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?
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
(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows — Philosopher19
(6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational concepts that we have an understanding of — Philosopher19
6a) The potential is there for something to become omnipotent and omniscient, or 6b) Something is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient — Philosopher19
Because it would be paradoxical to think otherwise:Why
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.How
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?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? — Philosopher19
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. — Philosopher19
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? — 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.
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 — VagabondSpectre
Superman is very meaningful to very many people, but it cannot possibly exist, nor must 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.
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.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? — Philosopher19
Therefore, the existence of a supremely perfect being was necessary to make the idea at all possible. — Philosopher19
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? — Philosopher19
can the mind think of something that has meaning but can never exist? — Philosopher19
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. — Philosopher19
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. — Philosopher19
In order to use reason effectively, avoiding paradoxes is necessary. Right? — Philosopher19
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? — Philosopher19
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? — Philosopher19
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. — Philosopher19
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? — Philosopher19
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?A unicorn can be a potentiality. But omnipotence cannot. That's the key difference.
Me: How so?
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
True. All counter arguments against God would only amount to paradox/absurdity.If there were an adequate substantiation of the existence of God, there would absolutely be no contrary argument!
Reason as we know it is a human-invented heuristic that is refined on reliability of predictions.
In a way you're sayingreason determines truth, but empirically and epistemologically it's the other way around
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?
Are you capable of imagining infinite power? Are you capable of imagining infinite presence and awareness?/quote]
I cannot understand Existence as being finite as that would be paradoxical. That being said, just as I can understand an infinite Existence, I can understand Infinite power/awareness/presence. These phrases are not paradoxical like asquare-circle or something coming from nothing which no one can ever understand. Nor is it like a 10th sense which is unknown.
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?
What are your definitions of omniscience and omnipotence? What makes them sound definitions?
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).
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.