• Philosopher19
    276
    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.
  • khaled
    3.5k
    I'm sorry if you talked about this in previous blog posts but I couldn't find them so I'm gonna post all my criticisms here

    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
  • Philosopher19
    276
    Thank you for replying. I'll summarise what I wrote in my previous blog posts into premises. Let me know which premise strikes you as problematic:

    (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
  • Philosopher19
    276
    I don't see the problem with imagining things that have meaning but don't exist.

    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.
  • Philosopher19
    276
    What's the problem with becoming omnipresent from a limited state of omnipresence?

    Existence is all-existing. How can something else take it's place or substitute it?
  • Philosopher19
    276
    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

    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.
  • VagabondSpectre
    1.9k
    (4) All minds are limited to what existence allowsPhilosopher19

    Why?

    (6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational concepts that we have an understanding ofPhilosopher19

    How?

    6a) The potential is there for something to become omnipotent and omniscient, or 6b) Something is necessarily omnipotent and omniscientPhilosopher19

    How and Why? (respectively)
  • Philosopher19
    276

    Why
    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?
    How
    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 and Why? (respectively)
    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?
  • yazata
    41
    "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."

    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.
  • Rank Amateur
    1.5k
    I think Anselm did a better job :

    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
  • VagabondSpectre
    1.9k
    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

    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

    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

    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.

    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

    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.
  • khaled
    3.5k
    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
  • khaled
    3.5k
    Also you seem to deny the existence of paradoxical concepts and affirm the existence of omnipotence even though omnipotence is itself a paradoxical concept (can God create a boulder so heavy he can never lift it?)
  • Philosopher19
    276

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    It could be that existence allows minds to imagine things which existence could not allow outside of the (potentially faulty) imagination of mindsVagabondSpectre

    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.

    Superman is very meaningful to very many people, but it cannot possibly exist, nor must it.

    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?
  • Philosopher19
    276
    [reply="khaled;214868"
    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.

    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?
  • Philosopher19
    276


    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.
  • khaled
    3.5k

    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
  • andrewk
    2.1k
    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
    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'.
  • Philosopher19
    276


    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.
  • khaled
    3.5k

    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
  • khaled
    3.5k

    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
  • khaled
    3.5k

    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
  • Blue Lux
    581


    Therefore, the existence of a supremely perfect being was necessary to make the idea at all possible.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.

    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

    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?

    can the mind think of something that has meaning but can never exist?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.

    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

    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?

    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

    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."
  • Blue Lux
    581
    If there were an adequate substantiation of the existence of God, there would absolutely be no contrary argument!
  • VagabondSpectre
    1.9k
    In order to use reason effectively, avoiding paradoxes is necessary. Right?Philosopher19

    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".

    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

    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).

    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

    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?

    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

    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.

    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

    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...
  • Philosopher19
    276

    A unicorn can be a potentiality. But omnipotence cannot. That's the key difference.
    Me: How so?
    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.
  • Philosopher19
    276
    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

    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?
  • Philosopher19
    276
    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

    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.
  • Philosopher19
    276

    If there were an adequate substantiation of the existence of God, there would absolutely be no contrary argument!
    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.
  • Blue Lux
    581
    But is omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence a rational concept? I think this premise is taken for granted.

    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.
  • Philosopher19
    276
    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

    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 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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    What are your definitions of omniscience and omnipotence? What makes them sound definitions?

    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.

    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).

    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.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.