What do you mean by “perfectly existing”? — Amalac
To be an imaginary human, is to exist an imaginary human? — Philosopher19
To be a human on planet earth, it to exist as a human on planet earth? — Philosopher19
Do you agree that to be imperfect as a triangle, is to exist imperfectly as a triangle? — Philosopher19
Do you agree that to be imperfect as a being/existent, is to exist imperfectly as a being/existent? — Philosopher19
Note that you cannot say to be a square-circle, is to exist as a square-circle. Such a thing is impossible. Absurdities and contradictions exist, but what they describe (round squares) does not. By definition that which is contradictory is absurd or not true of existence. — Philosopher19
Perfection = that which is perfect. The perfect being. That which perfectly exists. — Philosopher19
Yes, and I believe I addressed it. — Philosopher19
...which seems to me to conflate the first order "triangles have three sides " with the second order "triangles exist".Triangularity and existence/being/existing are both meaningful, and I believe I have been sincere to those semantics. — Philosopher19
in that case I'd say a human that is merely imagined has being, but does not exist. — Amalac
Once again, if you are following Meinong, all you are saying is that unicorns have being but don't have existence, since they only exist in the mind, whereas I have existence since I exist both as an idea in the mind and also outside the mind. — Amalac
...which seems to me to conflate the first order "triangles have three sides " with the second order "triangles exist". — Banno
How is that not contradictory? — Philosopher19
Does a Sherlock Holmes at least exist as a character (perhaps in a story)? Yes. — Philosopher19
If we take the absolute approach (no degrees), then no, you don't have existence. — Philosopher19
Descartes' I think therefore I am established that something indubitably exists. — Philosopher19
But only God cannot be any more complete/perfect as a being. — Philosopher19
No, you are now equivocating “is” as a copula and “is” as a synonym of “exists”. — Amalac
To say "existence is not a predicate" is to say what is contradictory. — Philosopher19
The concept of "round-square" is absurd. Why is it absurd? Because round-squares do not exist... — Philosopher19
There's nothing contradictory about it (though the way Meinong expressed his ideas is peculiar) — Amalac
What we are interested in here is existence outside the mind, right? — Amalac
If we use Meinong's terminology, then yes, I do have existence. If you are not using that terminology, then clearly you are assuming here that existence is a predicate (“I have/ don't have existence”) and can therefore be refuted by Kant's objection. — Amalac
SO things are absurd because they do not exist? But that's not right, since three-dollar notes do not exist, but are surely not absurd. — Banno
That way we can have things that are not contradictions but nevertheless do not exist. — Banno
Three dollar notes exist — Philosopher19
If x is not omnipotent and omnipresent, then x is not a perfect being (or perfectly existing), because better being/existents than it can be conceived of. — Philosopher19
Only one thing is truly existing — Philosopher19
Perhaps you meant that they are possible.
But you haven't addressed the criticism from Kant, you've gone off on a tangent instead. Your notion of existence is at odds with the whole of mathematical logic. — Banno
There may be a view that being omniscient and/or omnipotent is not a feature of the perfect being. — god must be atheist
Where did you get that? It's simply not true. You certainly exist; I certainly exist; we are one and the same? Then how come we disagree? — god must be atheist
God does not have to be perfect. — Bartricks
If x is not omnipotent and omniscient, then x is not truly free. Nor is he able to ensure that everyone gets what they truly deserve. — Philosopher19
Omnipotence = being able to do all that is doable — Philosopher19
If x is not omnipotent and omniscient, then x is not truly free. Nor is he able to ensure that everyone gets what they truly deserve. If x is not omnipotence and omniscient, then a truly perfect existence is impossible. — Philosopher19
Yet in your definition perfection is that which is the greatest. Well, given two or more equally great systems, neither or none of them are greater than the others. — god must be atheist
You are confused. You do not understand omnipotence and thus do not grasp the concept of God.
God can do anything. A being who can create himself is more powerful than one who can't. So you are profoundly confused if you identify omnipotence with the latter and not the former. — Bartricks
Is it doable to move any amount of weight? Yes.
Is it doable to create a weight that is so heavy that it's not movable? Yes. — god must be atheist
You cannot have more than one perfect being because you cannot have more than one omnipresent being. — Philosopher19
Omnipotence = being able to do all that is doable (completely perfect/absolute power/freedom). — Philosopher19
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.