my interest in only discussing the traditional religious God in the OP. The OP started with no prejudice that omnipotent being can be only Gods. It started with the assumption that there might be a non-God being which is omnipotent. However during the discussion and logical inference, it was clear to conclude that it was nonsense to talk about such a being which is omnipotent which is not God, because by inductive reasoning there is no such being exists.

Gravity, magnetism, entropy, thermodynamics,
... Do these not exist? ....... Only physical, touchable, material forms exist? I suppose so, that is if you only limit your perspective to Secondness. I do not. — Mapping the Medium

Good point. They don't exist at all. They are the inferred entity which were conceptualised. I don't deny the validity of the concepts. But they don't exist like the physical bodies.

Gravity applies to between objects, mass and the larger mass. It exerts in the energy form, but saying gravity exists? sounds superstitious, because it doesn't.

Remember this was what Hume said in his Treatise? There is no cause i.e. gravity. There are only the apples, and the ground. You see whenever the apple was released from the hand, it falls into the ground. And Newton inferred a force between the earth and apple, and named it as gravity. So it is an inferred concept called gravity out of the habit and custom to see the apple falling into the ground. There is no gravity. There is no cause.

And like all scientific theories and concepts, they are known to us by education and information. But they are to be toppled, denied and replaced when newly discovered theories and concepts are more making sense. Hence all scientific laws, principles, and concepts are temporary information until the newer ones replaced them. So why bother? Was it Popper who said it?

Hmm .... I haven't been on the 'forum' for several years, but this is a good starting place for me to jump back in. :grin:

'Abstractions' are a huge can of worms, and their wriggling is very real. ... It's how biological creatures understand and apply them that can either be very useful or very dangerous (we're stepping into that danger now with AI haphazard hypostatic abstraction). ... When you understand thought as a system, you cannot possibly dismiss its very real 'existence'. — Mapping the Medium

All thoughts are mental entities or operations, hence they are private to the thinker.  The ordinary folks would say thoughts exist, but it is a vague expression.  

When X exists, it means X is a being.  Being means it has a body to present itself to other beings.  Mental operations and thoughts don't have that type of presentation.  They are invisible not just to other minds, but also to the thinker too.

The thinker will know about the thought he / she has in their mind, but cannot see the presentation.  Thoughts are only expressed via the linguistic expressions to other minds.  Thoughts can also work as the causes for actions of the thinkers.   But they can never present themselves as existence i.e. they are not the presenting beings such as the bodily structures, or bodies in the physical world.

The ordinary folks would say thoughts exist, ideas exist, numbers exist, God exist, but these expressions are all incorrect logically and ontologically speaking.

They must be corrected to say, they know numbers, use numbers to count or calculate, and have an idea to sort out the problem, thought about the incidents, can infer or understand the concept of God, or they believe or don't believe in God ... etc.  

Only the beings which are presenting themselves in visual and touchable physical or material forms exist.  Nothing else exists. Not able to tell this difference and misusing the language describing all the mental entities, concept and events as existing is the cause for all the confusions in reasoning.

I don't have to prove my logical inference any more than you have to prove yours. There is no reason to think an omnipotent being cannot choose to ceasr to exist. — Patterner

You must come up with at least some premises which are objective i.e. omnipotent being(s) as God in the traditional religions, which we know of in their properties of the deities.

Talking about non-existent deities, and the characteristics people made up for them, is going to get you exactly the same place. Any ideas we come up with for our hypothesized beings are as valid as the ideas people in the past came up with for their hypothesized beings — Patterner

But your hypothetical or hypothesized ideas are too subjective and cloud catching story, I cannot even imagine what you are even talking about. We need some kind of objective ground to engage in the argument. That means you must come up with your premises for the argument and conclusion, which could be accepted by the other interlocutors in the discussion.

I am not able to accept your premises, that we could talk about an omnipotent being which doesn't exist in the world. I don't know who we are talking about.

Do you have any support for this idea! — Patterner

That is my logical inference. If you think it is not correct, then prove it wrong.
If a being is omnipotent, then it cannot die.
If it can die, then it is not an omnipotent being.
Therefore, an omnipotent being cannot kill itself.

Of course that's what I'm talking about. I have literally said I'm talking about a hypothetical omnipotent being. I said it twice, in fact. — Patterner

But there are the traditional deities such as the Christian God, the ancient Egyptian deities and the other Gods which we could have some clues from the existing holy texts and theologies, which we could make more reasonable inference and analogies.

Talking about a non-existing hypothetical being with omnipotence is not really going to take you anywhere. You would have far better ways wasting your time.

I take 'God' to mean a person who has the three omni properties (omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence). — Clearbury

This seems to be the problem in your thinking, which is leading you to the faulty reasoning. You are equating God with a person. They cannot be the same. God and person are not the same being or class. No person is omnipotent from inductive reasoning. Only some God can be omnipotent.

If you 'define' God as 'someone who can't commit suicide' then you haven't raised a puzzle either, for then 'by definition' God can't commit suicide and the question was like "are squares four sided?" — Clearbury

If a being is omnipotent, then the being cannot die. If being can die, then it is not an omnipotent being. Therefore you are talking nonsense here.

I guess it depends on your definition of God. But I'm not talking about that. I'm taking about whether or not an omnipotent being can commit suicide. I don't see why it would not be possible. — Patterner

I still don't know who your omnipotent being is, you are talking about. And it seems clear that you don't know who you are talking about either.

You seem to be talking about an omnipotent being which doesn't exist. If something is non-existent, then it cannot be omnipotent, therefore you are barking at the wrong tree for non-existing answers.

I am not talking about any God/god/deity at all. I am speaking about a hypothetical omnipotent being. — Patterner

What exactly would the being be without being God?

That misses the point somewhat! There's no puzzle. There's nothing to discuss.

God is by definition an omnipotent person. So 'of course' they have the ability to kill themselves. Why would you think they don't? — Clearbury

I am not quite sure what you are talking about here. Perhaps if you could let me know which God you are talking about, and also the nature of the existence of your God, it would help in understanding you better.

Is the statement "The force cannot be killed, because it is not a biological bodily existence" an established fact? Perhaps a natural law? If so, I would be interested in hearing about it. — Patterner

No it is not. It is an analogy or inference based on the ancient Egyptian God which is the Sun.
If we could make another analogy on the Sun and force and light, it is burning itself radiating the light and hot temperature for the lives on the Earth. The Sun's burning will not last forever, and one day it will die according to the scientific forecast. Maybe it will take billions of more years for the Sun to die off completely, but it could be looked as killing itself?

I would think the important aspect of the being at all times, regardless of the form it assumes, is it's omnipotence. — Patterner

Omnipotence is just one of the alleged properties of God, and before we could discuss about omnipotence, it would be clearer, if you let me know which God you are talking about, and what type of existence your God has.

For example, the Bible says man was made in God's image, and that Adam and Eve hid when they heard the sound of God walking in the Garden. So it is possible some people believe God was in human form. In Marvel comics, the omnipotent being known as the Beyonder put himself in human form. I don't know of a reason an omnipotent being could not be in human form. Do you? — Patterner

My above posts were some inferences I made based on the ancient Egyptian God Sun. It is not my own claim just in case you might demand me to clarify or prove it. :)

In the case of Christianity, the story is different. The only thing you have is the bible, and the holy texts in it. Nothing else. In the bible, it says God made humans into the God's own image. But we have never seen the God. So he must look like humans, but exact how he looks like, no one has a clue.
No one knows where he lives or what he does for his living. No one knows if he is a living being or some force or energy or indeed spirit. It is veiled in mystery.

He supposedly have sent Jesus into the world to savior folks, but not sure if it is a real story or myth. Why did he not come down himself instead of sending Jesus who had to go through tremendous suffering in the world at the time? Jesus supposed to have resurrected after his death, but no one knows where he resides and what he is doing.

In this situation, I am wondering if there is a point to ask if the Christian God is even omnipotent. The bible says he is the almighty God, and he has demonstrated some miraculous events in the bible, but do you have any evidence to support that story?

I would say this depends on the particular belief system. — Patterner

I agree. Therefore it is quite meaningless to keep on talking about God without clarifying which God one is talking about. First, we need to make clear which God we are talking about, and then what type of existence the God has, before going on to talking about the other properties of God.

However, stipulating a hypothesized omnipotent being is not in human form, but is "force and spirit," I am not aware of a reason this being would not be able to die. Or, if this being cannot be said to be "alive" in the first place, but exists, then I am not aware of a reason this being cannot cease to exist. Are you? — Patterner

The ancient Egyptian God was the Sun.   Sun was the source of life, and energy which made all life in the world possible.  Sun is also vital for growing the plantation to feed the cattle and humans which are the food sources.

When  God is the Sun, what you get is the light from God, and even from a modern scientific point of view, the Earth rotates around the Sun because of the gravity between the 2 stars pulling and being pulled.  Without the force of the gravity from the Sun, the Earth will go out of its orbit, and fly away into space to its apocalyptic destruction with all the lives on it.  Hence, to the ancient Egyptians, the Sun as their God meant it was the light and force the Sun sends to the Earth.   Therefore the Sun as their God was quite reasonable even from scientific point of view.

From this perspective, God could be a force, which was omnipotent.  The force cannot be killed, because it is not a biological bodily existence.  Could it kill itself?   How can it kill itself, when it is impossible to be killed?

Yes, I did. I am no longer saying they are invalid, and have not said it in several posts. Can we move on? — Patterner

Ok cool :up:

How do you propose to verify whether they are right or wrong? What is the method of achieving verification? — Patterner

According to my logic book, you can make any assumptions in proof so long as they are relevant and within the context, and would help coming to the sound conclusion.

I only offered my assumption to the question from @clearbury. He thinks there is no puzzles in the OP's point. I thought there were many philosophical paradox points in the OP.

My point was when we say God's omnipotence, is it a valid concept to begin with? We want to find out what the concept of God means. It naturally proceeds to the question if God exists. We cannot know if God exists, without knowing what God means and also what existence means.

But then is God in bodily existence just like humans? No, my reasoning tells me it isn't. If God was a biological bodily existence, then s/he will get old and die just like humans. That couldn't be God. Then what existence God has? Could it be then some type of existence of Force or Spirit? That was my assumption, which you thought was invalid.

At that point, it is too premature to say it is either valid or invalid. We need further discussion for coming to clearer idea on the point.

You definitely said they are invalid. Hence this talking is going on now.
Anyway, you don't seem to understand what assumption means. Why should assumption be supported or clarified? Assumptions are made so they could be verified to be either right or wrong.

I am in a position to claim either the assumptions could be right or wrong myself at the assuming stage. I would be there to see what other people say about it, before I could make up my my mind on the points.

If you tell us why those points are invalid, then I would tell my thoughts on your points. I could agree with your points, or I may disagree with your points. But right now I don't know the reasons why you think the points are invalid, because you never made clear here.

You have not given any reasons why they are invalid, so I am not sure what point are invalid. You just think they are invalid doesn't mean anything to me.

Can you support this? I an not familiar enough with beings of force and spirit to know why they cannot die/cease to be. — Patterner

Can you clarify this? I don't know why an omnipotent being could not kill itself. If its idea of "winning" is no longer existing, could it not make that possible? — Patterner

As I said repeatedly, they are the assumptions which could be analysed and clarified by arguments. They are not the final concluding claims.

If you claim that they are not valid, then you must write down the reasons why you think they are not valid in logical manner, and then I will come back to you with my thoughts on your arguments.

You need not supply the reason why your statements are valid in the first place, but I must supply the reason why they are not? — Patterner

The assumptions were not claiming anything was valid or invalid. They were just assumptions. Whereas you made claims that you think the assumptions were invalid.

In other words, we have not even gone down to have detailed arguments to come to the conclusions, but you made the claim that the assumptions are invalid in haste without the supporting arguments.