Ok tell me, as l have asked before, why would a deity trust another deity?

Dieties cannot necessarily trust. Trust is a human specific emotion that you have no reason to ascribe to dieties as we have defined them. Omnipotence and omnipresence do not imply ability to trust/distrust therefore the question itself is meaningless

Some things I'd like to add to my last post to you VagabondSpectre:

I now find these definitions to be at best misleading and at worst incoherent; there's a paradox between the two.

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

Conclusion:
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.

What does it mean to have the ability/might to do something? Can it be anything other than: To make a decision and have the sufficient resources to make it happen?

So if I choose to lift rock A and I have access to sufficient resources to do it (a strong enough body, a forklift, essentially whatever gets the job done), then lifting this rock is doable and I can do it.

That which is omnipotent has reach and access to all things (omnipresence) so it can do anything that is doable. We saw how lifting a rock was doable for a being with access to limited resources, so lifting a rock for a being that is omnipotent is not a an issue.

We don't know what a list of "all that is doable" would look like.

Anything that is meaningful.

we don't know how long it would be

The list is endless

Can the almighty do all the things I can do, like brush my own teeth? But wouldn't it have to actually be me?

Let's unpack this sentence fully. You have a body (your mind has access to a body) Your mind decides to do things to your body, like brush it's teeth. You decide (mind), you have the resources (Access/control over your body), you can do it.

That which is omnipresent also has access to you and your body. So it can get you or allow you to brush your own teeth. It can get someone or something else to brush your teeth. There are many hypothetically possible ways that accomplish the task of your body's teeth being brushed.

Now with regards to prediction. What is it to predict? One definition is: To say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.

That which is omniscient can say a specified thing will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.

We on the other hand, may not do it accurately. We lack omniscience so we don't always know if our measurements or our predictions/projections into the future are accurate.

So that which is omniscient can predict, but it can't do it inaccurately. It would amount to knowing x and not knowing x at the same time (being omniscient and non-omniscient at the same time), which is like saying can it make a rock so heavy that even it cannot lift (being omnipotent and non-omnipotent at the same time), which is like saying can it be x and not x at the same time (being omnipresent and non-omnipresent at the same time)

These are all paradoxical sentences. But they are not paradoxical as a result of the definitions of omnipotence or omniscience. They are paradoxical because they are essentially taking those definitions and using them paradoxically in a sentence: Can x be not x at the same time. Never can you have any definition x be not x at the same time.

The problem is that Anselms proof though elegant only proves the existence of God as originally defined, something than which there is nothing greater;the unwarranted leap is to see this proof as being for God as otherwise defined. Whether something that exists in reality as well as in the mind is in someway "greater " presents to my mind a series of other difficulties, not least whether the virtual and real existence can in any meaningful way be coupled or add in any way to either's strength/credibility. Dare we even step into the area of immaterialism in this context. Enjoying the discussion.

The problem of omniscience and omnipotence is that when we suppose they are infinite extremes, one limits the other. (if omniscient and omnipotent agent X knows absolutely what will happen in the future, then X is powerless to change the future; if agent X has the power to subvert its own predictions using omnipotence, then it knows nothing with certainty).

— Philosopher19

(1) Things exist = ✔

(2) Everything that exists, does so only in existence = ✘ (tautology)

(3) We are fully dependent on the existence of things = ✔

(4) All minds are limited by things that exist = ✘ (redundant: contained in (3) )

(5) Given four (3), anything that is either rational/comprehensible/understandable could exist. = ✘

(this does not follow from (four) 3; what does and does not exist is a matter of fact, what can and cannot exist is a matter of fact, but what could possibly exist is a matter of perspective (of probability from limited information; sometimes we imagine comprehensible things that could exist but later discover they do not and cannot exist).

(6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational concepts that we have an understanding of = ✘

(questionable assumption: how can we possibly understand omniscience other than as an arbitrarily large amount of information?)

(6.1)So Existence must accommodate these concepts. To deny this is to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing. = ✘ (falls apart without (5) and (6) )

Therefore, either:

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

(falls apart if we can imagine things which cannot exist, especially when we suppose comprehension where there is none)

(7) Only everything that exists can be omnipresent and 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 everything that exists. Similarly, you can't be all-knowing if you don't have reach or access to everything that exists = .✔

(this is fair enough, but now it seems we're left with two possibilities: everything that exists is either a thinking thing (a whole which thinks and perceives itself perfectly, somehow), or it is a not a thinking thing and nothing is actually omniscient or omnipotent, and to satisfy omnipresence we merely sum every thing that exists).

(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. = ✘

(just because you cannot imagine something doesn't make it impossible. You need to rationally exclude the possibility with reason or evidence. I cannot rationalize imagine god but I don't say it's impossible. The unstated third option (6c) is that nothing is omnipotent or omniscient.)

(9) Given that 6a is false and that the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are not absurd, it follows that 6b is true. = ✘ (systematically incorrect or presumptuous, see above)

(10) Only everything that exists can be almighty and all knowing. = ✘ (redundant, contained in (7) )

(11) Given 5-10, everything that exists is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient. ✘ = it might also not be omnipotent and omniscient (or a thinking thing).

Boiling it down:

(1) Things exist (true)
(2) Things that exist, exist. (redundant tautology)
(3 and 4) Minds depend on things (true)
(5) Things we imagine could exist (assumption, ambiguous)
(6) We can imagine omnipotence/omniscience (assumption)
(6a) Something could be omnipotent/omniscient OR: (false dilemma, (possible equivocation))
(6b) Something is omnipotent/omniscient (false dilemma)
(6c) Nothing is omnipotent/omniscient (excluded option from false dilemma)
(7) Only everything that exists can be omnipresent (assumption, redundant, lacks coherence)
(8 and 9) Given 7, 6b is true (does not follow from false dilemma or supporting assumptions)
(10) only everything that exists can be omnipotent/omniscient (ambiguous, lacks coherence)
Conclusion: everything that exists must be omnipotent/omniscient (does not follow given 6c)

If you want to prove that everything is everything, I'm sold, but beyond that the argument as is riddled with holes and ambiguities. If you could refactor your argument (condense and simplify if possible) taking the above into account, it would go a long way to sorting out exactly where and on what we differ about "the nature of everything".

what does and does not exist is a matter of fact,

True.

what can and cannot exist is a matter of fact, but what could possibly exist is a matter of perspective (of probability from limited information; sometimes we imagine comprehensible things that could exist but later discover they do not and cannot exist).

Can you give me an example?

questionable assumption: how can we possibly understand omniscience other than as an arbitrarily large amount of information?)

In similar fashion to how we understand omnipresence. What's your understanding of omnipresence?

(falls apart if we can imagine things which cannot exist, especially when we suppose comprehension where there is none)

But we can't imagine things that cannot exist. This is often taken for granted. Can you give me an example of something that is meaningful that can never exist?

(7) Only everything that exists can be omnipresent and 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 everything that exists. Similarly, you can't be all-knowing if you don't have reach or access to everything that exists = .✔

(this is fair enough, but now it seems we're left with two possibilities: everything that exists is either a thinking thing (a whole which thinks and perceives itself perfectly, somehow), or it is a not a thinking thing and nothing is actually omniscient or omnipotent, and to satisfy omnipresence we merely sum every thing that exists).

I did not say (7). Not everything that exists can be omnipresent. Only Existence can be omnipresent. It separates non-omnipresent beings and sustains them. It would be paradoxical to say that everything that exists can be omnipresent.

The problem of omniscience and omnipotence is that when we suppose they are infinite extremes, one limits the other. (if omniscient and omnipotent agent X knows absolutely what will happen in the future, then X is powerless to change the future; if agent X has the power to subvert its own predictions using omnipotence, then it knows nothing with certainty).

Are we in agreement that when it comes to infinity, there are no limits? If yes, then we agree that there is an endless number of possibilities.

So when the nature of infinity is such that all hypothetical possibilities will never be exhausted, then how can omnipotent/omniscient x be powerless to change the future of something that it contains within itself?

It can't change itself. That would be paradoxical. But all things within it can change. Knowing what change leads to what outcome does not takeaway from the ability to bring about that change. I don't see how omnipotence or omniscience is lost in any way.

\

Please reference my article on this Forum entitled "Why I Think Descartes' Ontological Argument is False" and the associated thread comments and answers. It constitutes a response to your contention that "Descartes had the right conclusions but not the right premise." Instead, for reasons stated in my article, I think Descartes had both the wrong premises and the wrong conclusions when it came to arguing for the existence of God.

Hi Charles

Here's your article which I found on google now (I don't understand why you didn't post the link yourself, but no worries)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5024/why-i-think-descartes-ontological-argument-is-false

And here's my all my work:

philosophyneedsgod.wordpress.com

I had a very very brief read of what you wrote and you seem to accept the following paradox:

'Things can go in and out of existence.' I concluded this based on the following which I found in your article: 'the human person's thinking activity can cease to occur and can go out of existence'

I can accept things being switched on and off as that is not paradoxical. I cannot accept things going in and out of existence as that is clearly paradoxical.

If you are interested in a solution to this paradox, I recommend you read all my work. Amongst other things, it contains the following conclusions:

Semantics are infallible

There exist an infinite number of hypothetical possibilities purely because existence is actually infinite (if existence was not truly infinite then there wouldn't be an infinite number of hypothetical possibilities or meaningful items of thought. How can a finite existence sustain an infinite number of anything?)

Kind regards,

Nyma

Hello Nyma:

The paradox you cite is, to me, not a paradox.

I am not claiming that "things" can go in and out of existence.

Along with Descartes, I am claiming the validity of the possibility that a person's thought can cease to occur. And that, if and when the person's thinking should cease to occur, then the person's awareness of his/her own existence would also cease to occur.

The possibility of such a scenario was accepted by Descartes when he said, "For it might indeed be if I entirely ceased to think, I should thereupon altogether cease to exist." He, also, did not consider the possibility of such a scenario to be paradoxical.

Both the person's thinking and the personal existence dependent upon the occurrence of the person's thinking are CONTINGENT because both can cease to occur. This is NOT paradoxical!!

There is no intuition available to human beings which yields an indubitably certain confirmation of the fact that human thinking will always continue to occur i.e., is NECESSARY.

Also, existence does not have an essence. Having no essence, existence cannot be described. So how, then, can the terms finite existence and infinite existence have legitimate meaning?

By the way, how do you define the terms finite and infinite? Limited/Unlimited? Bounded/Unbounded? Ending/Unending? Immanent/Transcendent? Phenomenal/Noumenal? Etc.??

Stay Healthy,
Charles

Both the person's thinking and the personal existence dependent upon the occurrence of the person's thinking are CONTINGENT because both can cease to occur. This is NOT paradoxical!! — Charles Ferraro

I am not in disagreement with this. The idea of something (even an item of thought or a hypothetical possibility) going out of existence is what I believe to be paradoxical. But I think I need to define what I mean by existence.

Are we in agreement that there has to be one omnipresent entity? If so, then I call this entity existence. If we are not in agreement on this, I will show paradoxes in rejecting an omnipresent entity. Once I establish where you stand on this, we can go from there.

Infinite = has no beginning and no end through and through
semi-infinite = has a beginning but no end
finite = has a beginning and an end

The activity of thinking (my thinking, your thinking) is not a something with essence (a what), it is not an essential entity; in fact, thinking is, in a sense, a non-thing, a non-entity which is best defined as an activity that is always oriented toward that which it distinguishes from itself and which it recognizes to be precisely not itself. Thinking is an activity (not a something, an item of thought, or a hypothetical possibility) that can cease to occur. Death is when a person's thinking ceases to occur.

I am not sure what an omnipresent entity is. But from the point of view of the individual person, I suppose his/her personal consciousness could be called omnipresent; though I would hesitate to characterize it as an entity.

You have what I would call a limited temporal (primarily past and future oriented) definition of the finite/infinite. Your definition seems to lack the dimension of the present. Also, how would you characterize the "has an end but no beginning" option?

How about the finite exhibiting the temporal dimensions of past, present, and future; whereas, the infinite is unlimited in the sense of being devoid of, or beyond, such temporal dimensions; infinity as timelessness?

in fact, thinking is, in a sense, a non-thing, a non-entity which is best defined as an activity that is always oriented toward that which it distinguishes from itself and which it recognizes to be precisely not itself. Thinking is an activity (not a something, an item of thought, or a hypothetical possibility) that can cease to occur. Death is when a person's thinking ceases to occur. — Charles Ferraro

If it's an activity, then surely it's a thing, is it not? 0 activity = nothing/non-existence. Thinking activity = something.

I am not sure what an omnipresent entity is. But from the point of view of the individual person, I suppose his/her personal consciousness could be called omnipresent; though I would hesitate to characterize it as an entity. — Charles Ferraro

An omnipresent entity is that which exists everywhere. Your consciousness cannot be this because your consciousness recognises that it is only in one place. As in your consciousness recognises other places in Existence that it is not present in. So you know you are not omnipresent.

Aren't we rationally obliged to say that there is an existing thing within which all existing things exist in?

Also, how would you characterize the "has an end but no beginning" option? — charles ferraro

I would describe it as absurd because only Existence has no end and only Existence has no beginning. Existence has no end because just as Existence could not have come from non-existence, Existence cannot go into non-existence.

How about the finite exhibiting the temporal dimensions of past, present, and future; whereas, the infinite is unlimited in the sense of being devoid of, or beyond, such temporal dimensions; infinity as timelessness? — charles ferraro

The past does not cease to exist. We move past the past but the past does not go out of Existence. This is purely because Existence is Infinite. Thus the finite cannot do this. All pasts, presents, and futures, exist, in Existence. We, as members of Existence, travel through time. Infinity is not timeless in that it is devoid of time, rather, Infinity/Existence contains all pasts, presents, and futures of all beings because all beings exist in Existence. No being exists in non-existence. It is paradoxical to say being x exists in non-existence unless x is in fact non-existence itself or any other absurd things such as a married bachelor. Absurdities/paradoxes/hypothetical impossibilities are things that do not exist in any way shape or form.

If my consciousness is a thing, then, certainly, it is a very unique and peculiar thing.
My consciousness does not exist in one place. In fact, it does not occupy any space, or place, at all because it is not a physical entity, like my brain.

My consciousness may be said to be "omnipresent" in the sense that I can never actually step outside of it, or transcend it. It is one with me. It follows me everywhere and it insists on accompanying me whenever I reflect upon my past, my present, or my future.

As long as I exist, I will remain a prisoner of my consciousness and everything I experience, whether in my dreams or when I am awake, will presuppose my consciousness as an indispensable condition of its existence. My consciousness is an inescapable, omnipresent being that is oriented, primarily, toward physical entities; but it is not their container.

Consciousness is omnipresent, but it contains nothing; it is not a container. It is a dimensionless, non-spatial being. An active being that is oriented toward and capable of encountering and recognizing entities which, unlike itself, are spatial and have essences.

Certainly, from the frame-of-reference of my consciousness I can "assume," or infer, that other consciousnesses exist, but I can never experience them "from their frames-of-reference." And, as long as I can't, I cannot "prove" to myself, or others, definitively, that they exist. I can only surmise that they exist.

Also, it is consciousness, not existence, that generates past, present, and future as ways for consciousness to be.

We can say that all physical entities exist in space-time; that space-time is omnipresent in this restricted sense. But we cannot say that all beings exist in existence. To me, this is just a meaningless tautology.

We might have to agree to disagree. To me, if something is meaningful, then by definition, it exists. How it exists and what sort/grade of reality it has, is a different matter.

Since I cannot view meaning/semantics as coming from nothing, and since I view semantics as being a priori and our labels for them a posteriori, and since there are an infinite number of semantics, and since I cannot be the container of an infinite number of semantics, I therefore view that which I am in, or that which sustains me, as being the container of an infinite number of semantics. I call this entity Existence/God/True Infinity.

If I do not root all semantics into that which is truly infinite, I find myself in a paradoxical position. For how can a finite entity contain an infinite number of semantics? It cannot. We know that an infinite number of semantics exist, thus a truly infinite entity exists to make such a thing true.

You state that "if something is meaningful, then by definition it exists."

But descriptions of certain forms of mental illness clearly demonstrate that it is possible for persons to have sensory delusion(s) that are meaningful to them, but which do not exist. Are these sorts of meaning also contained in, or caused by, your Infinite Semanticist? To me, this would be paradoxical, since it would conflict with such a deity's Infinite Benevolence, would it not?

"That which I am in, or that which sustains me" and that which is "the container of an infinite number of semantics ... Existence/God/True Infinity" possesses that NECESSARY Thinking and that NECESSARY Existence which, unfortunately, I, and others, cannot PERSONALLY EXPERIENCE.

They elude me because both my Thinking and my Existence, which are the only kinds I can experience, are inherently CONTINGENT. The only kind of thinking and existing that I can directly, personally experience is the kind that is vulnerable to the possibility of complete cessation.

I cannot directly, personally experience the kind of NECESSARY thinking and NECESSARY existing exhibited by the Infinite Semanticist that are invulnerable to the possibility of complete cessation. They may exist, but, I submit, human beings are, by nature, incapable of experiencing them.

In other words, you can entertain an infinite number of simple, or complex, arguments for claiming that a truly Infinite Entity may exist, and it may very well exist, but human beings, by their very nature, are perpetually excluded from having a PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of that entity.

I cannot experience, in the first person present tense mode, the necessary thinking and the necessary existing of the Infinite Semanticist. If I could, then, and only then, would I be able to prove to myself that such a deity did, in fact, exist; perhaps, along with its infinite plethora of word meanings.

But descriptions of certain forms of mental illness clearly demonstrate that it is possible for persons to have sensory delusion(s) that are meaningful to them, but which do not exist. — charles ferraro

Mentally ill people believe in wrong hypothetical possibilities. Perhaps they think they've seen a unicorn (and maybe they actually have...who knows) a unicorn is not semantically absurd. No mentally ill person can say they've seen a round-square because such a thing is semantically absurd. If a mentally person claims they have, then they are being irrational. They are mistaken.

To me, this would be paradoxical, since it would conflict with such a deity's Infinite Benevolence, would it not? — charles ferraro

God is not Omnibenevolent. God ensures everyone gets what they truly/perfectly deserve. Some deserve more good then others. Some deserve more bad then others. I do not know the souls of people. So I do not know if they are getting what they deserve or not. I know pure reason. And pure reason dictates that it is perfection for everyone to get what they truly deserve.

In other words, you can entertain an infinite number of simple, or complex, arguments for claiming that a truly Infinite Entity may exist, and it may very well exist, but human beings, by their very nature, are perpetually excluded from having a PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of that entity. — charles ferraro

Indeed, we will never know what it is to be Infinite or God. One cannot be God and not God at the same time. Similarly, we will never know how many senses there are in Existence/God or the Omnipresent. This does not mean that we are unaware of the semantics of Omnipresence and Infinity. We have the known a priori outlines. Existence exists. It is Omnipresent. We also have the unknowns in relation to us...how many dimensions does Existence have? There are many unknowns for us in relation to Existence, but this does not take away from the fact that there are also knowns for us.

We are not Infinite, therefore, we do not contain an infinite number of semantics. We have access to an infinite number of semantics. We have access to Existence. We exist in It.

[reply="Philosopher19;47694

Unfortunately, I still can't take away anything truly meaningful from your repeated assertions that "Existence exists," or that "We exist in it (existence)," or that Existence is Omnipresent. To me, the first two assertions are redundant, while the last statement assumes, or wrongly infers, that my personal existence can somehow extend beyond and/or occur independently of the limits of human consciousness.

As I stated previously, I still think my personal consciousness accompanies and defines me in a much more intimate, meaningful, and comprehensive way than my personal existence.

In fact, Descartes provides us with a unique method that enables us to actually prove to ourselves that our personal existence always depends upon, presupposes the occurrence of, and is inextricably bound up with our thinking (consciousness), and that our consciousness, therefore, can be experienced by each person as being, ontologically speaking, something more primordial and fundamental than our personal existence.

However, both my consciousness and my existing are fundamentally contingent, since they are both subject to the possibility of complete cessation. Neither one can be experienced as somehow being inherently necessary. Neither one, by its very nature, is immune to the possibility of complete cessation; which, one, or the other, would have to be if it were your divine, omnipresent, infinite container of an infinite number of meanings/semantics.

So, then, I have enjoyed very much interacting with you, but I will end our discourse by also agreeing that we will have to respectfully disagree.

Stay well!!

If you tried to reply, it didn't happen.

Sorry, I think I did reply. Double check.

Descartes’ argument that we cannot have an idea of a supremely perfect being without there actually being a supremely perfect being — Philosopher19

This I contest.

A thinks of B. Therefore B exists.

This is clearly false. I can think of a unicorn; and it clearly does not manifest its existence.

B may exist, or may not. Its independence is completely removed from being a function of my thoughts or imagination.

=============================

If B existed BECAUSE A thought of it, there would be no god before creation. God exists in human thought; no human existed before the sixth day of the creation. (Take it as a metaphor of god creating man; and that it happened in one point in time.) (I don't believe in creation, but the Christian religious do.) So there is an inherent contradiciton, a reducitio ad absurdum: somebody who created the world did not exist when the world was created.

Thefore to accept Decartes ontological arument, one must accpet that there is a self-contradiction contained within its argument, that denies the possiblility that god created the world.

-----------------------

Either way, Descartes ruined it here for Christianity. If you accept the existence because you can think of it, then creation did not happen; if you deny the existence because of thought, there is no proof god exists.

This is what D's actual argument looks like:

Th e argument has three premises:
p1. God is the supremely perfect being. No more perfect being can be conceived.
p2. We can conceive of a supremely perfect being existing in reality.
p3. What exists in reality is more perfect than what exists only in conception.
From these three premises, the reductio proceeds as follows:
1. Suppose: God does not exist.
2. We can then conceive of a being that is more perfect than God. (p2 and p3)
3. This is a contradiction, since no being more perfect than God can be conceived. (p1)
4. Therefore, God exists.

From 1 it is clear that 3 is wrong. If god does not exist, then everything is greater than god, not just the greatest. So the greatest is not the theoretical greatest, it is only the greatest in ranking. Therefore the greatest is not god (since it does not necessarily be the theoretically greatest. Anything is greater than nothng.)

So, then, I have enjoyed very much interacting with you, but I will end our discourse by also agreeing that we will have to respectfully disagree.

Stay well!! — charles ferraro

I'm glad you enjoyed our interaction. I understand.

Thank you, and I wish you all the best!

This is clearly false. I can think of a unicorn; and it clearly does not manifest its existence. — god must be atheist

It means that a unicorn is a hypothetically possible being. As in, Existence is such that it can produce unicorns. If Existence couldn't produce unicorns, then unicorn wouldn't be a hypothetical possibility. It'd be a hypothetical impossibility (like a round square). Since there are an infinite number of hypothetical possibilities, we must acknowledge Existence as being Infinite. This would then mean that there is infinite time, space, and potential such that all hypothetical possibilities truly are hypothetical possibilities.

B may exist, or may not. Its independence is completely removed from being a function of my thoughts or imagination. — god must be atheist

B exists because you have imagined it meaningfully. Whether it is as real as you and me, is another matter. Some concepts we meaningfully understand, are necessarily as real as you and me. The following are examples of this: Existence, Infinity, Omnipresent.

All realities are in Existence (the Infinite, the Omnipresent)

Unicorn is meaningful, therefore, unicorn is at least a hypothetical possibility (courtesy of Existence being Infinite). Unicorns may be as real as you and I, but we don't know that. That's a maybe. That's an unknown. Unicorns being a hypothetical possibility, that is a certainty. This is because we are certainly meaningfully aware of them.

If Omnipotence is a meaningful non-contradictory concept, then it follows that it is at least a hypothetical possibility. For something to be able to do all that is doable (Omnipotent) it has to have reach and access to all of Existence. It has to be Omnipresent/Infinite. Since nothing can become Omnipresent/Infinite from a non-omnipresent/non-infinite state, nothing can become Omnipotent from a non-omnipotent state. So, Omnipotence is definitely not a hypothetical possibility.

If Omnipotence is hypothetically impossible, then it should be an absurd concept like a married bachelor. Where Omnipotence is a meaningful concept, it has to be explained in terms of Existence. Omnipresence and Infinity can be explained in terms of Existence by saying Existence is actually Infinite and Omnipresent (it would be paradoxical to deny this). Similarly, where Omnipotence is not absurd, Existence or the Omnipresent, is in fact...Omnipotent. Semantics do not come from nothing. They come from or are made possible or accessible to us by Existence. We must rationally account for them.

The same principle applies with True Perfection.

Infinity accounts for why an infinite number of semantics are meaningful. What about Perfection? Assume our Existence is infinite but imperfect. Now attempt to answer the following:

How can an imperfect existence, have any idea of what a perfect existence is independently of a perfect existence? How can an imperfect being, have any idea of what the Perfect Being is (there can only be one) independently of the Perfect Being? If the Perfect Being/Existence gave awareness of what Itself is to an imperfect being such as you and me, then we can conceive of all lesser beings such as Zeus or Odin as well as It (the Perfect Being). You do not negate imperfection to get to Perfection just as you do not negate finite to get to Infinity. The negation of anything, results in the non-existence of that thing. It does not result in something else.

If B existed BECAUSE A thought of it, there would be no god before creation. God exists in human thought; no human existed before the sixth day of the creation. — god must be atheist

My argument has nothing to do with what scripture says. I do not sacrifice pure reason in the name of religion or science or anything else. That is insanity/irrationality/absurdity. Humans exist in God/Existence. All human thought is made possible by Existence/God the Sustainer of all humans and thoughts as well as Itself.

We exist because Existence exists. Existence exists because Existence exists. We are not Existence/God, we are in/encompassed by Existence/God.

I am sorry, philosopher, I have to run with what @charles ferraro Proposed to you: respectfully tell you that we can't agree on several elements of what constitutes logical thinking. On this topic all future discourse would be futile.

(P.s. I agree that the existence of a "perfect thing" does not depend on whether or not anyone has thought of it. On the contrary, I never give up the notion that the most perfect thing imaginable necessarily exists; I reason with supporting my objection that it is IMAGINED, and imagination has nothing to do with reality, or at the most, very little.)

I am sorry, philosopher, I have to run with what charles ferraro Proposed to you: respectfully tell you that we can't agree on several elements of what constitutes logical thinking. On this topic all future discourse would be futile. — god must be atheist

Ok, I wish you all the best.