R.L. Burnside: See My Jumper Hanging On the Line (1978)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_DOnKJ232M

Samuel Lightnin' Hopkins - The Blues

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbJiriEol44

Have no fear though, for He's not at all like his portrayal in the Old Testament. — PoeticUniverse

So what is the purpose of his existence?

You took the words right out of my mouth...(it must have been while we were ki..) ☺ — VincePee

:strong: :pray:

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

And does he also sends texts using his mobile phone, and watching TVs, drinking beer, while reading his comic books and mags, while taking a break from playing the online games? :rofl:

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." .....

I then study this opposite version and hold my head high at my "knowledge." But you, who realise 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!" — Derrick Huestis

Here we are not trying to attack the concept of God, but rather trying to clarify the concept of "omni" p.p.s.

Omnipotence, omnipresent and omniscience seem contradictory concepts which are problematic. Because any being with these attributes doesn't seem to exist in the real world.The contradictory attributes also mutually restrict the properties themselves and definition of God.

All depends on how narrow or wide your definitions of the attributes are, but omniscient beings must know not only everything that has happened, happening and will happen in the universe, but also whys, hows and ifs and whens.  If not, the being is not omniscient.

Good or bad is just one's judgement or feeling on something or event.  Nothing to be worried about in knowing or unknowing something in good or bad terms.  It is a factual capacity or state to know something, be it good or bad, and facts of the knower, when the knower knew or un-knew something.

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... — Derrick Huestis

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.

To create something, the old negative things must be destroyed first. It cannot always be looked at as destruction is evil and creation is good.  It is not some morality issue. You are looking at it from your moral point of view and making judgements on the process or events of the divine.

What is the definition of "devil"? Does it exist? Can you prove the existence?

More points to follow ....

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. — Derrick Huestis

If that is the case, then it sounds like a being with some emotional problems deciding to ignore his seekers by irrational freewill. (How do you prove the omnipresent being also has freewill?)
Why should you pray to a irrational emotive being who would hide away and ignores you with no reason?

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. — Derrick Huestis

Surely if a being is omnipresent, then it must be both inside and outside of the perceiver, and the perceiver should be able to feel what is inside the perceiver, if unable to see the omnipresent hidden inside the perceiver, and surely what is outside of the perceiver must be seen and perceived?

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... — Derrick Huestis

  I think you need to clarify more in detail what you mean by undivided in "undivided existence" before going into "all encompassing" too.  Is undivided meaning impossibility and immunity of physically separating, or enclosing, or totally severing off and detaching one part from the chunk of the whole part? Or does it mean something else?

When you say something is all encompassing, it suggests the all encompassing subject is later than the object what is encompassed in time, because an object must exist first before something can encompass around it, unless again encompassing means something else. This sounds like "all encompassing" is some sort of a posteriori and artificial plastic blanket rather than religious or something divine nature, would you not agree?

From my witness of death of my father in the hospice, it was very painful process going into death. It was not some sort of momentary event. It was slow and gradual, sometimes up and down condition of the physical health, and deterioration of the mind into the demise.

I am not sure what happens after one's death, but it was evident that the process of death was very slow and painful prolonged suffering of months for the dying.

Of course, each and every death is different. But some can be long lasting painful process before the actual death.

An argument is the most basic complete unit of reasoning, an atom of reason. - Baggini

Omnipresence is really meaningful when the subject is visible and contactable whenever required, omnipotence doing and manifesting the right things (divine beings cannot perform bad things by definition?) when required no matter how impossible, and 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. No?

These attributes, when defined as being all-encompassing, define all the omni's associated with God: omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. And perpetual change through creativity: omnificent.
-add to this the fact that it must encompass all time: eternal, and you get all the labels attributed to God
-thus, the notion of God can be grasped from a purely logical standpoint. — Derrick Huesits

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. 

When the subject has not been coming forward to show it for thousands of years, and when it is impossible to locate for any ordinary living being, a subject who are with the attributes no matter how hard looking and searching every corner of the world for thousands of years, then should we not conclude that there is no such a being with such attributes existing?

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. — Derrick Huestis

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

-things are separated by things which are not of the same type, so the only thing that could separate existence itself would be nonexistence which cannot exist, thus there must be one undivided existence — Derrick Huesits

I don't understand how you came up with the idea of 'one undivided existence' from nonexistence. Could you elaborate the possible connection between them please?

-this undivided existence must carry all the attributes labeled above. These attributes, when defined as being all-encompassing, define all the omni's associated with God: omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. And perpetual change through creativity: omnificent. — Derrick Huesits

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

What does "all-encompassing" mean in the real world ?

Thanks. — Banno

:nerd: :wink:

I thank you for languages which enable me say thank you.

My point is the familiar one, that it can't be made well-formed. That is, it is ungrammatical.

Existence can be treated as a second-order predicate, as in ∃(x)f(x); non-existence might be the negation: ~∃(x)f(x). But you would treat non-existence as a property, and then attribute that property to nothing - or something like that.

It's not even a contradiction. — Banno

:100: :up:

Space and time must not be classed as physical object or nothingness. They should be classed as non physical objects, which are a priori, because they are universal and necessary condition for all the objects and events in the universe.

we are just left with space. But space is still a thing, so as long as we only talk the material it poses no issue for us. — Derrick Huesits

I used to think space is not a thing like usual physical objects. It is an object but non physical, because it cannot be seen and touched. Space is not nothingness either. As you say, it exists and affects us.

So it is rather a precondition of all the physical objects, which can be classed as a priori object, and its property is emptiness. The problem seems that we only think about either physical objects or nothing.
But there must be non physical objects such as space and time, and they exist as precondition of all the physical objects in the universe.

Time is another non physical object, in that we cannot see, hear or touch, but it exists. It affects us, its property is that it is in non reversible with futuristic motion and it is the precondition of all events in the universe.

Life is a mortgage taken out from the universe, that will be squared with old age and death, or death.

Dance Wherever You May Be, even if not a Shaker :party:
— Amity

The dance can reveal everything mysterious that is hidden in music, and it has the additional merit of being human and palpable. Dancing is poetry with arms and legs.

Charles Baudelaire :wink:

Correct. Death doesn’t exist. It is an illusion. It is not a real state. — Dante

So then we agree. — Dante

:ok:

Correct, we are not dealing with “something”, we are dealing with a lack thereof.

Extract from another site:

“ Assumption: An object has no properties. — Dante

Wouldn't it be that because you are now thinking about death and applying the concept "none" to death, it looks as if it is something that doesn't exist or some state which is non state?

One's death itself would mean, no perception, so there would be no possibility to perceive anything, not even the concept of "none".

Other people will perceive and remember the dead, but it would be just the body, not the state of none existing consciousness or the state of death of the dead.

It would be only possible to postulate immortality of souls, if only if one enters the realm of religion such as Christianity or Kabbalah. In the realm of reason, death is final, nothing to perceive or explain, because it is indeed none existence which has no quality or property. None existence means none existence, nothing less or more.

Or you could say that the primary quality is that it lacks any tangible quality. A void. An absence. — Dante

Due to illogical attributes of none as the property of none existence, you come to the wrong conclusion that all death are same. I feel that it doesn't make sense.

You started the pointless semantics initially in the middle of the discussions, and I am trying to clarify on the points. If it is an adverb, then it modifies verb, adjective or another adverb. It still cannot qualify as properties or qualities of something.

"None" is like that, it, they, he, she ... a pronoun, not a perceivable qualia.

To be a property of something, I would have thought, it should be either primary or secondary quality which can be sensed. No?

Another point is "None" is a pronoun like he she that or these. It cannot be a property of something.

A non existent apple has the same properties of a non existent banana, which is none. Non existent things share the fact that they have no properties. — Dante

has the same properties — Dante

they have no properties. — Dante

Contradictory statements for non existent things.

Reason is what the show is all about. — Mww

:100: :up:

Can you dance at the same time ? :wink:

Zorbas Dance (Sirtaki) - Greek wedding Volos - ΦΕΡΑΙ PALACE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_kele6tedo — Amity

I have not been dancing for years, now I am sure I would feel awkward. :blush:
I used to like dancing when I used to pub crawling and pleasure seeking with the friends years ago. :nerd:

That reminded me that I have a book on the ancient Greek poetry. Will take out, and do some reading on it. The ancient Greek poetry also looks very interesting with rich and deep meanings.

But sometimes the claims by Science could be muddled with jargons, contradictions and illusory hypotheses, and the only way to find them out is Metaphysical investigation and analysis.

Allison's book is very good, and I am also using it. I was looking for the best commentaries, and keep getting one after another, and ended up with 7- 8 different copies. But on the hind sight, maybe should have stick to 1 - 2. I find D.P. Dryer's book also very good.

The comment was more a riposte to the claim that "Metaphysics will never die" than anything else. I'm one who questions the value of metaphysics generally. It isn't clear to me that it consists of anything but speculation, and it seems speculation to no effect. There's nothing wrong with speculation to no effect in itself, of course, but the fact that it may always take place and thereby never "die" doesn't strike me as something of note, or something to be celebrated or to take pride in. And the fact metaphysicians will, like all of us, die at least provides a certainty and reliability otherwise lacking in metaphysics. — Ciceronianus

I am not a metaphysician, but I feel it is a good subject. Of course there are different definitions of Metaphysics. Some people seem to equate Metaphysics with some religious or esoteric topics, which I think is wrong.

Metaphysics is a frame of critique to view all existence in the universe for its essence aided by logic and reasoning. It could be looked as speculative, but not always. With the clearer conclusions obtained from the Metaphysical analysis, one can make decisions, take actions, or move on to further investigations and studies. That is a very active and practical subject, nothing like speculative. For instance, I wouldn't take any scientific or any non scientific claims seriously unless it had been through metaphysical analysis and investigations.

As long as human cultures exist, there will always be metaphysics. That is what I meant by "Metaphysics will never die."

Logical Positivism is important too. I don't believe that they have faded away. I feel it is still a very significant, practical, useful and interesting school of thoughts albeit of some minor criticisms from some people. It is just a usual course for all philosophical branches and schools going through sometime in their existence.

I am not sure if "none" is a meaningful or intelligible property. Property of something is for the objects which exist in the real world. Never for something none existent.

I’m not sure that you have the same definition of non-existence as me. Non-existence is a not a state with different properties or characteristics, in fact, it has none. It is just a human construct to identify that something doesn’t exist, it is uniform for everything.

Something that doesn’t exist has no properties, it is not wet nor dry. — Dante

Sure. I think our definition on non-existence is not far off. But that is why I feel that you cannot say anything about it. To say something about something, it must exist. If not, then we cannot say anything about it. It sounds like Wittgensteinian actually, but it makes sense to me.

If you say, you can, then we would be talking in Kabbalistic view of the universe, not in critical philosophy.

That makes no sense. If the universe didn’t exist, then everything would be in an identical state. Matter would be no different to energy or space if they did not exist. If I don’t exist and you don’t exist, then we are in the same identical state; non existence. — Dante

How can you say whether something is identical or non identical or wet or dry, when non existent?

So you’re saying there is no mental activity in the womb? If consciousness began at the age of 2 or 3, the baby would fail to survive upon exiting the womb. — Dante

Nope !
Instinctive perception would be enough. They don't have to go through some bush wilderness survival. They are in well protective environment of nature.