Existence is necessarily omnipotent

Accidental double post (deleted) Sorry

Again, if it’s empirically impossible, then it goes in the absurd category regardless of how or when the absurdity was recognised. Once the paradox or contradiction has been recognised, then it generates the same things as a square-circle or the bendy straight line and so on. That which is generated, is the negation of meaning.

I understand what you’re saying and where you’re coming from. I grappled with the same problem myself. Consider the following:

We always considered triangles as being possible in our universe and this had meaning because we were not aware of how gravity would make straight lines impossible. No absurdity there. But when the semantical gaps focused on got more complex by us taking gravity into account, we acknowledged a paradox with regards to triangles being possible in our universe. The phrase “triangles in our universe” then amounted to “the bendy straight line” (which is absurd and the same as a square-circle or a married-bachelor) Does the bendy straight line have meaning? Do any paradoxical phrases have any meaning?

Yes, in the same way that one might have once said “I’ve devised a proof that a triangle in our universe is impossible”. This has meaning because the additional premise (gravity) has not been added to the equation to yield the absurdity (negation of meaning), but again, it does not matter how or when the absurdity is reached, once it’s reached, it is absurd. Has never existed and will never exist. A bendy straight line can never exist and will never exist.

This is not the case. Some absurdities are clear. Some, you discover, just like with the triangle example. I am saying that absurdities are things that have never existed and will never exist, this does nothing with regards to those who reveal/expose/prove absurdities in a thing or how they do it.

The parts do have meaning. I am not denying this. But together they yield an absurdity (something that has no meaning) and all absurdities are the same. What’s the difference between a square-circle or a bendy straight line or a married bachelor? They are all phrases that generate the same thing. Paradox/contradiction/absurdity. People say there are different paradoxes. Sure, there are different ways of getting to paradoxes or forming absurdities, but ultimately, paradoxes/contradiction/absurdities are all the same. They are meaningless and cannot be defined. If you can tell me the difference in meaning between a square-circle and a married-bachelor, then you’d prove me wrong. But you will not succeed in this for neither of them have meaning.

I don’t understand what you mean here. I certainly agree that you cannot think of something that has meaning but can never exist. The phrase “has meaning but can never exist” is absurd when you try to think about it, you recognise the absurdity. Same as with a triangle in our universe. You may not recognise the absurdity at first, but upon reflection and reasoning, the absurdity becomes clear.

Yes. They are all meaningless, so how do we differentiate between their meaninglessness? There are different ways of forming absurdities and paradoxes but once formed, they are all meaningless. One is not more or less meaningful than the other.

True. You are right. Sometimes we are not aware of all the premises and are there unaware of paradoxes. Both reason and history demonstrate this.

I see where you’re coming from. Some day, someone may prove that actually we have triangles in our universe (unlikely, but possible; throw in a counter premise that accounts for gravity such that the environment allows for straight lines, and the paradox is removed). This is true of all class of concepts or semantical gaps that I’ve labelled as potentials. Now consider the following:

We have never and will never even come close to doubting existence (that which is omnipresent/all-existing). Do you agree with this? The class of concept that existence is, is such that it can never be denied. How do you rationally deny existence using reason? The very thought is absurd, is it not? Can you doubt reason using reason? Do you see the paradox?

Omnipotence is the same class/type/category of concepts that omnipresence is. Whatever way or method of paradox you attempt to form with omnipotence, the same would apply to omnipresence. To say that at some point in the future someone might disprove the coherence of omnipotence is to say that someone in the future might disprove the coherence of omnipresence.

Remember, with the triangle and gravity example I gave a hypothetically possible way in which that which we have classed as absurd could end up not being absurd: Some day, someone may prove that actually we have triangles in our universe (unlikely, but possible; throw in a counter premise that accounts for gravity such that the environment allows for straight lines, and the paradox is removed)

Can you do the same with omnipresence? Can you do it with omnipotence or omniscience? What possible counter premise is there?

Again, consider the definitions:

Omnipresence: That which is all-existing
Omnipotence: That which is all-mighty
Omniscience: That which is all-knowing

Omnipotence exists. Existence exists. It’s not a matter of if. It necessarily does.

It seems unpersuasive to argue “logically” against what one can think. If existence is limited in all sorts of ways, that it can’t have a boundary, since that would indicate it was different from something else, and that it can’t be before in time, or after in time, and so on, existence is measured by the standards of something in existence, namely speech. This direction leads to the absurdity of the notion of existence.

I don’t find it so. It seems quite straightforward. There is a logical problem only.

Now, according to the Sabeans the stars are the highest thing, and they are bodies of a kind. Accordingly they teach that the highest genus is body. In this context, the ability to conceive of another genus, an invisible genus, is absurd. So, either existence is absurd, both as being and non-being, or it is conceivable.

I suppose you would admit to a distinction between actuality and existence? Or, do you allow that such distinctions are worth consideration?

In this sense “existence” seems to be absurd. And for the same reasons. However, this is simply a limit of logic, and one can easily grasp what is meant by existence and nonexistence. Thought it remain vague.

Also, I would say, when one wakes from dreamless sleep, one somehow senses the coming into existence of existence as such.

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.