For me, there can be more than one reality (I say this because I can distinguish between virtual reality, dreams, and my waking reality) I cannot however distinguish between more than one Existence. It encompasses all worlds/realities. Everything that exists, does so in Existence.

Existence is perfect and so it does perfectly. A discussion of what constitutes doing perfectly with full accuracy is impossible to have in light of pure reason as that would require omniscience.

For anything that we consider as there being a better way, or for anything that we say "this is better than this" we might be right (provided that it's not reflective of the grand scheme of things), but we'd be misguided in saying this is certainly the best way or this is certainly the best thing (unless of course we are referring to God) as we don't know the full potential of all things and their outcomes.

It's also not just a matter of faith. Saying that all things considered, the creation of our world is not going to amount to something maximally good, would be paradoxical. We cannot consider all things therefore we cannot understand what doing perfectly constitutes. But we can understand Existence as being perfect and doing perfectly.

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

True.

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

Can you give me an example?

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

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

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

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

(7) Only everything that exists can be omnipresent and can be almighty/omnipotent and all-knowing/omniscient because the semantics of omnipotence are not satisfied if you don't have reach or access to everything that exists. Similarly, you can't be all-knowing if you don't have reach or access to everything that exists = .✔

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agent X is omnipotent and omniscient
Agent X uses omniscience to make a prediction
Agent X uses omnipotence to obviate the accuracy of its prediction
Conclusion:
Agent X is not capable of using omniscience to make reliable predictions if its omnipotence can interfere?
The more something is free to be omnipotent, the less free it is to be omniscient (maximum omniscience is not rigid or necessarily coherent unless you can predict your own future decisions)

-----

Agent X is omnipotent and omniscient
Agent X is capable of using omnipotence to take action Y
Agent X uses omniscience to predict that it will not take action Y

Conclusion:
Agent X is not capable of taking action Y?
The more agent X wishes to be omniscient, the less it can interact with the world, and if agent X can predict its own future decisions; in a sense it is not free to do anything other than what it is destined to do, and cannot alter its own course.

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

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

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

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

Anything that is meaningful.

we don't know how long it would be

The list is endless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't about the Nordic description of God , but the Abrahamic description of God as being Almighty and All-knowing, is pretty much what I'm proposing here.

I'd say I've highlighted the nature of Existence via reason.

Well, no. Just because you cannot presently imagine how omnipotence could emerge doesn't mean that it cannot emerge. You're using an unverifiable assumption.

It’s rationally verifiable because A) you could not have omnipresence/Existence emerge from non-existence. Nor can you have something that’s within the omnipresent/Existence, to expand to the point of omnipresence (thereby substituting Existence).

The thing about omnipotence is that B) you can’t be almighty/omnipotent if you don’t have reach or access to all of Existence. This is the same as saying you can’t be omnipotent if you’re not omnipresent .

Because of A and B, omnipotence is necessarily a trait of Existence. It’s not a potential as nothing can ever become omnipresent, but it’s a meaningful concept like omnipresence. Therefore it’s necessarily a trait of Existence.

Agent X is omnipotent and omniscient
Agent X uses omniscience to make a prediction
Agent X uses omnipotence to obviate the accuracy of its prediction
Conclusion:
Agent X is not capable of using omniscience to make reliable predictions if its omnipotence can interfere?
The more something is free to be omnipotent, the less free it is to be omniscient (maximum omniscience is not rigid or necessarily coherent unless you can predict your own future decisions)

Agent X never makes predictions as that would contradict it’s omniscience. Agent X always knows. Give me an example of something that agent X would have to predict whilst bearing in mind that agent X has full access/presence to the time dimension.

Agent X is omnipotent and omniscient
Agent X is capable of using omnipotence to take action Y
Agent X uses omniscience to predict that it will not take action Y
Agent X is not capable of taking action Y?
The more agent X wishes to be omniscient, the less it can interact with the world, and if agent X can predict its own future decisions; in a sense it is not free to do anything other than what it is destined to do, and cannot alter its own course.

That which is omniscient doesn’t need to predict. It knows all things. Prediction is exclusively an act that only those who lack full knowledge/omniscience do. So I’m guessing that you might say that there can be no omnipotent being because an omnipotent being can’t predict.

There are two ways to go about addressing this point. Both ways rationally retain the definitions of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience.

Omnipresence entails that whatever we do in Existence, a part of Existence is doing it too. So if we predict, then a part of Existence is also predicting. That which is omniscient knows what it’s like to predict because a part of that which is omnipresent is predicting.

If for some reason this doesn’t satisfy you rationally, consider the second way:

That which is omnipotent never predicts

That which is omnipotent never predicts, but that’s because that which is omnipotent never lacks omniscience. But this does not render it non-omnipotent because (if the first way I proposed is rejected), your argument about prediction would ultimately amount to the following: Can that which is omnipotent, make itself non-omniscient. Which is paradoxical. Again, the definition of omnipotence is as follows:

That which can do all that is doable:

A) Making predictions whilst lacking omniscience/being a part of Existence is doable (not paradoxical)
B) Making predictions whilst being omniscient/omnipresent/the whole of Existence is paradoxical

Parts of Existence (us), make predictions. Existence as a whole, never makes predictions. But this is not the same as saying Existence never makes predictions. (Correction: Actually, I'm wrong here. Existence never makes predictions).

This isn’t a paradox in the definition of omnipotence. It’s a paradox in what is being proposed as a doable act. If you reject my first way, then what you’re proposing amounts to: can Existence be omnipresent and non-omnipresent at the same time/place. But this can never happen as all existing things in Existence lack infiniteness in terms of time and place/space. So at the same time and place is impossible as non-infinite beings cannot be in the same time/place as the infinite, whereas the infinite is in every time and place the finite are.

So Both the infinite and the finite are existing. The finite exists in the/by virtue of the infinite, and the infinite exists by virtue of being infinite.

I'm at least willing to entertain the notion of either, but once you put them together they become relative/limited/misleading/incoherent.

It would be paradoxical to separate them. You can't be omnipotent/omniscient if you're not omnipresent.

In a sense I am omnipotent because I am capable of doing all that I am capable of doing. If I was something different then I could be capable of doing different things. What kind of thing is capable of doing all the things? Can the almighty do all the things I can do, like brush my own teeth? But wouldn't it have to actually be me?

See my reply to your argument about prediction. It addresses this very point.

We don't know what a list of "all that is doable" would look like. we don't know how long it would be, how variable and changing it could be, or what would be on it. You're alluding to a set of undefined powers, the extent of which we cannot know or even consistently imagine

Of course we do, anything that is meaningful, is doable. They're not undefined/unknown like a 100th sense. They have clear meaning/definition.

How can we generate an infinitely long noodle? It's exactly the same kind of concept, and by your own logic we should be able to conclude that an infinitely long noodle necessarily exists, right?

It's not the same kind of concept. Infinity = that which has no beginning and no end. A noodle, by definition, must have a beginning. Do you agree that there is a clear difference in semantics? A distinction needs to be made between the infinite and the semi-infinite. Semi-infinite is that which has no end but has a beginning. I did not make this distinction clear in my last reply to you. I apologise.

You can have a semi-infinitely long noodle. No paradoxes in this; therefore it is a hypothetical possibility. It is not an absurdity (as is the case with a square-circle), and it is also not a necessity (as is the case with omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience)

Then I should propose an infinitely long pasta chef, so that I can use one proposition to explain why the other necessarily exists.

The non-paradoxical alternatives are that our understanding of omnipotence/omniscience, whatever they are, is flawed, or that neither of them exists.

Yes but all of this would amount to semi-infinites and not infinity. So you can have an immortal pasta chef (where immortal amounts to semi-infinite in the time dimension) and a semi-infinitely long noodle. Everything, that isn't omnipresent is either semi-infinite or finite. Only the infinite can be omnipotent/omniscient/ominpresent.

Omnipotence = that which can do all that is doable

Then we're good :)

Yes it obviously does. You can't tickle someone if you're not there.

Do you see the difference between being present and being omnipresent? Being present is not the same as being omnipresent (present everywhere)

I don't understand what that means at all

It means the universe is finite. It's not omnipresent like Existence is. The universe exists in Existence. The universe is not Existence. It's like saying that the universe is present in the omnipresent. If you're present in the omnipresent, then you're not omnipresent are you? You're just present.

Quantum mechanics has things popping in and out of existence

No it doesn't. Show me one credible source that says something like virtual particles pop in and out of existence. They may pop in and out of our universe/reality, but they certainly don't go into non-existence and then come back into existence. What bridges/borders Existence and non-existence? Do you see how this amounts to a paradox?

as well as existing in multiple locations at the same time

There's nothing paradoxical about this

and sometimes overlapping

I don't see what's paradoxical about things overlapping in Existence but you can't have something overlap Existence itself. Do you see the difference?

If X is Existence, then Y can't be Existence as well.

Seriously? Ok then, I define a new word. Omniticklishness. An omniticklish being is a being that tickles all beings to death in whatever universe it is in (is omnipresent) and of which one instance exists. Since an omniticklish being exists by definition, and since it has meaning, an omniticklish being exists. Ok now why am I not dead?

There's a clear difference between being omnipresent, and being present. No finite beings can ever be omnipresent, so they can only be present. Agreed?

Our universe is finite. So it can't be infinite can it? And if it can't be infinite, it can't be that which is omnipresent/Existence can it? So your word, omniticklish doesn't require omnipresence in it's definition does it? Omnipotence and omniscience do require omnipresence. You can't be omnipotent if you're limited to a finite presence can you? You can't be omniscient if you don't have reach and access to all of Existence/omnipresence can you?

Do you see the difference between omniticklish and omniscient/omnipotent?

No universes can be omnipresent, so you're word omniticklish is at best, a hypothetical possibility/potential.

Yes. Fields in physics for example.

Dude, I think you make the mistake of viewing our universe as Existence. This would be blatantly paradoxical.

And I'd like to reiterate that even in our universe (or any universe for that matter), you cannot have two things be present in the same location at the same time. That is paradoxical. If A is in location xyz at time t, how can B also be in location xyz at time t? Such a paradox is meaningless so it could never be a theory or a part of science.

Incorrect. You yourself said that meaning means something EITHER exists OR is a potentiality so you can't say that because it has meaning it exists.

I'm not just saying because it has meaning it exists. Check my reply to you on the difference between omniticklish and omnipotence/omniscience.

You also went from "you can't be omniscient if you're not omnipresent" to "since an omnipresent being exists, it must be omniscient" which is false. It's like saying "you have to have a horn to be a unicorn and since horns exist therefore unicorns must exist". You've already made this fallacy before but I let it slide

See my response to your comments on omniticklish. If that doesn't clarify, let me know.

I concede that you need consciousness for knowledge but omniscience does not follow from omnipotence or omnipresence. We only agreed on omnipotence and omnipresence, not omniscience.

You can't be omniscient if you're not omnipresent. So either there has never been and there never will be an omniscient being, or there has always been and there always will be an omniscient being. If omniscient is meaningful, then that means something has always been and will always be omniscient, otherwise you'd have the paradox.

Why?? Isn't that begging the question?

How is it begging the question?

You already assumed that x and y could not coexist when you said: "That's like a thing being two different things at the same time". Why did you say A THING, not THINGS?

Can two things exist in the same place at the same time? Existence/that which is omnipresent is everywhere. This means it covers all space and time. So how can you have two omnipresent beings/Existences?

unless you define omnipresent as: "Exists everywhere and of which there is one instance" but we did not define it like that

Dude, that's what my definition amounted to. I always maintained that there is one Existence/Omnipresent being. Do you see the paradox now?

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

I'm not sure what you are saying there. It kind of sounds like you are sneaking in the idea that existence is a kind of space in which everything that exists is located. I'm not convinced that's the best way to think about existence.

If Existence isn't some kind of thing, then what is it? Non-existence? Do you see the paradox?

"(3) We are fully dependent on existence"

We wouldn't exist if we didn't exist. But I don't really want to think about existence as something separate from existing things upon which they are all dependent.

There isn't an alternative though. Something has to sustain all existing things otherwise all existing things would be separated by non-existence (which is absurd). So, that which is all-existing/omnipresent sustains all existing things. Existence; we are in it, but we are not it.

"(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows"

We can certainly imagine counterfactual possibilities that don't actually exist. I can think of a square circle, even if I can't visualize it with my mind's eye. I can imagine Madrid being the capital of France.

Both a square, and a circle have meaning. But the statement: something that is a square and a circle at the same time is absurd. We understand what amounts to the paradox. This is not the same as understanding the paradox. Do we agree on this?

Madrid cannot be the capital of both France and Spain at the same time. This amounts to a paradox. It conclusively amounts to something that is not understandable/meaningful.

"(5) Given 4, anything that is either rational/comprehensible/understandable, necessarily belongs to existence (existence accommodates it; as in either it is necessarily existent, or existence has the potential to create it or produce it."

Are you including the realm of possibility in what you call "existence", so that anything imaginable must therefore be a possibility and all possibilities are somehow real?

I'm unclear on what the relationship is between conceivability, possibility and existence. I think that we might be sliding over some serious metaphysical questions there.

None of what I'm proposing here is beyond what reason gives us access to.

Think about the following: Can you think of something that is meaningful but can never exist? If you see how this always amounts to a paradox, you will reach the following conclusion:

Existence being infinite and eternal means that it has the potential to produce all potentials (hypothetical possibilities)

So I'm just skeptical that human beings represent the apex of all possible cognition. There may be space-aliens out there that are as far beyond humans as humans are beyond clams, able to conceive of aspects of reality that we can never even imagine.

I agree. Our understanding of Existence is not complete, but it is sufficient.

We know that Existence is all-existing/omnipresent. We know it has the potential to produce all hypothetical possibilities (some of which, our imagination has access to). But we don't know, for example, if it can sustain an alien being with a 100 senses (this is what we don't have access to). These are unknowns to us and therefore we cannot apply reason to them. But existence being infinite and eternal is not unknown. It is necessary.

"(6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational concepts that we have an understanding of. So Existence must accomodate these concepts. As highlighted by 5, to deny this is to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing."

I certainly don't want to agree that anything that I can imagine must therefore exist. I think that we have the power to generate ideas, but that doesn't guarantee that something corresponding to the idea exists.

Yes but that's not what I'm proposing. There is a clear distinction between that which is hypothetically possible and that which is necessary. I'll try and demonstrate what I mean:

1) All meaningful things are possible
2) This means that existence has the potential to produce them

So I imagine a unicorn. This doesn't mean that unicorns are real, it means that it's possible for them to be real. An infinite and eternal existence can easily bring about a universe filled with unicorns.

3) All meaningful concepts fall into two categories: The potential (unicorns) and the necessary (Existence/omnipresence)

So necessary concepts like Existence aren't hypothetical possibilities. They are by default, have always been and will always be, existing.

4) We understand omnipotence. Our understanding dictates that only that which is omnipresent can be omnipotent.

5) You cannot have something become omnipresent/Existence from a non-omnipresent state.

6) So it is impossible for something to become omnipotent.

7) Therefore either omnipotence is absurd, or it is necessarily a trait of Existence.

8) Omnipotence is not absurd, so Existence/that which is omnipresent is omnipotent.

Omnipotence is different to something like a unicorn or Zeus. Existence has the potential to produce these beings but it does not have the potential to produce something omnipresent because it is itself omnipresent and you cannot have two omnipresent beings. Similarly, Existence cannot produce an omnipotent being because omnipotence requires omnipresence. So either that which is omnipresent is by default omnipotent (has always been and will always be) or omnipotence is an impossibility/absurdity/paradox. But just as omnipresence is clearly not paradoxical, omnipotence is also not paradoxical.

Do you see any paradoxes?

What's more, what about the familiar old chestnut: Can God (supposedly omnipotent) create a task too difficult for God to perform? If he can create an impossible task, then there's something he can't do (the task), and if he can't create such a task, there's something he can't do (create the task). So omnipotence would seem to fall prey to logical problems much as 'square circle' does.

The definition omnipotence is that which can do all that is doable. Saying something like can God/Existence do...and then follow it up with a paradox/irrationality/meaninglessness does not amount to something that can be done. It amounts to a paradox.

It's like saying can God know what it's like to exist and not exist at the same time. Or can God know what a square-circle is. If there are no such things to be known, then they are irrelevant to being omniscient are they not?

Similarly, saying can God create a square-circle is like saying can God do what is not doable. The definition of omnipotence is meaningful and without paradox. The statement: can a being do what is not doable, is paradoxical.

What is the problem with absurdity?

It means we used reason wrong somewhere. Think about the usage of language in every context. Law, science, maths, conversation with friends. Whenever what we say amounts to a paradox, It creates problems. Unless of course, the goal is humour. Chuck Norris once finished Super Mario without pressing the jump button once (that's absurd, but it may be funny depending on your sense of humour)

We say that guy's the killer but his alibi is solid (so he can't be the killer otherwise it would be paradoxical)

We make an observation that a particle is going in and out of Existence. We can't accept a bridge to non-existence so we say: Either our observation is faulty or incomplete. Incomplete in that perhaps the particle went to a another reality or dimension that we are unaware of.

We find ourselves with access to reason and we find it dictating things with authority. Of course we can deny it by saying things like I saw a square-circle, but nothing would make sense. Absurdity is literally the conclusive absence of meaning. It's literally absolute non-existence.

We can pick and mix what part of reason we adhere to but that creates problems. Things like war and poverty are the cause of our failure to fully adhere to reason. The world has enough to meet everyone's needs, not everyone's greed. It's because some pick and mix when they want to adhere to reason (purely because their desire is in excess of their will-power to exercise reason) that we have such problems.

Because the 'the opposite' of something cannot be true... This makes it true? And so a schizophrenic who sees a man walking in the hallway shouting at him or her, who is made to become aware that there was 'actually' no such thing that happened becomes to know through therapy that this is true and that the opposite of such a truth is false, which would be the nonexistence of such a truth

Yes, but this has to be correctly exercised. Reason dictates that a schizophrenic man (provided that what he describes is accurate) is actually seeing what he says he's saying. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean he can't. There is no paradox here. Only an unknown/unobservable for us and a known/observable for him. Rationally we cannot deny him as we have no way of observing what he observes and no paradox to counter him with. So we cannot deny him as it is not an instance of paradox. If he said something like I can see a square-circle, then we deny him and think that he is just inaccurately describing what he is seeing.

Him claiming to see something that we can't see (a man shouting) is an unknown. Him claiming to see a square-circle, is paradoxical.Paradoxes and unknowns are not the same.

The opposite of something is not nothing. Something is in itself something: the opposite of it would have to be something.

I agree. But paradoxes aren't opposites of things. They are the incorrect use of language that generate meaninglessness. Like a square-circle. Like the existence of non-existence. Non-existence is not the opposite of Existence. It is the negation of Existence which is absurd.

Existence, furthermore, is the only reality. There is no reality without existence, and no existence without reality. The two are tied together, and neither goes farther than the other.

If our reality or universe ends, does that mean Existence ends? I know for sure that even after our reality ends, Existence would continue to exist. Perhaps Existence creates other realities/beings (This, I don't know) Again, reason clearly distinguishes between that which is unknown and that which is paradoxical/irrational

Existence being infinite? I am really not sure what this means. What is infinity but a demarcation of a lack of further insight? Is infinity not absolutely incomprehensible? It is obviously a concept. But because we have a concept for something... this does not make it any more understood. Heidegger took this very premise and wrote Being and Time. If existence is infinite then it must be imcomprehensible, and furthermore reason must be a reductio ad infinitum... Reduction ad absurdum, if a may... And therefore reason itself is absurd...

There is a clear difference between 1) understanding something completely, 2) understanding something sufficiently, 3) not understanding something.

Infinity is not 3, it is 2. Your understanding of our Universe, is not 3, and it's not 1, so it's 2.

If reason itself is absurd, then how is anything at all meaningful? How are we able to use language to communicate if reason is absurd? As I mentioned in the first paragraph of this post, we find ourselves with access to reason and we recognise that it dictates things with authority that we cannot deny rationally. To doubt or to deny reason is paradoxical is it not?

If we truly believe that reason is absurd, then any activity that involves using reason is an act of hypocrisy.

Because I am not deluded by the seemingly necessary distinction between subject and object, which has been reconciled in the principle of intentionality, explained by Husserl originally but culminated in Sartre, I think.

Again, we find ourselves with access to reason and it dictates things with authority. We would be deluded/irrational to deny reason the authority it dictates. We cannot rationally deny an infinite Existence and we cannot pick and mix when we acknowledge reason and when we don't. We would be grossly inconsistent.

Which brings me back to reiterating that there is absolutely no synthetic a priori truth per reason itself, as if it could be proven... An example of this is 7 + 5 = 12. The 'conclusion' '12' is obviously synthetic and true absent of experience, which would render 12 a posteriori. But this truth, the course of which 12 is reached by this synthetic a priori method is quite different than what would be easily understood logically, piece by piece, causally, concatenated like what would be analytic a priori or synthetic a posteriori.

7+5=12 is something that is necessarily known and will always be the case without fail. What 7 things plus 5 equals 12 is a different matter. A matter of potential that is.

You can have 7 ducks and add another 5 ducks to get 12 ducks (this is aposteriori)

Aposteriori is essentially a matter of potential. Apriori is that which is necessary and always the case.

How does reason dictate that there is a difference between sensing something and understanding something? What would reason be without a posteriori 'knowledge?' Existence is known through sensation. Understanding is precisely sensation. "I sense that is correct." Or perhaps this is a vague, worthless metaphor?

Because it shows us that we understand things that we have not sensed or experienced. Our existence is experienced. Our experiences include sensation such as sight, yet we don't deny what we see. Our existence/experiences also include reason. And reason dictates with clear authority that we are not Existence. We are in Existence. It also dictates that Existence is infinite because it highlights the absurdity in something coming from nothing. Why deny reason here?

We have access to sight. We see further with telescopes because our sight is limited. What exists is not limited by our eyesight. We don't deliberately limit our own eyesight with regards to how far it can see.

We have access to reason. Just as we don't deliberately limit the application of our sight with regards to how far it can see, we shouldn't deliberately limit the application of our reason, which is what we would be doing every time we deny something that is meaningful/rational as not being meaningful/rational.

It would be like seeing something clearly, and then denying that we're seeing it.

You also CAN have knowledge without consciousness, like a computer so consciousness is not necessary for either omnipotence nor omnipresence.

Dude, you can have information on a computer just as you can have information on a piece of paper. You need a conscious being to understand the information. Understanding information is knowledge. Information on its own is not knowledge.

So omnipresence doesn't amount to omniscience or omnipotence if it lacks consciousness.

I still don't agree with the impossibility of multiple omnipresent beings existing at the same time

Dude, consider this:
A square-circle = Something that is both a square and a circle at the same time. This is absurd. Right?
Having a circle inside a square at the same time is fine.

So, if x is omnipresent and y is omnipresent. That's like a thing being two different things at the same time. That's like a square-circle. Do you see the paradox? It doesn't matter what y or x is, it can never be both...at the same time.

Also, your definition of "perfect" will never be grasped by a human because we don't know "God's plan" so to say and so you cannot assign moral perfection to your God. It is a morally ambiguous force of nature, in other words the laws of physics, not God, that you have proven

We know what true perfection is objectively because any other definition than the one I've given would be paradoxical. Our understanding of true perfection is not complete but it is sufficient. This is the same for our understanding of Existence. Our understanding of it is not complete (how many different sense/dimensions does it sustain?) but it is sufficient (It is all-existining/omnipresent)

Now as for the supposed "paradoxes" with two or more omnipresent omnipotent beings, think of it as the law of gravity and the law of electromagnetism.

You're saying two different things can be omnipresent. If the law of gravity is x an the law of electromagnetism is y, then either these laws have no presence or if they have presence then only one of them is omnipresent because rejecting it is like saying something can be x all over and y all over at the same time. Do you see the paradox?

They're both omnipotent and omnipresent and they interact with each other without destroying each other. The ONLY properties we agree on for this being so far is 1) omnipotence, 2) omnipresence. Nothing there says "desire to be the only God" or "envy" or "bitterness". Omnipotence and omnipresence does not encompass those properties so no, 2 Gods wouldn't destory each other according to our definition of a God so far

Omnipotence requires omnipresence and you can only have one omnipresent being.

I never said the laws of physics demonstrate the existence of God, I said that the laws of physics ARE God as you've proven. They're omnipotent, omnipresent and perfect by definition but that does not make them morally good or bad. You've said in your original comment that those attributes are attached later (and I don't think they should be). We only agree on the existence of an omnipotent omnipresent being, which is the laws of physics

You can't be omniscient if you lack consciousness. You can't be omnipotent if you lack consciousness.

God is perfect and so God does perfectly. Anything other than this is paradoxical.

It might be worth mentioning the following: People fault our universe as containing pain and suffering. The short version of how this does not contradict God doing perfectly is that whilst we know what being perfect constitutes (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, eternal) and what doing perfectly constitutes (God doing it), we also know that we lack omniscience and so we know we can't fully understand why our creation is the best that it can be. It's unknown to us, but not absurd. On the other hand, the perfect being doing imperfectly, is absurd. Absurdities are impossible, unknowns are not impossible.

So something like our full potential and the best way/environment to bring about our full potential, is unknown to us. Reason is clear, we don't deal with unknowns. We deal with knowns: God does perfectly.

We are within a Monad but we are not Monad.

I would say, instead, that we are indeed existence.

You can't because it's paradoxical/meaningless. We are in Existence is not paradoxical, nor is it the same.

There is an infinite series of images that could constitute the whole of something, nevertheless unless one is referring to those empty husks (Hegel), the essence of something can be ascertained in the apprehension of any hemimorphic crystallization of it the base of which is clearly different. And as we are inevitably referring to being as hylomorphic, a glimpse into our existence as separate from 'Existenz,' we are a piece of which can be seen to be of form, and unmistakable differentiation, But it is not that we are separate. We are it. Are we to resort to Lacan's "I think where I am not therefore I am where I do not think."? If we, in any sense, take Lacan's statement as containing some sort of truthfulness, then the idea that pure reason constitutes a substantiation of the idea that we are not existence but rather of something else the truth of which is shown in pure reason (thought) is clearly not well based. I agree with Lacan in this regard. We are not nothing. But are everything we are not, and are not what we are... And that is precisely existence.

Existence and reality are not the same thing. That would be paradoxical. Different realities/potentials exist in Existence/the necessary. We can empirically observe that which is in our reality (the stuff we sense) we can theorise and describe these observations so long as they never ever amount to paradoxes like a particle going in an out of Existence. Going into another dimension or reality is fine, but certainly cannot say going into non-existence (absurd). Reason and language clearly dictate 4 categories: The necessary, the potential, the absurd and the unknown.

I think the mistake you make is that you treat Existence and reality as having the same semantics. Existence being infinite, has the potential to generate all hypothetical possibilities (see how this is paradox free?) Now if you consider any alternative to this, I guarantee you absurdity.

Reason dictates that Existence is not beyond what can be sensed. It is beyond/more than what we can sense but reason dictates that sensing something and understanding something are two different things. We understand that Existence may have aspects that we are unaware of (this is not paradoxical). 1) Reason tells us that we don't know if Existence has the potential to generate/sustain a being with a 100 senses, but we know it can generate/sustain a unicorn. 1 is not something that we sense, it is something that we understand.

We understand that there is Existence, because non-existence is absurd. We understand that Existence is infinite, because Existence being finite/us is absurd. So reason clearly dictates and demonstrates that we understand Existence is infinite (therefore, beyond/greater than our senses, as we are not infinite/Existence) Do you see the circle of truth?

Why not? There is no contradiction in 2 or more omnipresent beings. I read your premise based argument and it sounds to me like you're proving "existence" is omnipresent and omnipotent and I'm like "duh". I thought you set out to prove the existence of God but you proved the existence of the laws of physics. You cannot assign perfection to this entity you just proved, all you know, is that it knows everything, is everywhere and can do everything possible. That sounds like the laws of physics more than God to me. I totally agree with you if that's the case.

How can there be no contradiction in 2 or more omnipresent beings? Can you have two separate existences? What are they separated by, non-existence? Is this not absurd/paradoxical?

Then the laws of physics clearly demonstrate the existence of God do they not? Is God anything other than omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite and eternal? If the laws of physics demonstrate this, then they are in line with reason.

Furthermore, knowledge is human, and reason is human, and there is nothing that proves that reason is infallible

My argument hinges on pure reason. Pure reason dictates that whilst we are in Existence, we are not Existence. To say that we are Existence is paradoxical.

Reason is not human just as sight is not human. We have access to these things. Reason is infallible. If reason wasn't infallible, then one day the definition of a triangle would be x another day it would be y. But this is never the case. Reason is infallible, our use of it is fallible.

Saying that it is rational that 'something' singular could be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent seems to be overstepping our boundary of knowledge.

We're not overstepping the boundary of our knowledge because these concepts have clear and sufficient meaning. If they made no sense like a square-circle or were entirely unknown like a being with 100 senses, then yes, we'd either be overstepping the boundary of our knowledge or falsely believing that absurdities were meaningful.

Reason clearly shows that rejecting omnipresence is absurd/paradoxical. We'd be failing reason by rejecting what it highlights to us as clearly paradoxical. If you acknowledge my argument, omnipotence and omniscience cannot be rationally denied either.

This primacy of knowledge is an illusion lest one dissolves into an idealism or realism, which is the source of endless philosophical debate devoid of coherent conclusion and thus completely absent of any knowledge.

I strongly disagree with this. Just because some gave up on reaching a paradox-free view of Existence, doesn't mean there isn't one for reason to show us.

But what dictates reason?

Humans don't have magical access to an infallible set of axiomatic laws from which we can reason, we have to first discover and model those laws, and therein lies the fallibility.

Reason itself is infallible otherwise using it would be absurd/paradoxical. One day reason would say the definition of a triangle is x another day it says something different. Reason is always right without fail. Our usage of it, is fallible. For example, when we say that Existence is finite, and think that this has meaning, it's like we haven't used reason at all because reason would always show that such a thing is paradoxical. Does reason tell you anything different to this?

don't know how premises and a conclusion can be true but pertain to something which does not exist, so by virtue of that alone, no./quote]

True. The statement that something can be meaningful but can never exist, is paradoxical. I meant to shift focus towards this paradox as it highlights the importance of Existence necessarily accommodating all meaningful things/having the potential to generate/produce all meaningful things

You say that omniscience and omnipotence are "meaningful" concepts, but do they rationally follow from true premises?

I believe so. Correct me if you see an error with any of the premises. 1) All meaningful/rational things are devoid of paradoxes
2) Omnipotence = that which can do all that is doable, Omniscience = that which knows all that is knowable
3) These are meaningful/understandable definitions (if you think the concepts are paradoxical, please demonstrate how it is impossible for something to be omnipotent/omniscient)
4) Any alternative definition would amount to something entirely different
5) Given 4, these definitions are accurate

I can draw a picture of a battery next to the symbol for infinity, but that doesn't show I comprehend whatever it omnipotence is. "The power do do anything that is doable" isn't sufficient; we don't know what is or isn't doable so we don't know what omnipotence is.

We don't have a picture of omnipresence/Existence yet we understand/comprehend it. We don't need to have a picture of omnipotence, we just need to understand it. You say the definition is insufficient. Consider this:

Existence/omnipresence = that which is all-existing
Omnipotence = that which is almighty (that which can do all that is doable)

I acknowledge that we don't have a full understanding of these class of concepts, but we do have a sufficient understanding of these concepts. I'll demonstrate:

We don't know if Existence can accommodate beings with a 100 senses or not. We don't know if such beings are possible. But this does not render our understanding of Existence as insufficient to the point that we don't understand what it is. Does it?

The same applies to omnipotence and omniscience. We have a sufficient understanding but it is not complete. We know that that which is omnipotent/Existence can generate a world with unicorns but we don't know if it can generate a being with a 100 senses.

Do you see where I'm coming from? To say that our understanding of omnipotence is insufficient is just like saying our understanding of omnipresence is insufficient. They are the exact same class of concepts that describe/denote the same semantical gap/thing

So you agree that your argument would also establish the existence of an infinitely long pasta noodle?

It establishes the possibility/potential of an infinitely long pasta noodle being produced by Existence. This concept is a potential/hypothetical possibility. This is not the same class of concepts as omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience that can't be produced/generated. They just necessarily are. An infinitely long pasta noodle does not rationally require to be omnipresent, but omnipotence/omniscience do and since nothing can ever become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state, that which is omnipresent, has necessarily always been omnipotent/omniscient and will always be omnipotent/omniscient. Can you see how any alternative to this would be paradoxical?

How do you know other definitions are paradoxical?

I've tried and I discover that omnipotence is just like omnipresence. You cannot define omnipresence as anything other than that which is all-existing/present everywhere/that which sustains all that is sustainable. You cannot define omnipotence as anything other than that which is almighty (able to do all that is doable) If you can define it differently, then please share your definition.

Mandela lifting a car is not a paradox. Mandela is a coherent and non-paradoxical definition for omnipotence. Why not?

Mandela being omnipotent is paradoxical because in order for something to be omnipotent, it needs to be able to have reach and access to everything. In other words, omnipotence requires omnipresence. Only Existence is omnipresent. Mandela can never become omnipresent/Existence. In fact, nothing can ever become omnipresent/omnipotent from a non-omnipresent state. Omnipresence has always been omnipresent and will always be omnipresent. Anything other than this is paradoxical, is it not?

To better understand my view of reason and language, have a quick read of this if you have time:

Language is essentially made up of words that label semantical gaps. For example the Arabic word salam means peace in English. Here the semantical gap is what the words salam and peace refer to. There is an infinite amount of semantical gaps available.

It is important to note that just as there is only one existence, there is only one set of semantical gaps. Anyone that has awareness of semantical gaps or can focus on semantical gaps is aware of or focusing on the only set available in existence. How much of that set or which part of that set one focuses on or has access to may differ but the set itself has always been the same and will always be the same. So any suggestion that rational agents can have two different sets of semantical gaps is absurd. It would be like suggesting there can be two existences. Whilst there can be more than one reality, there cannot be more than one existence. I can create my own language, but I cannot create my own semantical gaps. I can only attach labels or sounds to the semantical gaps available in existence.

Even if I try to create my own concepts, for example a unidragon (a hybrid of unicorn and dragon) I haven't created this concept, I've essentially focused on a semantical gap available in existence and labelled it. If I then draw a picture of a unidragon and show it to people who speak different languages, they will probably label it differently but the semantical gap that their mind would focus on would either be exactly the same or at the very least, sufficiently similar to the one that I had focused on when drawing the picture and attaching the label unidragon to the semantical gap in question.

To be fair, even the label unidragon that I've attached to this semantical gap is what existence allows me to produce. There is a spectrum in terms of the sounds or words that any existent being can produce. Humans have their own limits. What sound or word you attach to a semantical gap is up to you. You can even change these labels as you please, however what you cannot do is alter the available semantical gaps. You'd require a different existence for that, and there is only one existence. Anything other than this is absurd.

I see what you're saying. In order to better communicate what I'm saying, let's leave the concept of perfection for now and perhaps come back to it later. Consider the following premises:

(1) There is existence/Existence exists

(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 either rational/comprehensible/understandable, necessarily belongs to existence (existence accommodates it; as in either it is 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 either irrational or incomprehensible 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 never exist. Such phrases are absurd and makes no sense)

(6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational 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. Therefore, either:

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

(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.

Do you see any problems with the argument?

A square circle. It is not, as some think, a contradiction in terms because a circle is defined as the set of all points on a two-dimensional surface that are equidistant from a point called the 'centre', and a square is defined as a shape on a two-dimensional surface that consists of four 'straight' (geodesic) paths that meet at right angles.

So this is contradictory then is it not? You cannot have a square-circle. Right?

It can be proven that no such shape can exist but, because it is not a contradiction in terms (in Kant's terminology, the fact that it cannot exist is not an a priori truth), one can imagine it existing, and what one imagines is meaningful.

If something is a square, how can it be a circle at the same time? How can this be imagined in any way whatsoever? You can have a square, and then have a circle inside that square. No problems with it being meaningful here but to have a square that is also a circle at the same time generates absurdity/paradox/meaninglessness.

I would agree with you... But this would render existence incomprehensible, would it not? For all we have for certain is our own existences, existences in concern for existence.

Reason is a part of our existence. It authoritatively dictates things without compromise such as: you cannot use reason to doubt reason as that would be paradoxical. Reason dictates paradoxes are unacceptable. Are we in agreement on this?

Our understanding of Existence is not complete. But it is sufficient.

For example we know that Existence has to be defined in the following way: Existence = that which is all-existing. We also know that it has to be infinite and eternal. We know these things because reason dictates that the contrary would be paradoxical. I'll demonstrate:

A temporally finite Existence amounts to something coming from nothing (paradox). A spatially finite existence amounts to existence bordering non-existence (paradox). Existence not being omnipresent/all existing entails that existent things can be separate by non-existence (paradox).

These are examples of things we know for certain. They are certain because as demonstrated, reason dictates it. They suffice in saying that we have a sufficient understanding of Existence.

Our understanding is not complete because, for example we don't know if Existence can accommodate beings with a 100 senses or not. We don't know if such beings are possible. We don't know if existence has the potential to generate such beings. But this does not render our understanding of Existence as false. Does it?

The same applies to omnipotence and omniscience. We have a sufficient understanding but it is not complete. We know that that which is omnipotent = that which is almighty/can do all that is doable. We know this because reason dictates any other definition to be paradoxical.

We don't know if that which is omnipotent can produce a being with a 100 senses or not. We know it has the potential to produce unicorns but we don't know if it can create a creature with a 100 senses.

So, does this render our understanding of omnipotence as false?

But is omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence a rational concept? I think this premise is taken for granted.[/quote]
I've not taken that premise for granted. If you can think of any problems with the concepts, then let me know. I'm confident in my ability to give rational replies.

Reason as we know it is a human-invented heuristic that is refined on reliability of predictions.

In a way you're sayingreason determines truth, but empirically and epistemologically it's the other way around

We use reason to make sense of our observations, it's not the other way round. We have paradigm shifts in science and we alter the foundations of science every time we make an observation that reason dictates as being paradoxical/at odds with the rest of the scientific theory we're working with when making the observation.

It's not just science. Whenever we use language, (be it in science, maths, law, any field for that matter) we acknowledge that we cannot have absurdities/paradoxes. We don't dictate this, reason dictates this. It's a correct/sound circle.

Apriori we cannot actually know the rules of logic. We might be capable of imagining worlds where A=A, but until we actually check that against the real world, how can we know we've imagined it correctly?

Apriori we can categories everything in the following way. Necessary (Any thing which has always existed and will always exist, for example: Existence/that which is omnipresent) potential (Any thing that can change in existence/things that existence has the potential to bring about. Examples include: trees, humans unicorns, a super mutant Nelson Mandela etc. Unknowns (a 10th sense) and Absurdities (a married-bachelor, non-existence, a bendy-straight line etc.)

From an empirical point of view, we don't know if there are unicorns in our universe. But apriori, we know that unicorns can exist. As in the potential for them to exist is there. Not simply because they may be in our universe and we haven't observed them yet, but simply because reason dictates the following to be paradoxical: You cannot think of something meaningful that can never exist.

This, along with so many other ways that paradoxes occur (such as something coming from nothing) dictates that Existence is necessarily infinite and eternal. With it being such, we can see how all hypothetical possibilities are possible. How the potential is there for every meaningful/paradoxless concept/story/sentence/universe/world/reality to come to pass or be generated.

In this way, we avoid so many paradoxes which is absolutely necessary for the correct use of reason.

Are you capable of imagining infinite power? Are you capable of imagining infinite presence and awareness?/quote]
I cannot understand Existence as being finite as that would be paradoxical. That being said, just as I can understand an infinite Existence, I can understand Infinite power/awareness/presence. These phrases are not paradoxical like asquare-circle or something coming from nothing which no one can ever understand. Nor is it like a 10th sense which is unknown.

I could propose a quality like "omni-pasta" which describes a noodle quality of infinite length. Could I carry on with your argument and conclude that a noodle must exist out there somewhere of infinite length?

In an infinite existence why would you not be able to have something that is infinitely long? Where would there be a paradox in that, it seems to have meaning does it not? So the potential for something to be infinitely long is there.

What are your definitions of omniscience and omnipotence? What makes them sound definitions?

Omnipotence (that which can do all that is doable)
Omniscience (that which knows all that there is to know)

They are sound because any other definition is paradoxical. They are paradox free because they contain no paradoxes. Where is there a paradox?

It is important to note that I am not proposing that our understanding of these class of concepts is complete. I am proposing that our understanding of these concepts are sufficient. For example our understanding of Existence/omnipresence is sufficient. It = that which is all-existing. Omnipotence = that which is almighty (can do all that is doable)

We don't have a full understanding of omnipotence just as we don't have a full understanding of omnipresence/existence but our understanding is sufficient. We don't know if Existence has a 100th sense or not, but we know that it's all-existing. We don't know if that which is omnipotent can create a being with a 100 senses or not, but we know that it's almighty.

Here's the rub: If Mandela actually turns up and lifts 25,000 pound bus, instead of concluding that we live in an absurd universe, we would instead need to alter our clearly incorrect science and system of reasons which alleges it to be impossible (we would need to investigate).

Reason dictates that we would be forced to change the semantics such that the science and the math add up simply because reason and Existence are not absurd. Non-existence or the incorrect usage of reason is absurd/irrational/paradoxical.

If there were an adequate substantiation of the existence of God, there would absolutely be no contrary argument!

True. All counter arguments against God would only amount to paradox/absurdity.

Ok, forget what Descartes said. I'll put my argument in a premise by premise format. Tell me which premise is paradoxical or false and how.

(1) There is existence/Existence exists

(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 either rational/comprehensible/understandable, necessarily belongs to existence (existence accommodates it; as in either it is 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 either irrational or incomprehensible 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 never exist. Such phrases are absurd and makes no sense)

(6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational 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. Therefore, either:

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

(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.

This is what your argument sounds like to me
P1: If the mind can think of it it either exists or CAN exist
P2: The mind can think of an omnipotent being
P3: An omnipotent being exists or CAN exist
P4: The mind can think of an omnipotent being
C: An omnipotent being exists

You miss out some key premises:
P5: Only that which is omnipresent can be omnipotent
P6: Nothing can ever become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state
P7: Because of P5 and P6, nothing can ever become omnipotent from a non-omnipresent state
P8: P1 states that either A) omnipotence exists or B) something can become omnipotent. Because B is false, A must be true.
P9: Existence is omnipresent and omnipotent.

The reason it can't be 1 is because we have an understanding of omnipotence"

I don't get the last statement. I thought it was because we understand it it can EITHER be 1 or 2. For example, my understanding of a rainbow crapping unicorn is real, but the unicorn is only a potentiality, I have no way to confirm that it exists. Similarly, my understanding of omnipotence is real yet I cannot confirm that an omnipotent being exists. It is only a potentiality. You keep asserting it cannot be and I don't understand why

Because it would be paradoxical. I'll demonstrate. Any step you disagree with, let me know:

0) All absurd/contradictory things are necessarily non-existent and will always be non-existent
1) You cannot have something that has meaning but can never exist
2) Provided that unicorns crapping rainbows is not paradoxical/contradictory, the concept/idea/sentence/item of thought has meaning.
4) Because it has meaning, it can exist
5) An infinite existence/that which is omnipresent has the potential to generate a universe/reality that contains unicorns crapping rainbows.

No paradoxes encountered. Reason has been adhered to. Now apply reason to omnipotence:

0) All absurd/contradictory things are necessarily non-existent and will always be non-existent
1) You cannot have something that has meaning but can never exist
2) Provided that omnipotence is not paradoxical/contradictory, the concept/idea/sentence/item of thought has meaning.
4) Because it has meaning, it can exist
5) An infinite existence/that which is omnipresent DOES NOT HAVE the potential to generate a universe/reality that contains omnipotence because omnipotence requires omnipresence and that which is omnipresent cannot create another omnipresent being

Paradox encountered. There is a problem with 4. Reasoning has not yet been complete with regards to this concept. So we continue:

Give 0 and give 1, just as Existence/that which is omnipresent necessarily exists/must exist, that which is omnipotence necessarily exists/must exist too. Existence is necessarily omnipotent.

5 determines that 4 is wrong. Because of 0, 1 and 2, 4 must be changed to: 4) Because it has meaning, it must exist

Do you see the difference?

A unicorn can be a potentiality. But omnipotence cannot. That's the key difference.
Me: How so?

Because you can have Existence generate/produce a unicorn. But can Existence generate/produce Existence/omnipresence? In other words can something become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state?

For something to become omnipotent, it needs to become omnipresent. But nothing can ever become omnipresent. So either that which is omnipresent is omnipotent, or it is not. If that which is omnipresent is not omnipotent, then omnipotence cannot be a potentiality.

Do you see how omnipotence cannot be a potentiality?

Don't forget, you cannot have something that has meaning but can never exist. That just leaves one option: That which is omnipresent is omnipotent.

I'll try and highlight the difference as best as I can by comparing:

A) An omnipotent being must exist or have the potential for existing
A) A unicorn must exist or have the potential for existing
Both sentence are true.

B) Only that which has a horn can be a unicorn
B) Only that which is omnipresent can be omnipotent
Again, both true.

C) Since horns exist, a unicorn must exist and not just be a potentiality
I think false. You can have horns exist and then have unicorns come into existence independently of those horns. Right? If yes, then C is false. Do we agree?

A unicorn can be a potentiality. But omnipotence cannot. That's the key difference.

Don't forget, you cannot have something that has meaning but can never exist. If you think you can, give me an example. With that in mind, let's look at C:

C) Since omnipotence has meaning and it cannot be potentiality, then it is necessarily existing

Do you see the difference?

Unicorns have meaning. They are a potentiality which is the same as saying they are hypothetically possible. So we can rationally account for how Existence accommodates them.

Omnipotence has meaning but it is not a potentiality, so how does Existence accommodate it? The same way it accommodates omnipresence. Existence necessarily is omnipresent and omnipotent.

Having an understanding of any concept means that it's not absurd. Which means that it's not like a square-circle that can never ever exist...so either it has to be able to come into existence, or it necessarily exists. Unicorns can come into existence, omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence cannot.

Omnipotence = that which can do all that is doable. There is no contradiction in this definition.

Now, something that is paradoxical does not constitute something that is doable. Your boulder example is just like saying: Can that which is omnipotent create a square-circle, can it exist and not exist at the same time, can it know what a bendy-straight line is.

The boulder example essentially amounts to: Can it be omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time.

You can't really say: Can that which is omnipotent/omniscient do/know followed by a paradox because anything that is paradoxical is meaningless.

[reply="khaled;214868"

My main problem is with 8. I think it's a non sequitur. 6 is perfectly true. There must either be the potential of omnipotence or there must be omnipotence. 7 is also true in saying that only that which is omnipresent can be omnipotent. However, it doesn't follow from that that what is omnipresent is necessarily omnipotent and so it doesn't follow that there must be an omnipotent being.

How then do you account for the paradox of something coming from nothing? All minds are limited to Existence and what Existence allows. If Existence does not have the potential to produce something omnipotent, then either:

1) Omnipotence will never be, or 2) something is necessarily omnipotent.

The reason it can't be 1 is because we have an understanding of omnipotence. Existence has made this possible. So It's not an absurd concept like non-existence or a square-circle which are impossible.

Therefore if the potential for it to exist isn't there, and the concept has meaning (just as the concept omnipresence has meaning), in order to avoid the paradox of saying that the mind has gone outside/beyond Existence, we are rationally force to acknowledge 2.

Try the following challenge and what I'm saying might become clearer:
Can you think of something that has meaning (as in it's not absurd/paradoxical/contradictory) but can never ever exist?

You say that we can define them in an objective manner because we can talk about them meaningfully, but that is rather circular. How do we know that we have defined omniscience and omnipotence sufficiently or objectively, especially given we are not ourselves omnipotent or omniscient.

To better understand your view of reason, let me start by saying: In order to use reason effectively, avoiding paradoxes is necessary. Right? I'll try and demonstrate what I mean: Reason is always right when used correctly because anything other than this is paradoxical. Is this correct, false, circular but correct, circular but false, or none of what I've just mentioned?

With regards to omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience, I say it's sufficient and objective because the meaning is sufficiently clear. It's objective because rationally speaking there can be no other definition that is paradox free. Can you think of another definition?

Let's pretend that the universe has a beginning. I can imagine before the beginning of time, but that doesn't mean such a thing exists.

Existence has to be infinite and eternal otherwise you have the following paradoxes: Something coming from non-exsitence. Existence bordering non-existence.

The Universe does have a beginning, which means the Universe is encompassed by/sustained by something else as it cannot be sustained by non-existence/nothingness.

On the other hand, Existence doesn't have a beginning, nor will it have an end. That would be paradoxical. What's it gonna go into, non-existence?

It could be that existence allows minds to imagine things which existence could not allow outside of the (potentially faulty) imagination of minds — VagabondSpectre

Whenever the mind is faulty or incorrect in its use of reason, paradoxes occur. For example square-cirlcles, or things existing and not existing at the same time or something coming from nothing, are just some examples of faulty use of language which reason reveals by way of paradoxes.

Superman is very meaningful to very many people, but it cannot possibly exist, nor must it.

We can all imagine a shape with straight lines. But we cannot imagine a shape with straight lines in our universe because gravity makes it impossible for straights to exist within it. This essentially amounts to a bendy straight lined (which is absurd). Can you picture a bendy straight line?

What I'm trying to say is the following:

Consider the sentence: Nelson Mandela lifts a 25,000 pound bus. Now picture it. We can all picture Nelson Mandela doing this and Hollywood can produce a video clip where Nelson Mandela is lifting a 25,000 pound bus. However, given the traits we associate with Nelson Mandela, given the definition of Nelson Mandela, and given the semantical gap that is Nelson Mandela, we cannot coherently imagine Nelson Mandela doing this.

If we saw an advert that shows this, we automatically assume special effects or some other kind of mechanism wherein which the images of Nelson Mandela doing this have been produced. As in we change the semantics of the sentence somehow to make it mathematically or scientifically add up. For example we could alter the semantics of the bus in question. So we think something like maybe it was a picture of a bus that Nelson Mandela actually lifted.

Nelson Mandela cannot lift a 25,000 bus, the math and science don’t add up, so it goes in the absurd category and you cannot imagine it coherently unless you alter semantics appropriately and adequately in some way.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Why

Because it would be paradoxical to think otherwise:
All minds exist in Existence. They are a part of Existence. They don't surpass or go beyond Existence. What's beyond Existence for them to go beyond? Do you see rejection of 4 is irrational/paradoxical?

How

Because we can define them. Because they have meaning and we can talk about them meaningfully. If we didn't have an understanding of them, we wouldn't be able to talk about them meaningfully or define them in an objective manner.

How and Why? (respectively)

Because you can never have something that is meaningful but can never exist. Can you think of something that is meaningful but can never exist?

An omnipotent perfect being could create a world such that there would be no suffering in the first place to be "justified" and where everyone is experiencing the maximum state of bliss possible for eternity

Semantically, what you're describing, sounds like heaven to me. The process of purifying/filtering/testing/enhancing free-will/the spirit is what I believe is happening in our reality. Once we're pure, I think then we'll get to heaven. Again, that requires that we be worthy/deserving/sufficiently pure/suitable for that kind of reality.

What's the problem with becoming omnipresent from a limited state of omnipresence?

Existence is all-existing. How can something else take it's place or substitute it?

I don't see the problem with imagining things that have meaning but don't exist.

Not don't exist, but can't ever exist. There's a difference. I can imagine a unicorn, but I've never seen a real one.

It's possible for unicorns to be real is what I'm saying and that is the same as saying Existence has the potential to produce unicorns.

Thank you for replying. I'll summarise what I wrote in my previous blog posts into premises. Let me know which premise strikes you as problematic:

(1) There is existence/Existence exists

(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 either rational/comprehensible/understandable, necessarily belongs to existence (existence accommodates it; as in either it is 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 either irrational or incomprehensible 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 iare absurd and makes no sense)

(6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational 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. Therefore, either:

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

(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.
Top