I wouldn't use the term "bad" to explain it, but there is an obvious contradiction if omnipotence is used to remove omnipotence thus establishing the reality that the being doesn't truly have omnipotence...In other words, the greatest power is to create, destruction is a lesser power, creating can go on indefinitely but there are only so many things you can destroy--it is no surprise here that in Christianity, the Devil who opposes God strives to destroy all things... — Derrick Huestis

Surely omnipotence means it can do both good and also bad too, but if the omniptencer is a divine being, then it would not do bad.  That is just a logic from the definitions.  However divine being seems also denying / restricting  the definition of omnipotence.  It follows that omnipotence and divinity seem clashing / restricting properties of each other.

To create something, the old negative things must be destroyed first. It cannot always be looked at as destruction is evil and creation is good.  It is not some morality issue. You are looking at it from your moral point of view and making judgements on the process or events of the divine.

What is the definition of "devil"? Does it exist? Can you prove the existence?

More points to follow ....

Surely if a being is omnipresent, then it must be both inside and outside of the perceiver, and the perceiver should be able to feel what is inside the perceiver, if unable to see the omnipresent hidden inside the perceiver, and surely what is outside of the perceiver must be seen and perceived? — Corvus

You took the words right out of my mouth...(it must have been while we were ki..) ☺

It says that God is not interfering with human affairs.
— Alkis Piskas
What is this "it" and and what are the arguments for it? Or is it just a statement of your beliefs. — Derrick Huestis

This is what happens when you take statements from here and there at random, disconnecting them from their context. This statement refers to a pun I made. There are no arguments or beliefs involved here! :smile:

And, as I see, you did something similar with @VincePee. You are obsessed with "beliefs" and you don't realize that you are also presenting your beliefs, even if in an indirect, covert way, like "Or is it just a statement of your beliefs" Isn't this actually what you believe? :smile:

I personally see the word omniscience as a tricky word, and there is a reason this has been used as a way to attack the concept of "God." .....

I then study this opposite version and hold my head high at my "knowledge." But you, who realise it is just the opposite of what you were lecturing on, say "it isn't knowledge." I reply, "you think knowing bad things is knowledge, and this is a bad thing, therefore by your own definition I have knowledge!" — Derrick Huestis

Here we are not trying to attack the concept of God, but rather trying to clarify the concept of "omni" p.p.s.

Omnipotence, omnipresent and omniscience seem contradictory concepts which are problematic. Because any being with these attributes doesn't seem to exist in the real world.The contradictory attributes also mutually restrict the properties themselves and definition of God.

All depends on how narrow or wide your definitions of the attributes are, but omniscient beings must know not only everything that has happened, happening and will happen in the universe, but also whys, hows and ifs and whens.  If not, the being is not omniscient.

Good or bad is just one's judgement or feeling on something or event.  Nothing to be worried about in knowing or unknowing something in good or bad terms.  It is a factual capacity or state to know something, be it good or bad, and facts of the knower, when the knower knew or un-knew something.

The Great Scientist Deity sits back in his plush chair to watch this long great adventure movie or soap opera that He's never seen before… — PoeticUniverse

And does he also sends texts using his mobile phone, and watching TVs, drinking beer, while reading his comic books and mags, while taking a break from playing the online games? :rofl:

You took the words right out of my mouth...(it must have been while we were ki..) ☺ — VincePee

:strong: :pray:

Del

The next part of the OP appears to be to show 'God' by extending the starting arguments or at least to get on to some more grounded 'God'-like labels out of 'What IS' before layering too much more on to a presumed 'God'.

So far, we have no 'Nothing' existing, thus Indivisible as Continuous with No Separation within, and thus Eternal without Beginning or End;

no Stillness, thus our Constant Change/Time of Presentism, making the Block Universe rather doubtful, although the mode of time favored by theists;

no Determinism projected (but hard to show choice as not stuck to a fixed will of the moment);

'God's' Unconditional Love projected, although confidently, thus no Blame;

no instant evolution, it taking very long, plus a 'God' not observed, thus then projected as perhaps just a Deity 'God' only kicking things off in the Big Bang via fine-tuning scientific expertise, with no likely personal Theity 'God' intervening in time.

It's only the most difficult assignment ever!

And then we have to explain how a Mind could be First, instead of evolving later on, since that is the reverse of the process we see in the history of the universe.

Me might magnify some of our human qualities, such as both being able to view the whole scene at once and also view it in detail, to get an insight into the nature of the 'Designer'.

And does he also sends texts using his mobile phone, and watching TVs, drinking beer, while reading his comic books and mags, while taking a break from playing the online games? :rofl: — Corvus

Yes, for we were made in His image.

He gets a quadrillion requests every second from all over our universe and from all the others universes in the Cosmos. He transfers the short ones to his phone and the longer ones to his email for better recall. He's worried about his memory ever since He couldn't retrieve His earliest memory, there not being one since He is Eternal; but He is forever working on it. Perhaps it would be, "Why Me?"

His million-foot-wide TV only shows live reality shows, but they are ever the same old, same old follies of human history. He has no money, so He can't afford Netflix. The churches don't forward the money to Him, even though they accept all denominations. He never can pay when He goes to stores, so they usually put up a sign, "In God We Trust; Others Pay Cash'.

He's too lofty for comic books and so He is currently reading 'The God Delusion' and other books by Richard Dawkins to get the whole story of how his fine-tuning worked. Sometimes He reads 'People' magazine to see how we're doing.

His beer is the ultimate brew, called 'ButWiser', and sometimes He turns water into wine.

He cooks his food in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.

He didn't have friends at first, so thus he made humans, but found that He couldn't trust them.

He's so old that He's getting OldTimers' disease, but the up side is that soon everything will seem new and surprising again.

Have no fear though, for He's not at all like his portrayal in the Old Testament.

The Knowing From
The Blowing of the Big Bang

Into this Universe, and why not knowing,
Nor whence, like water willy-nilly flowing:
And out of it, as wind along the waste,
Omar knew not whither, willy-nilly blowing…

Now I’m knowing, that out of this muddle,
Indeed, it’s that chaos doth free me to be,
For it’s all of disorder in disarray,
An ultimate disorganized confusion,
Whence all sprung, banged, and exploded,
With no hint or trace of order, law or plan.

‘Twas mayhem, bedlam, and pandemonium,
Wreaking havoc upon the turmoil of a tumult,
Heaping high upon, a commotion of disruption,
In the utter fullness of the uproaring upheaval…

The maelstrom to end all messes and shambles,
The lawless free-for-all of total energetic anarchy,
Entropy crowned the King of the great hullabaloo,
That cosmic hoopla from which all hell broke loose.

Never there was to punish one for not even knowing,
Why you are here in this world so much growing,
That become here all so willy-nilly going.
As life’s rose—outspread your fragrance blowing!

Whither flowing free, whether knowing, or not,
Hitherto, I know not whence, but am whither going,
Willy-nilly, hence that’s all there is to knowing…
Hence thither forth I go on hither flowing to find
That I am ever more free to be in body and mind.

It is of Ovid’s “rude and indigested mass:
The lifeless lump, unfashion'd, and unfram'd,
Of jarring seeds; and justly Chaos nam’d.

“No sun was lighted up, the world to view;
No moon did yet her blunted horns renew:
Nor yet was Earth suspended in the sky,
Nor pois’d, did on her own foundations lye:

“Nor seas about the shores their arms had thrown;
But earth, and air, and water, were in one.
Thus air was void of light, and earth unstable,
And water's dark abyss unnavigable.”

So it is that we the living might hereby agree,
To live a being that is much more intense,
To leap toward higher orders of actuality,
To revel in the glories of this conscious life,
To attain each minute a more euphoric joy…

And to bring this forth to all,
The increased intensity
Of life’s experience,
And build on it, etc.,

Ever growing;
Forever, amen.

I think your point is good (that non-existence is not even describable with grammatics is a bad sign for it to be a real concept). We use a similar argument as part of the video we want to make. I now foresee similar opposition. But remember that it is a youtube video. They want it to have the quality of a university lecture but that will make it so complicated too that no one on youtube will watch it.

Have no fear though, for He's not at all like his portrayal in the Old Testament. — PoeticUniverse

So what is the purpose of his existence?

So what is the purpose of his existence? — Corvus

We'd first have to show Him to be, and then identify His nature, and then get at His purpose, although He appears to be an unnecessary step to posit in the first place, for Existence has to be. and that's that, end of story, not needing anything extra.

We'd first have to show Him to be, and then identify His nature, and then get at His purpose, although He appears to be an unnecessary step to posit in the first place, for Existence has to be. and that's that, end of story, not needing anything extra. — PoeticUniverse

I feel that first you have to define whether the divine being is physical, spiritual or conceptual in its nature.

If the being is spiritual or conceptual in nature, then trying to prove him via physical methods would just end up in categorical mistakes.

spiritual — Corvus

Can there be a distinct and separate intangible category such as called 'spiritual' which cannot walk the walk and talk the talk of the materiel? If so, it can't interact with us and so it just goes along its separate and merry way.

Anyway, there’s no big wondering required for where things came from. Existence isn’t optional; it is mandatory because ‘nonexistence’ cannot be, much less be productive. Forever quantum fields are already seen as fundamental. There is no ‘coming from’ for what is eternal.

Can there be a distinct and separate intangible category such as called 'spiritual' which cannot walk the walk and talk the talk of the materiel? If so, it can't interact with us and so it just goes along its separate and merry way.

Anyway, there’s no big wondering required for where things came from. Existence isn’t optional; it is mandatory because ‘nonexistence’ cannot be, much less be productive. — PoeticUniverse

Every existence is optional and contingent.   Because existence is not included in the subject.  It is a mere predicate of a subject.  That means, all existence can be negated without contradiction. Even space is contingent existence.  If you put down a physical object anywhere, then the space the object occupies will disappear. No more space.

A building is in the town centre. It can disappear any day, when they demolish it for build a road through it. Gone. No more.

But physical existence means that it is visible, touchable, audible and perceivable.  It also takes up a location in space, so you can go and see it. When this is not possible, it is not physical existence.  Trying to assert an invisible, inaudible, untouchable, and un-perceivable object as some existence is irrational.

There is no ‘coming from’ for what is eternal. — PoeticUniverse

"Eternal" "Eternity" "Infinity'' and "Forever" are another concepts which have been misused for a long time.  They come from the adverbs "eternally" and "infinitely" which are just expressing one's emotion for denoting a long time.  Eternity, forever and infinity don't exist in the real world.    

If one is truly wanting to use the concept of eternity and infinity, then he must still be out there in the field counting the time until it really ends.  And then when the time had indeed ended, he could then start using the terms, because he had then experienced and witness the true eternity and infinity. But then if it had ended, then it is no longer eternity or infinity.

So realistically, eternity and infinity doesn't exist. They are just figments of one's imagination.
But just sitting in a room when the time is still ticking on, eternity and infinity must not be used as if it is something that one owns like a table or chairs. Plainly doing so is just plainly illogical. They are just emotional expressions in linguistic terms.

Every existence is optional and contingent. — Corvus

The temporaries come and go; the Fundamental Existence of the quantum fields remains.

Trying to assert an invisible, inaudible, untouchable, and un-perceivable object as some existence is irrational. — Corvus

Yes. The immaterial can’t exchange energy with the material unless they speak each other’s language, but if they can, then there is no distinct category of immaterial at play in the first place.

The follow-up question: What does nonexistence mean/refer to?

It means/refers to,

3. The state of not being part of the mental world. Nonexistence is about non-things.

OR/AND

4. The state of not being part of the physical world. Nonexistence is about non-things. — TheMadFool

Good to see you joined the conversation again.

Using the word to say something doesn't exist in the world of ideas is very tricky because language operates in this world, so it would have to be used here in a way that would be quite ambiguous.

Specifying "physical nonexistence" operates just fine with no problems. You speak from the plain of ideas so you can label many things that exist as ideas that don't exist physically without issue.

You say there are only these two plains but I would say that space-time is another plain that both physical and idea plains exist within. The argument for this is simple: you can't move an idea out of your head with your hand because it operates on a different plain then your hand, and similarly you can't use either your hand or your mind to bend space or time because they likewise exist on another plain. Now, there is some very specific interaction between these plains in some very specific ways, but conversations over this is best reserved for another discussion.

Some people also believe in a spiritual plain, but I'm not going to argue over this concept here.

Needless to say, "nonexistence" is open-ended in what it refers to without specification, so I use it an "all encompassing" way unless I put some specification before the word.

But just sitting in a room when the time is still ticking on, eternity and infinity must not be used as if it is something that one owns like a table or chairs. Plainly doing so is just plainly illogical. — Corvus

We can own the idea or concept even if we don't own the manifestation of said concept. This is what philosophers do. Questioning why someone would own, discuss, and argue for a concept they see manifest in the real world could be easily turned into a question of why you might be on a philosophy forum. There is some emotional element to many of your posts, untangling them from the logic requires a bit of work.

Surely omnipotence means it can do both good and also bad too, but if the omniptencer is a divine being, then it would not do bad.  That is just a logic from the definitions.  However divine being seems also denying / restricting  the definition of omnipotence.  It follows that omnipotence and divinity seem clashing / restricting properties of each other. — Corvus

There is a lot here, doubt I will answer everything, but restricting power is never the denial of it. The strongest of men can handle a baby very gently, strength never has to be used to it's full potential. Now whether the "omnipotencer" can do bad, I suppose that depends on terms. I use the term "bad" as being that which is aimed against the infinite principles (yes, I know you hate the word infinite). I argue that power to create is greater than power to destroy, and destruction ultimately takes away power the more it is enacted thus it wouldn't be a principle of omnipotence. In this way, the Christian notion that we are eternal makes sense, regardless if good or bad (aimed at destruction). It wouldn't be in the nature of this being to annihilate us, so putting bad people in a place where they can destroy everything around them and attempt to destroy themselves as well (think demonic torture here) without being able to escape and spread destruction elsewhere seems to be a satisfactory solution.

You are obsessed with "beliefs" and you don't realize that you are also presenting your beliefs, even if in an indirect, covert way, like "Or is it just a statement of your beliefs" — Alkis Piskas

Perhaps the best way to demonstrate how silly this sounds is to present the opposite.
"Philosopher presents novel argument he doesn't believe in."

Of course I believe it, but it isn't "just a statement of beliefs" which is why I add connecting arguments, and then respond to criticism in a way that I believe properly supports my claim. This is the part you seem to leave out.

I think your point is good (that non-existence is not even describable with grammatics is a bad sign for it to be a real concept). We use a similar argument as part of the video we want to make. I now foresee similar opposition. But remember that it is a youtube video. They want it to have the quality of a university lecture but that will make it so complicated too that no one on youtube will watch it. — FalseIdentity

I would eventually like to write a philosophical/theological book on these ideas, but it is hard to move forward without criticism. Being criticized isn't a problem, having shortcomings on a youtube video is also not a problem, I don't have to "prove" myself to anyone, the only goal is to find out if there are flaws I haven't noticed that prove a great weakness for criticism. So far, the greatest "flaw" seems to be adequately describing the philosophy to avoid misrepresentation and superficial criticism. But, a few people have reached the 'core' of the argument and their input is greatly appreciated.

And then we have to explain how a Mind could be First, instead of evolving later on, since that is the reverse of the process we see in the history of the universe. — PoeticUniverse

Here you get it wrong, the universe is in every way like a magnificent mind, performing many trillions upon trillions of calculations instantaneously without flaw. "Conservation of energy" is possible because the universe never makes an error in its calculations. What is tricky to explain isn't how a Mind could be first, but how the First Mind could create many minds much like it but so much smaller (and unfortunately sizably more inclined to error as well).

Here you get it wrong, the universe is in every way like a magnificent mind, performing many trillions upon trillions of calculations instantaneously without flaw. "Conservation of energy" is possible because the universe never makes an error in its calculations. What is tricky to explain isn't how a Mind could be first, but how the First Mind could create many minds much like it but so much smaller (and unfortunately sizably more inclined to error as well). — Derrick Huestis

I'm OK in that we have to build up to the desired points, which you are hinting at getting on to, since the readers won't all be that accepting of as declarations of "Mind" being so, especially as this is the polar opposite inverse of what they see in the reality of the history of the universe.

Perhaps 'conservation of energy' is just due to how it has to be traded without lending/borrowing possible. There is only the energy that was or is becoming.

The Fundamental never rests and so we see a kind of topological-like transmutation of it (since it ever remains as itself) as constant change according to what we call the laws of nature, with no miracles, skips, blips, or errors unless it has some 'random', which could be because the Fundamental can't have any input to it. We on Earth are in the Goldilocks zone, where we naturally ought to be, and not impossibly out near Neptune.

As smaller minds inside the 'Mind' or created outside of it, we have to be less, and from other limits, too, perhaps as being in a lower dimension, being chained to time, limited ingredients put in, of a poor craftsman, and never being able to equal the One Mind because there can only be One.

Of course, it was easy for us to out think the 'God' of the Old Testament and its cosmology and more, but that shows nothing but the human writing of a bad role model into it that many would not follow in the sense of the imitation of His qualities portrayed.

The intended design by 'God' as the Designer or by evolution as a design without a designer evidently had to be what it became, although it's not all that pretty, but workable, and it really sticks that we can't tell one case from the other, suggesting that 'God' is the same as nature and thus a redundant idea.

Most of the universe seems to a vast wasteland, most of the 10**76 'particles' of it. It's as if among all that extravagance, there was likely to be a few planets having the right conditions for life, it still taking 13 billions years of cosmic and biological evolution to get to that life, giving credence to natural processes from a very messy Big Bang.

We have to somehow dig deeper to get to the 'Mind' doing it.

Conservation of energy — Derrick Huestis

What I wrote once:

To look for what endures in the ongoing cause,
Turn to the basics, such as the conversation laws,
For they in summation with infinite precision
Maintain the balance in all the decisions.


On infinite precision:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clues-come-from-a-century-old-approach-to-math-20200407/

demonstrate how silly this sounds — Derrick Huestis

Calling something "silly" instead of explaining why it is not true, is not a responsible attitude and certainly it does not behove this place. You should just explain why your saying "Or is it just a statement of your beliefs" is not actually a belief of yours. If you can't, you can simply admit it. Or just ignore it. Anyway, that would be much better than producing a "demonstration" that is totally incongruous with my point.

Of course, all this is what I believe. I admit it! :smile:

Calling something "silly" instead of explaining why it is not true, is not a responsible attitude and certainly it does not behove this place. — Alkis Piskas

I actually used a reductio-ad-absurdum argument there, but it is becoming apparent to me that many on this forum don't understand this form of argumentation. I also distinguished the terms and demonstrated how the terms I was using were much more specific than the ones you were and how this affects the argument. And so, I really don't know how to respond to you to solve this problem for you, perhaps I just need to simplify the language and sentences for you, even if it becomes less precise in the process.

Maybe I can make this part more apparent:
"Just a statement of beliefs" = beliefs presented stand-alone without logical connection.
While I might believe in what I talk about, I'm trying not to do this but instead reason out my beliefs.

The temporaries come and go; the Fundamental Existence of the quantum fields remains. — PoeticUniverse

I am not sure if randomly promoting the quantum fields to the Fundamental Existence has any meaning when the OP has been trying to prove God.