>>>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. — MAYAEL

So what you're saying is this:

People can have semantically inconsistent beliefs. People should accept semantically inconsistent beliefs/theories.

You've got this very wrong.

God' does not mean 'existence' - that's why we can intelligibly ask whether God exists. — Bartricks

Either God is Omnipresent, or 'god' is not Omnipotent. You cannot be Omnipotent without having reach and access to all of Existence. And you cannot have reach and access to all of Existence, without actually Being Existence.

How do you think God would feel about people who keep insisting he can't do things? — Bartricks

If the person has evil intent when he says what he says, then he is in opposition to Perfection/God (which is why I would advise all people to ensure that their intentions are good, and that their sincerity is pure and true to God/Perfection (a perfect existence)).

How do you think God Feels about your above question? Love/Like/Neutral/Dislike/Hatred?

But yes, God can do anything so God can make himself disappear. That is, he can make something become nothing. Impressive, huh?

With all due respect, what you describe is as meaningless as married bachelors. Perhaps when you use the word nothing, you mean something other than 'non-existence'. I don't know what meaning/semantics you are trying to convey. If by 'nothing' you mean non-existence (as in I can turn to ashes and then God can turn those into pure nothingness), then AND ONLY THEN:

What you say is not impressive. It is semantically inconsistent. One cannot be impressed by that which is contradictory. If I said I was impressed, I'd be pretending. If I sought to worship God via this, i'd be pretentious and insincere in my worship. How can I be impressed by that which is not understandable? Only when I understand something can I be impressed by it. I will not pretend to understand or worship that which is not understandable me.

Peace.

Look, this is about omnipotence and what it involves. It involves being able to do anything. Those who think it involves less than this need to provide non-question begging arguments for this - which is going to be somewhat hard, because all they're going to be able to do is point to ways in which being able to do anything would involve being able to do things that flout the laws of logic. Which is, of course, something that someone who can do anything can do. — Bartricks

The reason I asked you that question was because semantically, Omnipotence is impossible without Omnipresence. Only God/Existence IS Omnipresent. For you to claim God Can Make Itself Cease to exist, is for you to claim something can go into nothing, or that Existence can become non-existence.

Think about it, you turn to ashes, those ashes turn to something else perhaps. They do not become or turn to nothing. Existence/God cannot cease to exist. Consider being open minded regarding this issue. You seem firm in your belief, but your belief is semantically inconsistent.

There is no human nor god that can break the laws of the universe. — Athena

I agree that the is no 'god' or human that can alter the nature of Existence. I'm not sure if this is the same as saying the laws of the universe cannot change.

I can destroy myself. If God can't destroy himself, then I'd have a power God lacks. I don't, because God can do anything and so anything I can do, God can do too.

I suggest that you heed your own request and
engage with sincerity to truth and reason
— Philosopher19 — Bartricks

Is God Omnipresent?

Er, none - I think you've lost the plot. I'm arguing that God can do anything. I'm not arguing that I can do anything, or that anything God can do I can do. I am arguing that anything I can do, God can do, because God can do anything. — Bartricks

But if we apply your reasoning, it would go like this: I can kill myself and get someone to turn me into ashes. God Can Kill Itself and Get someone to turn It into ashes too, because anything I can do, God Can do too.

Yes, anything you can do, by definition God Can Do too. But you've got this backwards in one aspect.

God is Omnipresent. God IS Existence. Existence cannot cease to exist. Neither you nor God can make this happen. You can cease to be you. You cannot will yourself to cease to exist without God Willing It. Nothing you do is independently of the Will of God (hence Omnipotence). But God Does what is independently of your will. Existence/God can Make you cease to exist. It cannot Make Itself cease to exist. Consider having a read of this:

https://philosophyneedsgod.wordpress.com/why-it-is-absurd-for-existences-gods-attributes-to-be-paradoxical-absurd/

Skip the first two paragraphs to jump straight into Omnipotence. I sincerely believe it addresses your point in a comprehensive manner.

So, 'one has the power to make oneself commit fallacies'. That's true of me — Bartricks

Consider prediction. You have the ability to make you predict. God has the ability to make you predict. You cannot make God predict, nor can God make God predict because God is Omniscient. If God gives you knowledge of the future, then God makes it so that God did not make you predict. If God makes you pass out before you can predict, then again, God's Will was that you do not predict. If God Creates you, gives you some knowledge (but not knowledge of the future) and then exposes you to something and you willingly make a predictions, then you have only willed what God Willed you to will.

You cannot will anything except if it is also Willed by God/Existence.

Yes, I didn't say that I have the power to make God commit fallacies, I said that I have the power to make myself commit fallacies. — Bartricks

But God also has the power to make you commit fallacies too. So what power do you have that God doesn't?

An omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent being cannot do anything; which is to say they could not do anything at all - because they would understand the long term implications of their actions. Any intervention would necessarily imply further interventions, to account for the consequences of the first, and so on and on until they had to do everything. — counterpunch

Which is why God is Perfect and Omnipotent. It Handles ALL affairs. You cannot will anything except if it is also Willed by God. God's power absolute. You're only responsible for your intent (good/evil). The consequences of your actions are entirely out of your hands.

You think the handeye coordination you have to drink a glass of water is being sustained by non-existence (nothingness), or do you think that Existence/God sustains it such that very glass of water you drink, was Willed by God priori to you even intending it.

Perfection = a perfect existence. Which semantically/logically requires everyone to get what they truly deserve, which requires an Omnipresent being (aka Existence) to be Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent towards good, Omnimalevolent towards evil (as well as Infinite, and Infinite existence is better than a finite one). Hence why God necessarily exists.

How can an imperfect existence/being have any idea of what a perfection existence/being is, independently of a perfect being/existence? It cannot.

Yes he can. I can make me commit fallacies, yes? So God can make God commit fallacies if he so wishes, otherwise I'd have a power that God doesn't have, namely the power to make oneself commit fallacies. — Bartricks

Precisely my point. You can make YOU commit fallacies. Your power is "you can make YOU commit fallacies". Your power is not "you can make GOD commit fallacies" is it?

Do we agree on the above?

I wondered how long it would be before the bibleos came along and started discussing the God of the bible rather than thinking for themselves.

This thread is about whether an all powerful being can do anything - which is a philosophical question that can't be settled by appeal to the bible or anything else. — Bartricks

Ok, then engage with sincerity to truth and reason. I'm not here defend or criticise the bible. I'm here to discuss the semantic of Omnipotence, which both you and I are somehow magically aware of.

Can God commit a fallacy? Yes. Can I? Yes. How absurd would it be for me to be able to do what God cannot? How could you, with a straight face, describe as 'all powerful' a being who couldn't do something I can do? — Bartricks

It seems to me that you've given this some thought. Here's hoping you will approach the matter with sincerity to truth and reason. Whether you will or not, is entirely unknown to me. In any case, in response to your objection:

God can make you commit fallacies. You can't make God commit fallacies. God can't make God commit fallacies. None (including you) can do what God can't do because God is Omnipotent.

Omnipotence = being able to do all that is doable. It does not mean being able to do that which is not doable. That's like saying Omniscience involves being able to know that which is not knowable (like what a round square or gsjiogjsi is)

If x is a hypothetical possibility, then God can bring it about. There are no hypothetical possibilities that God cannot bring about. If there was, then by definition, God wouldn't be Omnipotent (being able to do all that is doable).

If interested in dealing with paradoxes with regards to God's Attributes, consider the following:

https://philosophyneedsgod.wordpress.com/why-it-is-absurd-for-existences-gods-attributes-to-be-paradoxical-absurd/

Skip the first two paragraphs to go straight into Omnipotence.

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.

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.

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!

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

All existing things exist.
— Philosopher19
Seems like a tautology to me, but just for completeness we need to extend the property of existence to energy fields & spacetime as well. Spacetime exists. — EricH

I see. All triangular things are triangular because they have the property of being triangular.
All existing things exist because they have the property of existing. If x exists, then x has the property of existing. Do we agree on this?

Not quite sure what you're getting at here - it seems like you're saying "Things do not have the property of non-existence"? But this falls out of the definitions of the words. So at best you're simply re-stating your first sentence in different words. — EricH

Things that do not exist, do not have the property of existing. They are therefore not members of Existence. They are non-existent.

They all exist in something. Call this thing the universe. — EricH

From what I gather, the universe had a beginning. It could not have had a beginning in non-existence/nothingness. Thus it had a beginning in some existing thing/entity/being. Do you agree with this? I would also assert that this existing thing/entity/being, is necessarily actual infinity or truly infinite. I say necessarily because if this thing/entity/being was finite, we'd run into the paradox of something coming from nothing. For example if this thing was temporally finite, then that implies that it came from nothing. If this thing was spatially finite, then that implies it is surrounded by non-existence (which implies that non-existence exists). Since non-existence does not exist, the notion of being surrounded by non-existence is absurd. Hence why this thing/being/entity must necessarily be truly infinite.

The universe IS all things. — EricH

Since the universe itself is an existing thing or whatever we choose to call it, it is an existing thing or whatever we choose to call it. It is existing. It is not nothing. It is not a non-existent thing like a married bachelor. The universe does not denote the whole of Existence because it had a beginning. True infinity necessarily denotes the whole of Existence because it logically ensures there is no non-existence. By this I mean, true/actual infinity cures us of the paradox of something coming from nothing or non-existence existing. Since actual/true infinity is infinite through and through, it becomes meaningful and non-paradoxical to say that infinity contains itself. By this I mean the infinitesimal is infinite and it is contained within the infinite. This is essentially saying infinity contains infinity.

I agree with the hypothesis of that sentence, I disagree with the conclusion — EricH

I've come here and claimed that I've truly solved Russell's paradox. If I said I think I may have solved Russell's paradox and I was wrong, then maybe I'm not an idiot. But if I said I've truly solved Russell's paradox and claim that all famous philosophers and mathematicians were misguided whilst I am not (which is what I did), and I am actually wrong, then I am arrogant and therefore an idiot. But if I am right, then I'm neither arrogant nor an idiot. I'm truthful and accurate with regards to the description of what I am, and what other philosophers and mathematicians were regarding this matter.

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.

Consider the actual reality (not just a hypothetical possibility) that the mathematicians thoroughly studied the subject matter down to its finest details and understand its rigorous axiomatization, including that set theoretic proofs are machine checkable, while on the other hand, it appears you have not read the first page in a textbook on mathematical logic or set theory. — GrandMinnow

I sort of thought I should tame myself and not say that I'm right and many famous mathematicians and philosophers are wrong. If I am wrong, then I am an idiot and I apologise for wasting people's time (including yours). I would like to highlight the following:

All existing things exist. They cannot exist in nothingness/non-existence. They all exist in something. Call this thing Existence. Call the set of all existing things, Existence. Existence is the set of all existing things (including Itself because it Itself exists).

I find this outrageously paradoxical/absurd to deny. Do you not? Russell's paradox (which again, I would say is a misunderstanding of semantics and poor usage of labels) denies this very obvious truth.

I do not think it in any way reasonable to believe in the following absurdities:

Things can exist in non-existence
Not everything exists in Existence
There is no set of all existing things

It is paradoxical/unreasonable/absurd/irrational of us to believe in the 3 aforementioned absurdities. It is paradoxical to believe or embrace or accept any absurdity. From triangles having four sides, to married-bachelors existing.

My solution to the paradox, put differently;

There exists sets that are not members of themselves. All these sets, are sets. They are therefore a member of the set of all sets. The set of all sets need not be not a member of itself to contain all sets that are not members of themselves. Why should it? The set of all sets contains itself because it is a set. Semantically/logcailly there is only one set that is a member of itself, that set is the set of all sets: Existence. There is only one Existence. We are not Existence, we are members of Existence. We are not members of ourselves. We are members of Existence. We are ourselves and Existence is Itself. I will explain:

We exist because Existence exists. Existence exists because Existence exists.
The set of all sets contains all sets that are not members of themselves (which includes us), as well as itself. There is no set of all sets that are members of themselves because there is only one Existence. You cannot have a set of Existences because it is absurd for non-existence to separate two Existences from each other. You have a set of existing things existing in Existence, which itself exists. If a set is not a member of itself and not a member of the set of all sets, then that set is absurd. That set is not a set. The empty set that Frege detailed, contains all absurdities such as round-squares. They are not members of Existence. They are not members of the set of all sets.

Kind regards,
Nyma

I have been doing that. I can't add anything to what I've said other than that you should carefully examine the proof of Russell's paradox. And you should carefully examine your own argument, to see that you repeatedly claim that x is a set but you never present an argument to that effect. — fishfry

I am being sincere when I say I have carefully examined his argument. I also don't think I can do more by way of furthering our discussion on this matter except perhaps to highlight the following:

All existing things exist. They cannot exist in non-existence/nothingness. Call that thing in which all things exist in, Existence. Call the set of all existing things, Existence. Existence is the set of all existing things (including itself because it Itself exists).

I find this outrageously paradoxical/absurd to deny. Do you not? Russell's paradox (which again, I would say is a misunderstanding of semantics and poor usage of labels) denies this very obvious truth.

I do not think it in any way reasonable to believe in the following absurdities:

Things can exist in non-existence
Not everything exists in Existence
There is no set of all existing things

It is paradoxical/unreasonable/absurd/irrational of us to believe in the 3 aforementioned absurdities. It is paradoxical to believe or embrace or accept any absurdity. From triangles having four sides, to married-bachelors existing.

You claim x is a set but it isn't. You have no proof that x is a set. — fishfry

Ok then. A set is a set and you can have sets within sets.

By Russell's paradox. Say x is the set of all sets. Then let y be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Is y a member of itself? — fishfry

If y is not x, then y is absurd. How can a set that is not a member of itself, contain itself? It cannot. Say x encompasses all sets. Say z is the most encompassing set of sets after x. z is not a member of itself but it contains almost all sets that are not members of themselves. Because it does not contain itself, z is not the set of all sets that are not members of themselves because it does not contain itself despite being a set that is not a member of itself. z is contained in x because it is a set. y being absurd or z not containing itself takes nothing away from x containing all sets that are not members of themselves as well as itself. y is absurd because it claims to contain all sets that are not members of themselves whilst not being x. Why does x have to be treated as being absurd when y is absurd? The set of all sets that are not members of themselves is x and x is a member of itself. If you still think the last sentence is paradoxical, read on.

No, it can't be. I just showed that if x is the set of all sets, then we can form y and derive a contradiction. If x is the set of all sets that don't contain themselves, then x itself leads to a contradiction. — fishery

See what just happened? If x contains itself then x doesn't contain itself. — fishfry

On the other hand suppose x doesn't contain itself. Then it must be a member of x. So if it doesn't contain itself it does contain itself. — fishfry

Again, this is rooted in confusing y for x. y is absurd but x contains itself and it contains all sets that are not members of themselves because all sets that are not members of themselves, are still just sets at the end of the day. x does not have to be not a member of itself in order to contain sets that are not members of themselves. The set of all sets does not have to be a penguin to contain the set of all penguins. It just has to be the set of all sets.

Change "penguin" for "not a member of itself". Is a set that is not a member of itself, a set? If yes, then you know at least one set that it is a member of: The set of all sets. Are all sets that are not members of themselves, sets? If yes, then you know at least one set that they are all a member of: The set of all sets. There can be no other set that contains them all.

Now if you prefer to let x be the set of all sets, we let y be the set of all sets that don't contain themselves and we get a contradiction from y. So again, x can't be a set. — fishfry

Again, any set that is not a member of itself, is a member of the set of all sets. This is because it is a set. The set of all sets, is a member of itself. This is because it is itself a set. If y is absurd, that does not mean that x is also absurd. It just means y is not in x because y is not a set. Nor does it mean that x does not contain all sets that are not members of themselves when they clearly are just sets. Just for one second, consider the hypothetical possibility that all these famous philosophers after Russell, were wrong, and I'm right. I know how it sounds, yet it is still a hypothetical possibility. Just look at the proof that I am presenting without bias and without preconceived notions.

You ignored his patient explanations and are now repeating the same mistakes here. And while you quoted my post, you did not address its content and instead repeated the same nonsensical arguments that you made earlier. — SophistiCat

I am not the one embracing a paradox. That would be unreasonable/nonsensical/paradoxical.

I don't see a point in continuing this conversation. — SophistiCat

Ok.

Deleted

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.

given a set, any collection of its elements is also a set — SophistiCat

Yes I agree. But please bear in mind that all sets, are members of the set of all sets (including the set of all sets itself). So the set of all great white sharks, is a member of the set of all sharks as well as a member of the set of all sets.

Since sets that are not members of themselves are included in the set of all sets, then a collection of all such sets must form a set — SophistiCat

The set of all great white sharks is a member of at least two sets. The set of all sharks, and the set of all sets. You cannot have a set that is not a member of itself encompass/include all sets that not members of themselves precisely because (as Russell pointed out) it cannot both contain itself and not contain itself at the same time. This is clearly paradoxical. But you have the set of all sets. It includes all sets that are not members of themselves. Unlike the set of great white sharks which is a member of at least two sets, the set of all sets that are not members of themselves, is only a member of one set. That set is the set of all sets. Please look at the part in bold very carefully and recall that the set of all sets, is a member of itself, and that all sets are a member of the set of all sets (including great white sharks).

The set of all sets that are not members of themselves, is a set. Thus it is a member of the set of all sets. It is in fact the set of all sets. The set of all sets is a member of itself. No paradoxes here whatsoever.

Russell claims that there is no set of all sets that are not members of themselves whatsoever. Russell is clearly wrong. This paradox is now clearly fixed. Can we move on in a unified manner? Because academics seem to think that it's unsolvable. I'm not at a uni to get my voice heard. I don't like seeing true set theory being called naive set theory.

Patience is a virtue.

If you call x the set of all sets, you quickly get a contradiction. You find that x both is and isn't a member of itself. Therefore there is no such set. You keep claiming there is but you have not provided proof. — fishfry

The following is proof:

I find that if I say x isn't a member of itself, I am being paradoxical because x is a set. I find that if I say x is a member of itself, I am not being paradoxical because x is a set. Do you see?

You find that x both is and isn't a member of itself. — fishfry

How do you get to this???? x = the set of all sets. Is x a set? Yes. Thus x is a member of itself. Is x not a member of itself? Yes it is a member of itself because it is a set! Let's try the alternative. x is not a member of itself. Why not? No reason can be given. The set of all penguins is not a member of itself. Why not? Because a penguin is not a set. See?

I find that x is a member of itself. That is all I find.

You trollin' me? — fishfry

Not at all. If I am, then I'm an idiot. I just want efficiency and truth.

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 you knew more about infinity, you would not say this. Me trying again will do nothing. Try looking at my example again.

What you say is true of all non-infinite things. It is not true of that which is actually infinite. The actually infinite has no beginning and no end.

The infinite contains the infinitesimal and the infinitesimal contains the infinite. What's the alternative, that we deny that there exists and existing thing that contains all existing things? Is this better or accepting actual infinity as being infinite through and through?

Consider the following thought experiment:

On a computer, y is the folder of all folders. Your starting/beginning position is within y and you see y amongst an infinite number of other folders. If you click y, you get the same thing (an infinite number of folders with y amongst them). This continue ad infinitum. If you go up one level of folder trying to get to the root folder, again, you get the same thing (an infinite number of folders with y (the one you just came from) amongst them). This continues ad infinitum. We cannot say y fully contains itself if you cannot go up another level ad infinitum or go down another level ad infinitum. Your starting/beginning point changes nothing. Such is the nature of true infinity, it has no beginning and no end. Mathematicians confuse potential infinity with actual infinity and you get infinity paradoxes where there really are no such paradoxes. Just poor labels chosen for semantics.

The problem with the above thought experiment, is that you can see y. You cannot see infinity or infinitesimal. In other words, you cannot see Existence, you can only see non-infinite things that are in it. The infinite is in the infinitesimal and the infinitesimal is in the infinite.

Is there an existing thing that contains all existing things? Is it not blatantly paradoxical to deny that there is an existing thing that contains all existing things? If you accept that there exists an existing thing that contains all existing things (which I will label Existence), then you must also accept that there is a set of all sets.

I don't see how you can reject without being paradoxical. To say there isn't an existing thing that contains all existing things. logically implies things can come into or go out of Existence.

Yes. The set of all sets that are not members of themselves is different from the set of all sets; because x contains all the sets that are not members of themselves AND all the sets that ARE members of themselves. I don't follow why you don't see this. — fishery

To my knowledge, Russell's paradox concludes that you cannot have a set of all sets because he fails to non-paradoxically define a set of all sets that are not members of themselves.

No one is disputing that there can be no set of all sets that are not members of themselves that is itself, not a member of itself (call this absurd set y). But this paradox in no way logically amounts to saying that there is no set of all sets. x is the set of all sets. This set contains all sets including itself. No paradoxes.

For the sake of argument, let's say x and y are not the same. I have no problem in saying that y is absurd. But there is still a set that contains all sets that are not members of themselves. x contains them all does it not? If it does contain them, then it contains them. Why does x have to be not a member of itself??? Why are we trying to force a paradox where there is none? A set is a set. It doesn't matter if it's a member of itself or not. If it truly is a set, then it is clearly a member of the set of all sets.

Yes, x also contains other sets (actually it only contains one other set...which is itself). But it still contains all sets that are not members of themselves. Regarding sets, Russell misunderstood semantics and logic. I understand he was an important philosopher, but he made a mistake.

It is absurd to say that there is no set of all sets. Now are we in agreement?

That right there is the contradiction. x is a member of itself if and only if it's not a member of itself. — fishery

Thank you for replying and I understand where you're coming from. I will try to convey to you my understanding more specifically hoping that specification saves naive true set theory. I will ask questions to see exactly where it is that we are in disagreement.

For the sake of argument, assume we have the set of all sets. Call this x. x is a member of itself because it is a set. No paradoxes so far, agreed?

Since x contains all sets, do we agree that x contains all sets that are not members of themselves?

The set of all penguins, is a set. This set is not a member of itself precisely because it is a member of the set of all sets. By this I mean It is specifically a set, not a penguin. Are we sill in agreement? The set of all animals, is one set that contains the set of all penguins. This set is also not a member of itself, precisely because it is a member of the set of all sets. Thus, by definition, any set that truly is a set (as opposed to a penguin or animal), and is not a member of itself, is not a member of itself precisely because it truly is a set and is thus a member of the set of all sets. Agreed?

If agreed, then can you see how the set of all sets that are not members of themselves, can only be (by definition) x? I will specify this some more: All sets that are not members of themselves, truly are sets. What is the set of all these sets? Can the answer be anything other than x? The set of all sets which contains all these sets, is a member of itself (because it truly is a set).

Where do we have a paradox in what I have proposed?

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

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

It's more a case of Existence is Perfect, it exists Perfectly, and we are a part of it. We're a part of Existence, but we are not Existence. Our name is not God, we are a part of God. We don't have any of God's core traits (infiniteness, omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolance) so we are clearly different semantically speaking.

As itself. Existence is perfect and it exists perfectly.

No worries about the late reply. I hope I address all your questions effectively.

Yeah, so I was thinking about your argument recently and I wanted to ask your thoughts on the possibilities of knowing everything about a certain topic, couldn't that illustrate a case where humans can technically be omniscient about a certain domain

The following statement was inspired from a movie (Anchorman):

1) 60% of the time, object x works every time (100%) of the time.
2) Another way of saying this is to say: Object x works 60% of the time

If I'm not mistaken, both sentences say the same thing. Would it not be more accurate/efficient to go with 1 as opposed to 2?

To know a 100% of a part (60%) of something is not the same as knowing a 100% of that thing. Do we agree on this?

To be Omniscient is to know all that there is to know. It is not to know all that is to know + within a finite boundary. So just as statement 1 amounts to object x working 60% of the time, knowing 100% of a part (60%) of something amounts to knowing 60% of that thing. Not a 100% of that thing.

For example, a human can be omniscient on the parts of car, or omniscient about the current domain such as research methods and testing.

All domains interlap and related to other domains. Ultimately, all domains are a part of Existence. So even if we know a domain fully, we are not omniscient. As in we don't know all that there is to know. We still have to add to this statement and say something like we know all that there is to know about triangles.

I hope this is making sense, but the idea is that because human beings can be all-knowing about a certain topic, it is possible that God is not all knowing. I believe that God is not all-knowing in the sense of sin. It is often argued that God does not know what sin is, because he is all-good, and sin is bad. In view of this, could it also be argued that God does not know evil because he is all good? In other words, he might not know/see the evil in the world because he can only see or feel the good, because he is all good? Yeah. I'd love to hear your response to this. Thanks!

Knowing what something is like, need not amount to experiencing it. So I believe that knowing what pain is like is knowable without ever experiencing it. Everything amounts to information. Once the information is taken in and understood with the appropriate capacity/tools/senses, It amounts to knowledge.

Just because we have knowledge of something, doesn't mean that that knowledge is exclusively ours. This includes knowing what it's like to sin or feel pain and so on. Where the information is there along with the appropriate capacity and tools/senses to understand them, we have knowledge/understanding of that information.

Hi Flight747

I'm glad you enjoyed the post.

I did have some refutations to some of your premises and ideas, so when you get a chance, it would be nice if you could clarify them. I have re-outlined your arguments as follows, I hope that is ok?[/quote]

That's absolutely fine. I'll do my best to clarify.

Simply put, I do not think you resolve for the problem of evil since you do not provide a link between God’s omniscience and omnibenevolence

Do we agree that the problem of evil only holds true when P) All things considered, an objective instance of something not amounting to the maximum possible good is demonstrated?

Can P ever be demonstrated by us? We cannot consider all things because considering all things requires omniscience. Do we agree on this?

You are just arguing that God is all knowing, and we aren’t and so what? How does that relate to omnibenevolence?

It's not just omniscience. God is Perfect so it always does perfectly. Doing perfectly amounts to bringing about the maximum amount of good at all times. This is the same as being omnibenevolant. So we logically establish omnibenevolance in this manner.

Pure reason dictates that we can never empirically verify Omnibenevolance as that would require omniscience. So, Omnibenevolance is clearly established via pure reason (God being Perfect and dong Perfectly). This, coupled with our lack of omniscience means that we can never question this.

on the fact that I don't believe that human ignorance means God is omni-everything. It sounds a bit disingenuous to me and it would be nice if you could specify why not. Thanks!!!

Elsewhere, I argued that Existence is necessarily Perfect (Infinite, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent) Here's the argument:

(1) There is existence

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

(3) We are fully dependent on existence

(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows

(5) Given 4, anything that is meaningful, necessarily belongs to existence (by this I mean existence accommodates it such that it is either necessarily existent, or existence has the potential to create it or produce it. This why our minds classify it or recognise it as a hypothetical possibility and this is why it has meaning. So a unicorn is a potential thing that Existence can produce) On the other hand, anything that is paradoxical or meaningless is necessarily non-existent (existence does not accommodate it. The potential for it to exist has never been there and will never be there. For example, no square-circles or married bachelors can ever exist. Such phrases are absurd and make no sense)

(6) Omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, are meaningful concepts that we have an understanding of. So Existence must accommodate these concepts. As highlighted by 5, to deny this is to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing (Can you think of something that has meaning or is not paraodixcal but can never exist?). Therefore, either:

6a) The potential is there for something to become omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent , or 6b) Something is necessarily omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent

(7) Only Existence/that which is all-existing/omnipresent 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 all of Existence. Similarly, you can't be all-knowing if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence.

(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.

(9) Given that 6a is false and that the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are not absurd, it follows that 6b is true.

(10) Only Existence/that which is all-existing/omnipresent can be almighty and all knowing.

(11) Given 5-10, Existence is necessary omnipotent and omniscient.