You can't because it's paradoxical/meaningless. We are in Existence is not paradoxical, nor is it the same.I would say, instead, that we are indeed existence.
There is an infinite series of images that could constitute the whole of something, nevertheless unless one is referring to those empty husks (Hegel), the essence of something can be ascertained in the apprehension of any hemimorphic crystallization of it the base of which is clearly different. And as we are inevitably referring to being as hylomorphic, a glimpse into our existence as separate from 'Existenz,' we are a piece of which can be seen to be of form, and unmistakable differentiation, But it is not that we are separate. We are it. Are we to resort to Lacan's "I think where I am not therefore I am where I do not think."? If we, in any sense, take Lacan's statement as containing some sort of truthfulness, then the idea that pure reason constitutes a substantiation of the idea that we are not existence but rather of something else the truth of which is shown in pure reason (thought) is clearly not well based. I agree with Lacan in this regard. We are not nothing. But are everything we are not, and are not what we are... And that is precisely existence.
Now as for the supposed "paradoxes" with two or more omnipresent omnipotent beings, think of it as the law of gravity and the law of electromagnetism.
They're both omnipotent and omnipresent and they interact with each other without destroying each other. The ONLY properties we agree on for this being so far is 1) omnipotence, 2) omnipresence. Nothing there says "desire to be the only God" or "envy" or "bitterness". Omnipotence and omnipresence does not encompass those properties so no, 2 Gods wouldn't destory each other according to our definition of a God so far
I never said the laws of physics demonstrate the existence of God, I said that the laws of physics ARE God as you've proven. They're omnipotent, omnipresent and perfect by definition but that does not make them morally good or bad. You've said in your original comment that those attributes are attached later (and I don't think they should be). We only agree on the existence of an omnipotent omnipresent being, which is the laws of physics
I think the mistake you make is that you treat Existence and reality as having the same semantics. — Philosopher19
reason dictates that sensing something and understanding something are two different things. We understand that Existence may have aspects that we are unaware of (this is not paradoxical). 1) Reason tells us that we don't know if Existence has the potential to generate/sustain a being with a 100 senses, but we know it can generate/sustain a unicorn. 1 is not something that we sense, it is something that we understand. — Philosopher19
You also CAN have knowledge without consciousness, like a computer so consciousness is not necessary for either omnipotence nor omnipresence.
I still don't agree with the impossibility of multiple omnipresent beings existing at the same time
We know what true perfection is objectively because any other definition than the one I've given would be paradoxical. Our understanding of true perfection is not complete but it is sufficient. This is the same for our understanding of Existence. Our understanding of it is not complete (how many different sense/dimensions does it sustain?) but it is sufficient (It is all-existining/omnipresent)Also, your definition of "perfect" will never be grasped by a human because we don't know "God's plan" so to say and so you cannot assign moral perfection to your God. It is a morally ambiguous force of nature, in other words the laws of physics, not God, that you have proven
It means we used reason wrong somewhere. Think about the usage of language in every context. Law, science, maths, conversation with friends. Whenever what we say amounts to a paradox, It creates problems. Unless of course, the goal is humour. Chuck Norris once finished Super Mario without pressing the jump button once (that's absurd, but it may be funny depending on your sense of humour)What is the problem with absurdity?
Because the 'the opposite' of something cannot be true... This makes it true? And so a schizophrenic who sees a man walking in the hallway shouting at him or her, who is made to become aware that there was 'actually' no such thing that happened becomes to know through therapy that this is true and that the opposite of such a truth is false, which would be the nonexistence of such a truth
The opposite of something is not nothing. Something is in itself something: the opposite of it would have to be something.
Existence, furthermore, is the only reality. There is no reality without existence, and no existence without reality. The two are tied together, and neither goes farther than the other.
Existence being infinite? I am really not sure what this means. What is infinity but a demarcation of a lack of further insight? Is infinity not absolutely incomprehensible? It is obviously a concept. But because we have a concept for something... this does not make it any more understood. Heidegger took this very premise and wrote Being and Time. If existence is infinite then it must be imcomprehensible, and furthermore reason must be a reductio ad infinitum... Reduction ad absurdum, if a may... And therefore reason itself is absurd...
Because I am not deluded by the seemingly necessary distinction between subject and object, which has been reconciled in the principle of intentionality, explained by Husserl originally but culminated in Sartre, I think.
Which brings me back to reiterating that there is absolutely no synthetic a priori truth per reason itself, as if it could be proven... An example of this is 7 + 5 = 12. The 'conclusion' '12' is obviously synthetic and true absent of experience, which would render 12 a posteriori. But this truth, the course of which 12 is reached by this synthetic a priori method is quite different than what would be easily understood logically, piece by piece, causally, concatenated like what would be analytic a priori or synthetic a posteriori.
How does reason dictate that there is a difference between sensing something and understanding something? What would reason be without a posteriori 'knowledge?' Existence is known through sensation. Understanding is precisely sensation. "I sense that is correct." Or perhaps this is a vague, worthless metaphor?
"(2) Everything that exists, does so only in existence"
I'm not sure what you are saying there. It kind of sounds like you are sneaking in the idea that existence is a kind of space in which everything that exists is located. I'm not convinced that's the best way to think about existence.
"(3) We are fully dependent on existence"
We wouldn't exist if we didn't exist. But I don't really want to think about existence as something separate from existing things upon which they are all dependent.
"(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows"
We can certainly imagine counterfactual possibilities that don't actually exist. I can think of a square circle, even if I can't visualize it with my mind's eye. I can imagine Madrid being the capital of France.
"(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."
Are you including the realm of possibility in what you call "existence", so that anything imaginable must therefore be a possibility and all possibilities are somehow real?
I'm unclear on what the relationship is between conceivability, possibility and existence. I think that we might be sliding over some serious metaphysical questions there.
So I'm just skeptical that human beings represent the apex of all possible cognition. There may be space-aliens out there that are as far beyond humans as humans are beyond clams, able to conceive of aspects of reality that we can never even imagine.
"(6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational concepts that we have an understanding of. So Existence must accomodate these concepts. As highlighted by 5, to deny this is to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing."
I certainly don't want to agree that anything that I can imagine must therefore exist. I think that we have the power to generate ideas, but that doesn't guarantee that something corresponding to the idea exists.
What's more, what about the familiar old chestnut: Can God (supposedly omnipotent) create a task too difficult for God to perform? If he can create an impossible task, then there's something he can't do (the task), and if he can't create such a task, there's something he can't do (create the task). So omnipotence would seem to fall prey to logical problems much as 'square circle' does.
So, if x is omnipresent and y is omnipresent. That's like a thing being two different things at the same time — Philosopher19
You can't be omniscient if you're not omnipresent. So either there has never been and there never will be an omniscient being, or there has always been and there always will be an omniscient being. If omniscient is meaningful, then that means something has always been and will always be omniscient, otherwise you'd have the paradox.I concede that you need consciousness for knowledge but omniscience does not follow from omnipotence or omnipresence. We only agreed on omnipotence and omnipresence, not omniscience.
How is it begging the question?Why?? Isn't that begging the question?
Can two things exist in the same place at the same time? Existence/that which is omnipresent is everywhere. This means it covers all space and time. So how can you have two omnipresent beings/Existences?You already assumed that x and y could not coexist when you said: "That's like a thing being two different things at the same time". Why did you say A THING, not THINGS?
unless you define omnipresent as: "Exists everywhere and of which there is one instance" but we did not define it like that
unless you define omnipresent as: "Exists everywhere and of which there is one instance" but we did not define it like that
Dude, that's what my definition amounted to. I always maintained that there is one Existence/Omnipresent being. Do you see the paradox now? — Philosopher19
Can two things exist in the same place at the same time? — Philosopher19
You can't be omniscient if you're not omnipresent. So either there has never been and there never will be an omniscient being, or there has always been and there always will be an omniscient being. If omniscient is meaningful, then that means something has always been and will always be omniscient, otherwise you'd have the paradox. — Philosopher19
Seriously? Ok then, I define a new word. Omniticklishness. An omniticklish being is a being that tickles all beings to death in whatever universe it is in (is omnipresent) and of which one instance exists. Since an omniticklish being exists by definition, and since it has meaning, an omniticklish being exists. Ok now why am I not dead?
Dude, I think you make the mistake of viewing our universe as Existence. This would be blatantly paradoxical.Yes. Fields in physics for example.
I'm not just saying because it has meaning it exists. Check my reply to you on the difference between omniticklish and omnipotence/omniscience.Incorrect. You yourself said that meaning means something EITHER exists OR is a potentiality so you can't say that because it has meaning it exists.
See my response to your comments on omniticklish. If that doesn't clarify, let me know.You also went from "you can't be omniscient if you're not omnipresent" to "since an omnipresent being exists, it must be omniscient" which is false. It's like saying "you have to have a horn to be a unicorn and since horns exist therefore unicorns must exist". You've already made this fallacy before but I let it slide
So your word, omniticklish doesn't require omnipresence in it's definition does it? — Philosopher19
Dude, I think you make the mistake of viewing our universe as Existence. This would be blatantly paradoxical — Philosopher19
And I'd like to reiterate that even in our universe (or any universe for that matter), you cannot have two things be present in the same location at the same time. That is paradoxical. If A is in location xyz at time t, how can B also be in location xyz at time t? Such a paradox is meaningless so it could never be a theory or a part of science. — Philosopher19
Do you see the difference between being present and being omnipresent? Being present is not the same as being omnipresent (present everywhere)Yes it obviously does. You can't tickle someone if you're not there.
It means the universe is finite. It's not omnipresent like Existence is. The universe exists in Existence. The universe is not Existence. It's like saying that the universe is present in the omnipresent. If you're present in the omnipresent, then you're not omnipresent are you? You're just present.I don't understand what that means at all
No it doesn't. Show me one credible source that says something like virtual particles pop in and out of existence. They may pop in and out of our universe/reality, but they certainly don't go into non-existence and then come back into existence. What bridges/borders Existence and non-existence? Do you see how this amounts to a paradox?Quantum mechanics has things popping in and out of existence
There's nothing paradoxical about thisas well as existing in multiple locations at the same time
I don't see what's paradoxical about things overlapping in Existence but you can't have something overlap Existence itself. Do you see the difference?and sometimes overlapping
Omnipresence has always been omnipresent and will always be omnipresent. Anything other than this is paradoxical, is it not? — Philosopher19
2) Omnipotence = that which can do all that is doable, Omniscience = that which knows all that is knowable — Philosopher19
3) These are meaningful/understandable definitions (if you think the concepts are paradoxical, please demonstrate how it is impossible for something to be omnipotent/omniscient) — Philosopher19
4) Any alternative definition would amount to something entirely different — Philosopher19
Existence/omnipresence = that which is all-existing
Omnipotence = that which is almighty (that which can do all that is doable) — Philosopher19
I acknowledge that we don't have a full understanding of these class of concepts, but we do have a sufficient understanding of these concepts. I'll demonstrate:
We don't know if Existence can accommodate beings with a 100 senses or not. We don't know if such beings are possible. But this does not render our understanding of Existence as insufficient to the point that we don't understand what it is. Does it? — Philosopher19
Do you see where I'm coming from? To say that our understanding of omnipotence is insufficient is just like saying our understanding of omnipresence is insufficient. They are the exact same class of concepts that describe/denote the same semantical gap/thing — Philosopher19
It establishes the possibility/potential of an infinitely long pasta noodle being produced by Existence. This concept is a potential/hypothetical possibility. This is not the same class of concepts as omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience that can't be produced/generated. — Philosopher19
They just necessarily are. An infinitely long pasta noodle does not rationally require to be omnipresent, but omnipotence/omniscience do and since nothing can ever become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state, that which is omnipresent, has necessarily always been omnipotent/omniscient and will always be omnipotent/omniscient. Can you see how any alternative to this would be paradoxical? — Philosopher19
Mandela being omnipotent is paradoxical because in order for something to be omnipotent, it needs to be able to have reach and access to everything. In other words, omnipotence requires omnipresence. Only Existence is omnipresent. Mandela can never become omnipresent/Existence. In fact, nothing can ever become omnipresent/omnipotent from a non-omnipresent state. Omnipresence has always been omnipresent and will always be omnipresent. Anything other than this is paradoxical, is it not? — Philosopher19
Well, no. Just because you cannot presently imagine how omnipotence could emerge doesn't mean that it cannot emerge. You're using an unverifiable assumption.
Agent X is omnipotent and omniscient
Agent X uses omniscience to make a prediction
Agent X uses omnipotence to obviate the accuracy of its prediction
Conclusion:
Agent X is not capable of using omniscience to make reliable predictions if its omnipotence can interfere?
The more something is free to be omnipotent, the less free it is to be omniscient (maximum omniscience is not rigid or necessarily coherent unless you can predict your own future decisions)
Agent X is omnipotent and omniscient
Agent X is capable of using omnipotence to take action Y
Agent X uses omniscience to predict that it will not take action Y
Agent X is not capable of taking action Y?
The more agent X wishes to be omniscient, the less it can interact with the world, and if agent X can predict its own future decisions; in a sense it is not free to do anything other than what it is destined to do, and cannot alter its own course.
I'm at least willing to entertain the notion of either, but once you put them together they become relative/limited/misleading/incoherent.
In a sense I am omnipotent because I am capable of doing all that I am capable of doing. If I was something different then I could be capable of doing different things. What kind of thing is capable of doing all the things? Can the almighty do all the things I can do, like brush my own teeth? But wouldn't it have to actually be me?
Of course we do, anything that is meaningful, is doable. They're not undefined/unknown like a 100th sense. They have clear meaning/definition.We don't know what a list of "all that is doable" would look like. we don't know how long it would be, how variable and changing it could be, or what would be on it. You're alluding to a set of undefined powers, the extent of which we cannot know or even consistently imagine
It's not the same kind of concept. Infinity = that which has no beginning and no end. A noodle, by definition, must have a beginning. Do you agree that there is a clear difference in semantics? A distinction needs to be made between the infinite and the semi-infinite. Semi-infinite is that which has no end but has a beginning. I did not make this distinction clear in my last reply to you. I apologise.How can we generate an infinitely long noodle? It's exactly the same kind of concept, and by your own logic we should be able to conclude that an infinitely long noodle necessarily exists, right?
Then I should propose an infinitely long pasta chef, so that I can use one proposition to explain why the other necessarily exists.
The non-paradoxical alternatives are that our understanding of omnipotence/omniscience, whatever they are, is flawed, or that neither of them exists.
Are you implying that l have said something arbitrary, something not logically derived from the above?
Let me clear something up: I have reasoned everything, and it falls to you to counter it, which you have consistently failed to do. — BaldMenFighting
If we were both deities, you might want infinite peace with me, but you are unable to prove that l have any reason to trust your peaceful intentions — BaldMenFighting
Thus there will be infinite paranoia — BaldMenFighting
Infinite paranoia = infinite pain = absolute certainty that one deity will want to kill the other, — BaldMenFighting
Let me clear something up here. The only properties we have agreed on for this deity are
A) omnipotence
B) omnipresence — BaldMenFighting
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.