Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises were...

I gave you a description of how everything is a part of Existence and how Existence is Omnipresent. And I gave you clear examples of how whilst Existence is clearly and necessarily Omnipresent and Infinite, we are clearly finite and non-omnipresent.

So I gave you clear examples of how the infinite can fully sustain the finite thereby having full reach and access to the finite (meaning that it fully knows what all finite entities and semi-finite entities amount to in full)

You’ve yet to give me a contradiction free description of the nature of Existence.

I already countered your bold point, which is just the same contradiction stated as truth as before.

There must be otherness in order for there to be existents, this otherness is in the form of fragmentation of presence. A lack of fragmentation of presence allows for no otherness.

You look at omnipresence as a tiered hierarchy instead of what it actually is, the same one thing in everything, which is nothing.

If there is a god, by laws of logic, it cannot be omnipresent.

You didn’t. What you asserted essentially amounted the following: Being a part of omnipresence means you’re not a part of omnipresence. What you suggest, amounts to a paradox and your attempt to define Existence makes this clear.

The same one thing in everything (No problems with this sentence. No paradoxes)
The same one thing in everything which is nothing. If you can’t see how this (your definition of existence) amounts to a paradox, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

You recognise the necessity of the same one thing in everything but you deny omnipresence. Why? What problems did you see with my argument regarding varying levels of potency? God being the most potent (infinite) and everything else (semi-infinite, finite) being less potent versions of it.

Have an open mind. End dogma and you’ll see where you’re going wrong.

No I used the definition of omnipresence to prove that it’s fragmented, even for a hypothetical god, who also needs otherness to perceive itself. Otherness to perceive existence is a higher law than god, logic is GREATER than god, god needs us, is dependent upon us, to perceive god. Logic is the highest, not a being within logic. Logic is not self aware.

Of all your straw man replies thus far, this ones the worst.

If the same thing is in everything (a hypothetical), this solves as everything being exactly the same, which equals nothing.

If presence is fragmented, there’s no contradiction.

Youre the one blatantly posting direct contradictions as truth. I don’t open my mind to brainwashers

I gave you a logical distinction between levels of potency. Everything is the same thing but of varying levels of potency. If you don’t accept Existence as necessarily Omnipresent, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

You’re avoiding the core issue with omnipresence again.

God, just like us, needs other to exist, in order to perceive being existant. This not only means that presence needs to be fragmented, it means that god is DEPEDANT upon us, all of us, like a little baby … in order to be god.

I only replied after the last post because I’m concerned that you’re trying to brainwash people into believing that you’re perfect by being “in” with god, which is the technique all cult leaders use.

I need to add to this, that god cannot exist without otherness. This is logic. Logic is more powerful than god. Logic is not aware of itself.

God is omnipresent within God, but not outside of God or else what is not-God would also be God. Omnipresence within finiteness is possible, but it’s infinite omnipresence where I’m having issues.

Yes the negation of everything is a thing. The negation of you is everything that is not you and the negation of everything that is not you is you. Negation represents the negative state of a dipole, so negative north would be south and neither could exist without the other because their existence is the manifestation of their relationship. Now if we say that north is omnipresent, then there is no room left for south and therefore north also couldn’t exist.

The negation of meaning is still meaningful and I’d describe nonexistence as absence of existence rather than a negative state of it.

Well, non-omnipresence is any presence less than ubiquitous. I am non-omnipresent.

I think the ubiquitous is equivalent to the absence. If every direction were up, then direction is meaningless. If time were infinite, then time would have no meaning.

They are complementary and codependent.

It doesn’t because there is no such thing as time outside the relationship of one thing to another thing. It takes me 1/24 revolution of the earth to drive to the next city, so the concept of time is just a placeholder for a ratio. If there is nothing around to compare time to, then time has no meaning.

If universe A is endless, then it is also beginningless since end and beginning are just arbitrary in relation to direction. Something that has neither beginning nor end is not relative to time and time has no bearing on it, so it’s independent of time meaning that time is meaningless and nonexistent… which is the defined state of universe B, so they are equivalent. Infinite time and lack of time are the same thing.

I think it’s a bad way to present the problem. Existence A is timeless (absence of time, but existent) and Existence B is nonexistent. So you’re saying one exists and the other doesn’t then ask me if they are the same and I don’t think that’s what you meant to do. I’m not saying timelessness is nonexistence, but nonexistence of time. I’m not saying that because something has been around forever that it doesn’t exist, but if it has, then time doesn’t exist because time is completely irrelevant to the thing and irrelevant things do not exist by definition because they are ir+relational like the pink elephant sitting next to me.

You could be right, but eventually we’re going to come down to the one thing that fundamentally exists in relation to absolutely nothing else otherwise it’s a Russian Doll of smaller universes inside larger ones infinitely, which ironically is saying the same thing because relation to the infinite is relation to nothing. What difference would it make? If north were ubiquitous such that it completely displaced south, then south doesn’t exist due to absence, but the north also doesn’t exist due to ubiquitousness. What difference does it make which is which?

If the universe is finite, then what is outside? Nothing because there is nothing that is not the universe.
If the universe is infinite, then what is outside? Nothing because it goes on forever.

What difference does it make?

So now what?

Obviously nothing must be in some way productive as its polar opposite is the universe and all that exists. Infinity doesn’t solve anything and if anything, it paints over the problem by obfuscating it in a cloud of the unimaginable (nothing - who can imagine nothing).

Where did your term “perfect” come from? What is perfect? Perfect in relation to what? Using “perfect” is like saying “optimized” without saying optimized for what. Taller than what? Hotter than what? Freedom from what? You can’t just have freedom without specifying freedom from what. Freedom from law is not freedom from crime and freedom from crime is being shackled by law. You’re trying to objectify relative terms as if they had abstract meaning. Time is another illustration of that as is space. You’re yanking out relative concepts and trying to make them stand on their own.

In order to know what it’s like to be a cat, I’d have to have all the sensory input of a cat and no other input. I couldn’t know that I am god too or I wouldn’t know what it’s like to be a cat. The only way to know what it’s like to be a cat is to be a cat.

This fits with Brahman, but not Yahweh. Brahman knows what it’s like to be everything because he is everything, but Yahweh can’t know much of anything since he isn’t anything but some abstractness outside the universe (whatever that means) who claims knowledge of things he’s never been and all sorts of paradoxical powers. If Yahweh made the universe, then he made it from himself and became the Brahman because he could not have made something from nothing, but rather he put something where nothing used to be (ie himself) and arranged it in interesting patterns… or maybe he let it go randomly for a surprise (that’s what I think - lack of purpose is the purpose otherwise there would be no purpose because why go through the trouble of making a movie you’ve seen before).

I think that is essentially it and better-worded than I could have done. God needs “other” in order for him to know he exists. I don’t think there is anyway around that, but what is “other”? What is not-god? What is the condition upon which god exists?

I have to say, I used other because it’s more concrete and also true.

The other for god, as I’ve stated many times in this thread is to not know EXACTLY what it’s like to be all beings, or any being for that matter.

I also want to compliment you on the idea that existence is relationship. I hadn’t been exposed to that specific thought and I find it beautiful and elegant.

The problem with the self/other relationship is that they are secretly one.

[tab]Integr Physiol Behav Sci. 1998 Oct-Dec;33(4):321-34.
The theory of the organism-environment system: I. Description of the theory.

The theory of the organism-environment system starts with the proposition that in any functional sense “organism” and “environment” are inseparable and form only one unitary system. The organism cannot exist without the environment, and the environment has descriptive properties only if it is connected to the organism. Although for practical purposes we do separate organism and environment, this common-sense starting point leads in psychological theory to problems which cannot be solved. Therefore, separation of organism and environment cannot be the basis of any scientific explanation of human behavior. The theory leads to a reinterpretation of basic problems in many fields of inquiry and makes possible the definition of mental phenomena without their reduction either to neural or biological activity or to separate mental functions. According to the theory, mental activity is activity of the whole organism-environment system, and the traditional psychological concepts describe only different aspects of organization of this system. Therefore, mental activity cannot be separated from the nervous system, but the nervous system is only one part of the organism-environment system. This problem will be dealt with in detail in the second part of the article. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333975

Integr Physiol Behav Sci. 1998 Oct-Dec;33(4):335-42; discussion 343.
The theory of the organism-environment system: II. Significance of nervous activity in the organism-environment system. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333976

Philosophical Explorations 34:90-100 (1999)
The theory of the organism-environment system: III. Role of efferent influences on receptors in the formation of knowledge

It is argued, on the basis of experimental evidence and theoretical considerations, that the senses are not transmitters of environmental information, but they create a direct connection between the organism and the environment, which makes the development of a dynamic living system, the organism - environment system, possible. philpapers.org/rec/JARTTO-2

Integr Physiol Behav Sci. 2000 Jan-Mar;35(1):35-57.
Theory of the organism-environment system: IV. The problem on mental activity and consciousness. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10885546

Front Neurol. 2015 Oct 19;6:217. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2015.00217. eCollection 2015.
Exploring Music-Based Rehabilitation for Parkinsonism through Embodied Cognitive Science.

We argue that these phenomena involve previously unconsidered aspects of cognition and (motor) behavior, which are rooted in the action-perception cycle characterizing the whole living system. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26539155

You can download a whole pdf file here for free researchgate.net/publicatio … Psychology

In biology, the unitary approach makes it explicit why no organism can be thought of without an environment. An organism as a skin bag is no functioning system; it may be such only together with the relevant environmental parts. The same applies to neurophysiology or “cognitive” brain research: without the rest of the world the nervous system is not a system at all; neither is the agent of the behavior a part of the body, such as the brain.[/tab]

I wonder if that applies to god as well: is he one with his environment and suffering illusion that he is not in order to manifest as a being in a self/other relationship? Or did he transcend the illusion and learn himself out of existence because he’s god and all-knowing? Of course, if he is illusory as we are, then can it be said that he exists?

Further, if the other underpins god, then what underpins the unitary god/other relationship? Does god have a god? What about that god: does it have a god too? Is it an infinite series of Russian Dolls each giving the other context?

We have Alan Watts to thank for that, though there is no guarantee I wouldn’t have thought of it on my own in infinite time lol. I’m just happy I was able to recognize it as meaningful when he said it.

But I’m expanding from there and asking what is not relationship? What is fundamental? Can anything be fundamental? What is relationship if nothing exists prior to the relationship? What is the god/other relationship predicated on? Eventually we’re going to come down to nothing, I suspect. Nothing… the total absence of anything is somehow productive. Alan said that too, but I haven’t gotten my head around it yet. How can nothing substantiate something? Is it just by providing context? But there is nothing there to provide context, except absence of things, but is absence of things a thing? I don’t know.

But regardless how big the universe is, even if it’s infinite, there is still nothing on the outside and that seems in some way meaningful. What is the opposite of nothing? Is it something or is it all things? Is all things really all things or just possible things? And possible relative to what? What a brain twister!

There cannot be anything outside the Universe because such a place does not exist and that is because the definition of Universe is ALL THERE IS
The opposite of nothing can be one thing or some thing or some things or all things. All things does not include possible [ or potential ] things only
actual things. That is because a possible thing is not actually a thing as such

So, outside the universe is like north of the north pole? Would you characterize it that way? That analogy seems better than the empty box idea because north of the north pole isn’t a place of emptiness, but a lack of a place. So outside the universe is a place of no place lol!

I suppose if anyone could ever get to the edge, they’d keep going until they ended at the place they started because there is no place else to go. Even if they had to walk around a few times because of some asymmetry or deviation from a perfectly straight course, they’d still cross their starting point eventually. That’s the conceptualization I’ve had for a long time about the universe: there are no endless straight lines, but loops because there is no outside. Everything is a circle/cycle and there are no loose ends dangling into obscurity and the idea that there are is like a boat with a hole in it… and I’ve not seen example in nature that could lead me to believe the universe by evolution, natural processes, god, whatever would be so wasteful as to spew energy off into infinity never to be seen again, much less the many worlds interpretation with infinitely more waste infinitely compounding by the quantum time unit until eternity ends. Holy crap!

Which one best defines nothing in terms of what nothing is not? What is the opposite of zero? Infinity? It seems the ubiquitous absence of everything is best defined by the opposite which is the ubiquitous presence of everything. What defines everything?

Can possible things have no potential? Obviously potential things are possible… I guess that goes without saying lol

Are potential things, things? If a potential exists, then it’s something that exists and things that exists are things, right?

For reasons of simplicity I treat the potential / possible as separate from the actual

Before I was conceived I had the potential to exist but after I was conceived I actually existed and so they represent two different points in time

All things that actually exist now had at one point only the potential to exist [ the Universe could be infinite so that would be the one exception ]

All things that only have the potential to exist now may at some point actually exist or may simply carry on potentially existing either finitely or infinitely

Ecmandu wrote:

Someone would need to exist. Without the eye of the beholder I wonder what this thing called God is - if one can even use the word *exist".

It is that eye which makes of God an image.

Looks good, y’all! Positive feedback :handgestures-thumbup:

Serendipper,

Hmmm ~ I am not quite sure of that ~ sounds more like a play on words to me.

I think that if we actually use the term potential things we will think in those terms. Words affect us in ways lol If that made any sense.

The word potential exists but does that necessarily mean that a possible future happening is already a thing? I personally would have to say no but perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the concept or thought of it within one’s mind can be called a thing but not necessarily what is pointed to.

A man and woman have the potential to someday in the future conceive a child and the woman could give birth to that child. But before that happens, we cannot say that there is a child.

I love this stuff that cannot be figured out at least not by me.

Everything that grows, grows into an already existent magnetic grid, magnetic template or magnetic skeleton.

If you build the skeleton alone, and just bombard it with particles, you’ll get whatever form you want.

That’s true! I’m not sure if potential things are things or just, like you said, leading the witness by semantics.

I kinda think of potential things as the negative state of things.

Consider a light bulb example: 1) The light is on, 2) the light is off, 3) the bulb is gone. When the light is on, light exists. When the light is off, there is potential for light to exist. When the bulb is missing, there is neither potential nor existence. ( I know there is potential for someone to replace the bulb, but that messes up my example lol)

So there are 3 states: positive existence, negative existence, nonexistence.

Alan Watts put being and nonbeing under the category of existence and, of course, nonexistence doesn’t have subcategories because there’s nothing there to subdivide.

The question is how does something that does not exist then come into existence? I suppose it was always existing, but in a negative state of potentiality rather than a state of nonexistence.

Yes, you’re right. Potential doesn’t always translate into actuality. There could be potential for the light to come on, but someone may never flip the switch.

Schrodinger had the famous cat thought experiment where the cat is both alive and dead until someone opens the box to see, so in that case both potentials exist in a superposition. Apparently that’s how it works in the quantum world. Here’s a cute video that might help:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjaAxUO6-Uw[/youtube]

Alan says he was the evil gleam in his father’s eye when he approached his mother. This was to counter the idea that kids blame their parents for being born, but he asserts the kids asked for it. I haven’t fully gotten my head around that notion yet.

I love a good puzzle! But possible ones and not impossible ones lol

The word “God” is interesting. In the New Testament, Jesus cries out for Eloi, not God, when he is being crucified. He was, it is said, a Nazarene. The Nazar is a Tukish amulet representing the Eye of Horus and is placed in all Turkish homes. Muslims claim that their religion is the original religion, predating what we know as Judaism, but some scholars say that Arabs originally worshipped the moon. In Egyptian mythology, the moon is the left eye of Horus, which is plucked out by Seth, but regrows, just as the moon wanes and waxes.

The word Jew comes from Yahu which is a reference to their god Yah. But, linguistically, in my opinion, this is the same word as Eloi and Allah, the first part of the two latter words simply being “el” or “al”, meaning “the”. It’s the same god, the moon, the nazar, the eye of Horus.

Josephus, the historian, wrote that the Jews were actually Assyrians from Ur or the region around Mount Ararat in Turkey. Their “god” was a figure called Kaldi, which is where we get the term “Chaldean” from and these people converted to Chaldean Christianity.

My view is that “God” is just a mispronunciation of “Kald”. People used to worship the sun, the moon, the stars, not varying notions of the invisible.

So, we go from a society governed by the Egyptians, whose Pharoah was a god and the embodiment of Horus, son of Osirus, to the idea of a word “God” meaning an invisible but truly great big thing of some sort which we can somehow talk about meaningfully as perfect, all-powerful etc etc.

Whether my view is correct or not is immaterial. We have been told as children that this notion of “God” we have is real, so we revere the word “God” without stepping back to ask what it is we are actually talking about, which isn’t really even a thing at all, but just an idea in our heads.