Existence is necessarily omnipotent

Existence is not limited. To say that it is, is absurd and paradoxical. Can you not see the problem with the following sentences: Existence is finite. Existence came from non-existence. Existence borders non-existence. Are these sentences acceptable to you? Is there any alternative to acknowledging Existence as infinite and eternal?

Existence is a semantical gap/concept that we are aware of. The mechanisms of how or why we are aware of it is irrelevant. What is clear and without controversy is that the definition of Existence is necessarily: that which is all-existing/omnipresent.

I don’t understand what you mean here. Are you saying that non-existence is a rational concept? Can you clarify?

If you consider Existence as absurd or as an absurd concept, our discussion will bear no fruit. If you disagree with the following definition: Existence = that which is all-existing/omnipreent, our discussion will bear no fruit. Also, if you are willing to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing, our discussion will bear no fruit.

By actuality, are you referring to reality? If yes, then reason makes a clear distinction between reality and Existence. Anything that exists, does so in Existence. This includes all realities regardless of their natures (whether it’s another universe, dream etc.)

How is it absurd? If I have a triangle and within this triangle things change, does the triangle change, is triangle no longer defined as a triangle? So long as the traits and definition of Existence don’t change, it does not change. This is regardless of whether or not things within it change. Again, Existence changing (it not being the all-existing, as well as it becoming something different than omnipotent, infinite and eternal) would be paradoxical and absurd.

You can switch things off, you can change them, but you can’t take them out of Existence as it would be paradoxical to say that a thing can go into non-existence.

Consider the following two sentences:

1. The ice cube changed to water (the ice cube was no longer in location xyz time t reality p)
2. The ice cube went into non-existence (the ice cube didn’t change to water, it went into non-existence)

Are 1 and 2 the same? Do you agree that 2 is absurd? Can anything ever go into non-existence?

Just as you can’t have something come from nothing, you cannot have something go into nothing. Also bear in mind that the semantical gaps always remain in Existence. As in for example, Existence will always have the potential to generate or produce a unicorn or an ice cube.

OOPS SYNTAX ERROR

“Existence” is a concept of mind.
Cant go any further.

So are you saying that our mind is not limited by what Existence allows?

No, but that existence in your argument is limited by what your mind allows too. So that’s why you get syntax error in that moment, no more computation is possible even if it’s so well meant. It’s always the same like the Baron von Munchhausen.

1. Your experiences are limited by what your mind allows. Agreed?
2. The limits of your mind do not dictate the limits of Existence. They may dictate the limits of your existence but they don’t dictate the limits of Existence. Agreed?
3. Existence (which your mind is entirely dependent on) determines the limits of your mind and your mind cannot go beyond/outside of existence because that would be absurd. Agreed?

For whoever it was who wrote this:

Since everything in existence is also EXISTENCE itself, I have no idea how existence can remain unchanged, unmoved, like an island dis-connected from itself.

You seem to think of existence as some kind of fixed entity instead of a living, breathing, flowing reality evolving over time.
The way that I look at it, change is the only constant.

Even if you think of everything as a part of existence, how does existence NOT change when a part of it does?

Peace.

Things in Existence can change. But Existence itself can never change (as in it can never change from being infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient) It would be paradoxical if it did.

There are existing things. The only way a thing can be considered as different/changed is if it no longer matches its definition. For example ice becomes water, so it’s no longer a solid (core to the definition of ice)

The only existing thing that can never change in its definition is that which is infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient. It has always been this way and it will always be this way.

If for example I change my hairstyle, I still remain human. That definition hasn’t changed, but it can. If I turn to ash, then I’m no longer human.

By me changing my hairstyle, I haven’t changed from being human. I’ve just changed the style of my hair which changes how I look.

Peace is hypothetically possible

When people don’t understand what a word or idea means, how can it be said to possibly hypothetically exist? That is why peace will never exist, people have no clue what peace even is.

The mind can be changed by an experience.

They dictate the limit of what can be conceived, so also of “existence”. Which is a concept, right? Im just trying to throw the obvious wrench in the wheel, the solipsist argument, see if you can deal with it.

I agree that you just proved you cant understand existence except as a mental concept!

Existence is probably infinite / omnipresent because absolute nothing cannot exist indefinitely. But omnipotence / omniscience / omnibenevolence
[ which you keep leaving out as both Ecmandu and I have noticed ] are mutually incompatible. They are also the characteristics of God so then are
you saying that Existence is God ? That sounds suspiciously like pantheism / panentheism rather than the Abrahamic God who is usually given those
characteristics. Why do you not mention omnibenevolence along with the other two ?

Is Existence a thing?

Can you, in actuality, pour every ocean into one paper cup?

It’s a meaningful word. It’s hypothetically possible. Some communities may lack the will power or reasoning to sustain it effectively, but it’s certainly hypothetically possible.

Not beyond what Existence allows. A mind can’t suddenly think of things that are hypothetically impossible. Nor can it ever become infinite from a non-infinite state.

Solipsism is blatantly absurd. It implies that you can have something go in and out of Existence. It implies a finite Existence. It has no place in reason.

Every meaningful thing is a mental concept. Every meaningful theory consists of meaningful statements and observations. No word, concept, story, theory or field of study can be meaningful if it contains paradoxes. Existence being finite is paradoxical. You can’t understand Existence as being finite. It’s not just limited to the mind, because limiting Existence to the mind (solipsism) is absurd. The problem of something coming from nothing cannot be allowed any place in any theory as it is meaningless/absurd.

Can it be no thing/non-existence? Existence is that thing which is all-existing. That thing is necessarily infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient. It would be paradoxical otherwise.

If that paper cup has sufficient depth, then yeah.

Sufficient ~ enough, adequate? Here we are reducing Existence to something more or less mundane.

My sense there was that Existence would be reduced to almost nothingness if considered to be a thing.

I might consider it to be some ongoing Great Epic Poem, Great Epic Story, Great Epic Play on the stage of life.
Like Shakespeare said ~ “All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages.”

This isn’t about whether something is entertaining or not. This is a matter of pure reason. Entertainment, poetry, music, and so on, are a different matter. I compose music (check out my music if you’re interested: google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q … 8XwwcBDK84