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

This is exciting I have never seen a good post about Descartes here!

But isn’t God just the result from accepting the certainty of numbers?

I mean the God of perfection and of the harmony of the formula of existence who also Spinoza and Plato talked about. But this God is really the mathematical ability of the human brain being reflected on by the passive animal side. God is kind of a redundancy in the notation, perfection is already there. But I doubt that if a true god exists he would be concerned with making things fit neatly into categories. He would be more like lightning. But thought in the brain is also more like lightning than what it thinks it is.

“Existence is perfect.”

That is not possible because perfection is a part of existence. I think that makes it impossible.
Because perfection is a part of a process, namely the end. Maybe existence will always turn out to be perfect in the end when you have the peace of death, but you can hardly say that to a soldier literally freezing his balls off.

It’s the use of pure reason, dealing with all the paradoxes and assessing and organising all semantical gaps rationally. I can’t really address what you’re saying. Look at the following argument premise by premise, tell me which premise is faulty and why it’s faulty. That way I can defend the argument.

  1. There is existence/x 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.

I don’t know to be honest, I’m not good at Maths. Perhaps that’s one way of getting to the conclusion that Existence is perfect.

If you define perfection within imperfect boundaries, you will not semantically reach pure perfection. For example, what’s better? A tree, or an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, eternal being?

The perfect tree will never be perfect because the definition of tree is such that a tree will always by default be imperfect The phrase, the perfect tree is just like saying the perfect imperfect.

Is this a bot?

Any human can read my post and see that premise 5 is incorrect, and actually respond to my post.

I can’t respond to this. You need to be specific. What’s wrong with premise 5?

Are you serious!!!

We ALL can imagine every being, being in hell forever and ever and ever. It’s not true. We can all imagine a perfect being running the show, except, at least one being has had its consent violated. It’s not true.

None of this stuff you’re saying is true.

We live in a zero sum world that violates consent every moment. Perfection is non zero sum worlds that never violate consent.

As you said: pure logic.

You’re not being rational because you don’t seem to account for the paradoxes in your system. It’s simple. If it’s rationally coherent, then the potential for it to be brought about is there, it doesn’t mean that it will necessarily be brought about. That’s what potential is, it’s so amenable to change, whereas omnipresence and the other like concepts I’ve highlighted are not.

Reject 5 without committing to paradoxes or contradictions. Try it: Can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist? Give me an example and tell me what makes it impossible for it to exist

Our universe/reality/world being good or bad has no bearing on Existence being all-existing, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite and eternal. So long as those traits hold, the definition is maintained. You can have squares in a triangle, but so long as the triangle remains triangular, it doesn’t matter what’s inside it. It’s still classed as a triangle. Also how are non-sentient zero sum worlds that never violate consent (provided that this sentence is not absurd) better than an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, eternal Existence?

Actually, our world not being perfect has every bearing on what you’re discussing.

No means no, for all beings.

Ponder for a moment, and infinite number of beings having their consent violated, when it doesn’t have to be. Is that the manifestation of perfection ?

In 100% consensual realities, beings can still know what consent violation is. But they consented to something outside their comfort zone until they said “no!” And in a perfect emination of existence, “no!” Always means no. And thus you are refuted as erroneous and psychopathic .suck gods toes when you get to heaven… bow as well… that’s all he wants from you, because that’s all you want from us.

Try joining freedom and morality for a change, and you might actually find the perfection you seek.

No. Perfection is that which is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite and eternal. This is not absurd or unknown.

I’ve shown you clear paradoxes that you haven’t addressed. You didn’t respond to the challenge I set for you which is designed to further prove to you the irrationality of your position, and you’ve gotten emotional when this conversation requires reason. Perhaps this conversation will bear no fruit.

No means no for all beings.

You know very well that this disproves your entire thesis, so you’ve avoided it the whole time.

Cool yeah definitely true.

Why is the tree imperfect? I think not actually, it has roots, a body and a blissful crown and often enough fruits. What could be improved?

Also it dies and makes place for other trees. Great all around. But God if he exists like Spinoza says he doesn’t leave space for any other. I don’t like that. Thats not perfect.

Don’t forget: omnibenevolent

No I don’t because you don’t seem to wanna appropriately and adequately clarify. Be really specific, what am I missing here if you are truthful?

No only life can be benevolent.

— no that is not true
but it must be benevolent otherwise god isn’t either.

Gods morals depend on his creation.

So am I right in concluding that you think a tree is better than God? Am I right in concluding that you think it’s better to be a tree than to be God?

Not wrong to anticipate that this may be.
But the jury is still in conclave on that.

You now I really don’t believe perfection as a whole can make sense if not every part is completely pure in bliss which is just not so.

Plus, any whole has some border. Existence can’t be some object.

Anyway can you answer the question or not?

I clarified perfectly to a post you ignored. A being may choose to go outside its comfort zone, and in doing so, learn what consent violation is, but when that being says “no!” The consent violation stops. This let’s every being learn right and wrong on it’s own terms instead of the terms of you and the psychopath in the sky.