all. If interested in the nature of Existence, consider the following:

>>>Core to the argument: If a given belief/theory is semantically inconsistent (as in it is hypothetically impossible for it be true) then it must be rejected.<<<

according to your limited understanding perhaps.

>>>1) Existence being infinite accounts for why all semantics are meaningful.<<<

huh? how why what?




>>>2) Round squares, married bachelors, non-existence existing, sitting and standing at the same time, these are all hypothetical impossibilities. <<<

not necessarily example being we can all stand around the square before going in the pub,
you can stand for what's morally right while sitting in a meeting, you can be married to the thought of being a Bachelor for the rest of your life.




>>>3) If something is hypothetically impossible, then it is not meaningful or understandable. <<<

ever heard of the term religion?.


.

>>>4) Given 3, If something is meaningful or understandable, then it is certainly not hypothetically impossible. To reiterate: ALL hypothetical impossibilities are meaningless and not understandable.<<<

I'm not sure why you're so confident about that?

>>>5) Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of. There is nothing better than a perfect existence. If existence is imperfect, then perfection (a perfect existence) is hypothetically impossible.<<<

only if you are correct on your hypothesis#4 but you could be wrong.


>>>6) If perfection is hypothetically impossible, then it should be meaningless and not understandable (see 4). Again, ALL hypothetical impossibilities are meaningless and not understandable.<<<

can you show me this perfect? I've never seen one so I'm not sure it exists have you seen one?

>>>7) Perfection is meaningful/understandable, therefore, perfection is not a hypothetical impossibility.<<<


and what was it that you found to be perfect I would like to observe it

>>>8 ) If Existence is perfect, then perfection is not hypothetically impossible. If Existence is imperfect, then perfection is hypothetically impossible. We understand perfection, therefore, perfection is not hypothetically impossible. Therefore, Existence is perfect.<<<

do we understand Perfection? Please give me the guidelines for what Perfection is.

>>>Existence is perfect is the same as saying God exists. This is because a perfect existence logically entails that everyone gets what they truly deserve (it would be imperfect otherwise). This logically requires the omnipresent (Existence) to be omnipotent and omniscient. It logically requires: Existence = God (pantheism)<<<


you've obviously been shielded from reality by your parents because I can tell mommy and daddy have protected you from the unfortunates of life.

I couldn't care less what you think. I care only what you can show by means of a reasoned argument. But given you are convinced that I, who have argued all the way through, am making no arguments for anything, I think you don't understand what I do by an 'argument'. So this is pointless.
You're just going to have to deny that there are imperatives of Reason. You're going to have to deny that normative reasons exist. And that's fine - deny away. The view is one for which, by the nature of the beast, you cannot defend, for either you think there's reason to believe it is true - in which case norms of reason exist - or you think there's no reason to think it is true, but think it is true anyway (in which case you're irrational).
As to your unargued for assertion that we ourselves are the source of any and all imperatives that there may be - well, my argument proves that to be false, for if you were the source of the imperatives of Reason, then you'd be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, which you're clearly not.

So, when you said in your other thread on rejecting ‘necessary truths’:

I don't think there are any necessary truths or any necessary existents (I believe this for two reasons, a) I believe God exists and that if God exists there are no necessary existents because God, being all powerful, can destroy everything if he so wishes and b) I can't fathom what 'necessity' actually is). — Bartricks

Why doesn’t this apply to ‘the truths of reason’ which you here say are ‘imperative’?

It does apply to them. But I don't say that truths of Reason are imperative, I say that there are imperatives of Reason and that there can be truths about them. If I order you to give me all your money, then "give me all your money" is the imperative, and it is a truth about an imperative that I am ordering you to give me all your money. So, it is true that Bartricks is ordering you to give him all your money. But that doesn't mean that the imperative I am issuing is 'a truth'. It's not a truth, it's an imperative (imperatives can't be true or false; they can be followed or flouted).

The imperatives of Reason are demonstrably imperatives of a person, God (as my argument demonstrates). That person is omnipotent precisely because it is up to this person - to God - what the imperatives are. And so that means that no truth about what the imperatives are is a necessary truth.

So God is not bound by the imperatives of Reason, because they're God's imperatives. And no truth about those imperatives is necessary.

What is true will itself be under God's control, for when will all reasonable people be satisfied that a proposition is true and that all that has been done has been done to establish its truth? Well, when it is manifest to their reason that Reason desires them to believe it is true for its own sake. For evidence that a proposition is true itself consists in a proposition being one that Reason directs us to believe for the sake of it.

If all reasonable people will be satisfied that a proposition is true when it is clear to them all that Reason directs them to believe it, then that itself constitutes our best evidence that truth itself is that property: that is, 'what it is' for a proposition to be true is for God to want us to believe it for its own sake.

Thus once more we can see that there will be no necessary truths, for truth itself is now a function of God's will.

So the upshot is, no reasonable person could disagree with you, or, put another way, anyone who disagrees is being unreasonable. That’s certainly the way you react to those who disagree with you.

But then, according to you, God can arbitrarily designate what is reasonable and what is not. If there are no necessary truths, then nothing can be true ‘for its own sake’. A proposition can only be true according to God’s will. Yet somehow this can be discerned through reason.

You're just going to have to deny that there are imperatives of Reason — Bartricks

There are laws of reason. There is no such thing as imperatives of reason (unless by that you mean “imperatives to follow the laws of reason”). Because as I say for the 3rd time and you refuse to address: You still could not have had two contradictory propositions be true at the same time in the same sense EVEN IF no one commanded this to be the case. In the same way that objects close to the ground will accelerate at 9.81 m/s^2 regardless of whether or not Newton discovered the laws of motion. And no one is commanding the objects to move as such.

Do you think the law of gravity is an imperative?

But given you are convinced that I, who have argued all the way through — Bartricks

You’ve argued alright. But the arguments were terrible. And I can show you why they’re terrible if you quote one.

You're going to have to deny that normative reasons exist. — Bartricks

False. I’m just going to have to deny that God gives them.

you think there's reason to believe it is true - in which case norms of reason exist — Bartricks

Yup. God isn’t their source though. A desire to not look like an idiot is reason enough to believe the laws of reason, you don’t need God for that.

well, my argument proves that to be false, for if you were the source of the imperatives of Reason, then you'd be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, which you're clearly not. — Bartricks

Your argument would show that indeed. Because there argument is fallacious. So it leads to a fallacious conclusion. Its first premise is false. It fails to show omnipotence follows. And it completely flops on omniscience. I can talk about those in detail but first I want to attack the first premise.

Therefore, there is a mind whose laws are the laws of Reason — Bartricks

Why can't it be our minds "...whose laws are the laws of Reason"? Why does it have to be God's mind?

So the upshot is, no reasonable person could disagree with you, or, put another way, anyone who disagrees is being unreasonable. — Wayfarer

No. The upshot is that God exists. That's what the argument demonstrates. Does that mean that no reasonable person could disagree with me? No. There are all manner of ways in which a reasonable person might, while remaining reasonable, disagree with me. The evidence is that God exists, but it isn't always reasonable to follow the evidence, and the evidence isn't always well understood.

But then, according to you, God can arbitrarily designate what is reasonable and what is not. — Wayfarer

No, not 'arbitrarily'. For something to be 'arbitrary' is for it to be 'without reason'. So God does not designate arbitrarily, for God's will constitutively determines what is and isn't arbitrary.

A proposition can only be true according to God’s will. Yet somehow this can be discerned through reason. — Wayfarer

Yes. Describing my position in a scornful tone does not constitute a refutation of it.

Why can't it be our minds "...whose laws are the laws of Reason"? Why does it have to be God's mind? — TheMadFool

It doesn't 'have to be' God's mind. It 'is' God's mind. Why? Because the mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason will be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (see argument in the OP for why that would be). God is in the conclusion, not the premises.

Now, are you omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent? No. So you are not the mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason. And that goes for me too, and for all minds bar one - the one whose imperatives 'are' the imperatives of Reason.

But certainly, the way most of you argue I can see that most of you do indeed consider yourselves to be the minds of Reason, for most of you seem to think that if you think something is so, then it must be! So most of you here do seem to think of yourselves as arbiters of truth. You're not though. Thank goodness!

5) Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of. There is nothing better than a perfect existence. If existence is imperfect, then perfection (a perfect existence) is hypothetically impossible. — Philosopher19

Are you saying that there has to be an actual perfect existence that has existed or will exist at some point in time or does there only have to be a perfect existence that could theoretically exist but one that will never actually exist? In addition, wouldn’t a perfect universe be better than a perfect existence? I’m not understanding why you think that there’s nothing better than a perfect existence.

Existence is perfect is the same as saying God exists. This is because a perfect existence logically entails that everyone gets what they truly deserve (it would be imperfect otherwise). — Philosopher19

I don’t think that a perfect existence logically entails that everyone gets what they deserve because I don’t think anybody deserves anything or fails to deserve anything. When we say that someone deserves something, I think we are simply predicating this assertion on our feelings. I don’t see how there is any intellectual content to the claim that someone deserves something else. For example, if someone says that some Billy Bob deserves to be treated better by society then I think that’s about as intellectually meaningless as saying that ice cream deserves to be eaten. Given this, I think a better account of a perfect existence is that it is one that contains zero suffering and an infinite amount of pleasure. That hypothetical perfect existence could exist by some other force that is not God like karma or some crazy black hole in the universe that will make anyone that it sucks in have that perfect existence. Speaking of which, even if you’re not convinced by my initial claim that deserved-ness is predicated purely on emotion, why couldn’t there be a magical black hole that upon sucking one particular person inside gives that person a perfect existence where they get what they deserve? Why does it have to be a god specifically?

Because the mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason will be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent — Bartricks

I recall making a similar argument a long time ago. If one is a master logician, all knowledge would be one's (omniscient), and given that knowledge is power, one would also be all-powerful (omnipotent). What I couldn't do, unfortunately, was establish a necessary connection between logic and ombinevolence except if one approaches the matter from a Kantian perspective.

My question though isn't about the relationship between reason/logic and the omni-attributes (I concur with you on that). My question is how reason implies the existence of god? Reason is a contingent property of minds and before we discuss properties of god's mind, we need to first prove god's existence. Basically, you can go from dog to brown dog but not from brown to brown dog. You've put the cart before the horse.

Note: I've merged a few God threads together into this one.

Note: I've merged a few God threads together into this one. — jamalrob

If they're 'God' Threads can you also put them into the Philosophy of Religion section. The ability to keep (subjectively) crap off the front page is a really nice feature.

done

Thanks!

why?

The ability to keep (subjectively) crap off the front page is a really nice feature. — Isaac

We can do this? How?

We can do this? How? — Banno

Go to 'categories', select your chosen brand of nonsense (Philosophy of Religion, for example), scroll right to the bottom of the list of posts there's an icon of an eye, Tap that and a line will appear through it. Never again will your front page be blighted.

Unfortunately, there's no category for messianic epiphany so we just have to put up with those.

Describing my position in a scornful tone does not constitute a refutation of it. — Bartricks

Critical is not scornful.

yes, but scornful is. I mean what, exactly, was your criticism then?

God does not designate arbitrarily, for God's will constitutively determines what is and isn't arbitrary. — Bartricks

And thereby constitutes necessary truths.

well, I show why reason entails God in the OP- the OP that no one can now find due to the merging.

The imperatives of Reason are imperatives and thus require a mind to issue them.

Hence this premise is true:

1. If there are imperatives of Reason, there is a mind who is issuing them.

And as the imperatives of Reason exist beyond all doubt, this premise is also true:

2. There are imperatives of Reason.

From which it follows

3. There exists a mind who is issuing the imperatives of Reason.

And that mind will have the properties of omnipotence, omniscience and omni benevolence. Thus it will be God.

no. How does that follow? The exact opposite follows.

You are no doubt conflating arbitrary with 'capable of change'.

So the commands of reason are not necessary truths?

well, I show why reason entails God in the OP- the OP that no one can now find due to the merging. — Bartricks

:rofl: I'll take your word for it. :up:

1. If there are imperatives of Reason, there is a mind who is issuing them. — Bartricks

This premise is shaky. It needs to be proved which you haven't.

:lol:

I still don’t see what makes things like the law of non contradiction an imperative. You two seem to, if not agree, at least understand what that means. I don’t. So could you help me understand?

Seems to me like the law of non contradiction is like the laws of motion. No one needs to issue it for it to function behind the scenes. 2 contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, regardless of if anyone notices this to be the case. And no one issued a command to all propositions to work this way either.

I still don’t see what makes things like the law of non contradiction an imperative. You two seem to, if not agree, at least understand what that means. I don’t. So could you help me understand? — khaled

It’s not an absolute - dialetheism shows there are contexts in which contradictory statements can both be true. But in normal discourse something can’t be both true and false (a and not a) at the same time. If we don’t have such rules of thought then nothing anchors meaning. It’s a logical imperative.

Yes it has.

dialetheism shows there are contexts in which contradictory statements can both be true. — Wayfarer

Example?