Reason is a part of our existence. It authoritatively dictates things without compromise such as: you cannot use reason to doubt reason as that would be paradoxical. Reason dictates paradoxes are unacceptable. Are we in agreement on this?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.
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 a priori truth), one can imagine it existing, and what one imagines is meaningful.
One can deduce a contradiction from the assertion that a Riemannian manifold can have a square circle drawn upon it. My point is that it is not a contradiction in terms. Not all contradictions are contradictions in terms. Do you understand Kant's distinction between analytic and synthetic truths? Under Kant's approach, it is a synthetic, not an analytic truth that a Riemannian manifold cannot contain a square circle, just as it is a synthetic, not an analytic truth that 5+7=12 or that 5+7 <> 13.So this is contradictory then is it not? — Philosopher19
I can imagine it. You need to erase your mental image of a square and a circle, which contains many more properties than are stated in their bare definitions, and focus only on the bare definitions. It might help to start visualising what triangles on the surfaces of spheres look like. They have sides that from some perspectives look curved, and the sum of the angles is greater than 180 degrees. This is admittedly, quite difficult for those that have not worked with n on-Euclidean geometry before.If something is a square, how can it be a circle at the same time? How can this be imagined in any way whatsoever?
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. — Philosopher19
You cannot think of something meaningful that can never exist. — Philosopher19
I can understand an infinite Existence, I can understand Infinite power/awareness/presence.
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. — Philosopher19
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. — Philosopher19
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. — Philosopher19
Existence not being omnipresent/all existing entails that existent things can be separate by non-existence (paradox). — Philosopher19
But what dictates reason?
Humans don't have magical access to an infallible set of axiomatic laws from which we can reason, we have to first discover and model those laws, and therein lies the fallibility.
don't know how premises and a conclusion can be true but pertain to something which does not exist, so by virtue of that alone, no./quote]
True. The statement that something can be meaningful but can never exist, is paradoxical. I meant to shift focus towards this paradox as it highlights the importance of Existence necessarily accommodating all meaningful things/having the potential to generate/produce all meaningful things
You say that omniscience and omnipotence are "meaningful" concepts, but do they rationally follow from true premises?
We don't have a picture of omnipresence/Existence yet we understand/comprehend it. We don't need to have a picture of omnipotence, we just need to understand it. You say the definition is insufficient. Consider this:I can draw a picture of a battery next to the symbol for infinity, but that doesn't show I comprehend whatever it omnipotence is. "The power do do anything that is doable" isn't sufficient; we don't know what is or isn't doable so we don't know what omnipotence is.
So you agree that your argument would also establish the existence of an infinitely long pasta noodle?
I've tried and I discover that omnipotence is just like omnipresence. You cannot define omnipresence as anything other than that which is all-existing/present everywhere/that which sustains all that is sustainable. You cannot define omnipotence as anything other than that which is almighty (able to do all that is doable) If you can define it differently, then please share your definition.How do you know other definitions are paradoxical?
Mandela lifting a car is not a paradox. Mandela is a coherent and non-paradoxical definition for omnipotence. Why not?
Furthermore, knowledge is human, and reason is human, and there is nothing that proves that reason is infallible
Saying that it is rational that 'something' singular could be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent seems to be overstepping our boundary of knowledge.
This primacy of knowledge is an illusion lest one dissolves into an idealism or realism, which is the source of endless philosophical debate devoid of coherent conclusion and thus completely absent of any knowledge.
Why not? There is no contradiction in 2 or more omnipresent beings. I read your premise based argument and it sounds to me like you're proving "existence" is omnipresent and omnipotent and I'm like "duh". I thought you set out to prove the existence of God but you proved the existence of the laws of physics. You cannot assign perfection to this entity you just proved, all you know, is that it knows everything, is everywhere and can do everything possible. That sounds like the laws of physics more than God to me. I totally agree with you if that's the case.
To say that we are Existence is paradoxical. — Philosopher19
Reason is not human just as sight is not human. We have access to these things. — Philosopher19
Reason is infallible. If reason wasn't infallible, then one day the definition of a triangle would be x another day it would be y. But this is never the case. — Philosopher19
Reason clearly shows that rejecting omnipresence is absurd/paradoxical. We'd be failing reason by rejecting what it highlights to us as clearly paradoxical. If you acknowledge my argument, omnipotence and omniscience cannot be rationally denied either. — Philosopher19
Define: "Actual infinity".
There is no reason to believe that omnipotence and omnipresence = constant war with any other omnipotent, omnipresent being. It is very easy to imagine the existence of 2 omnipotent omnipresent beings working in tandom without any warring
Also, if there truly was one God then as you said, there should be no war and there should be constant bliss. But clearly, that's not the case. What about murder? What about nuclear weapons, wars, genocides?
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.