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

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.

With regards to your question, it is better to be omnipotent than it is to be a tree. No trees can ever be omnipotent, therefore all trees are imperfect because there is something better than trees.

Some people believe the perfect being ought to be able to create a rock so heavy that even it cannot lift. Or that the perfect being must be able to know what a 100th sense is. Reason has no place for absurdities. Unknowns are just unknowns and reason cannot be applied to them. Reason dictates that we avoid absurdities and that we cannot apply it to unknowns. Do we agree on this?

Why can’t a tree be omnipotent?
Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?

Oh, maybe omnipotence is never substantiated!!!

That means it doesn’t exist!!

Answer me this GOD! Because that’s who you think you are…

How does an all knowing being exist?

Here’s more pure logic for you.

I know that I don’t know what your name in real life is. Knowing what you don’t know, is by definition, that we can all prove independently, a form of knowledge. If god knows everything, then God can’t know what it’s like to be us. If god knows what it’s like to be us, then God can’t know anything (the sum total of all our lack of knowledge combined.

How does this effect the nature of Existence? How does this change the only logical and necessary definition of Existence from that which is all-existing/omnipresent to something else?

It proves it’s not omnibenevolent, and thus not perfect.

Try my last reply now…

Knowing what you don’t know amounts to you knowing that you lack knowledge in some way (in this case, what my my name is) Agreed? If you really don’t know my name, then God also knows that you don’t know my name, so God has knowledge of this. Agreed? So the sum total of all our lack of knowledge combined is an amount/something that God knows. Agreed?

Existence includes within it all shapes and feelings and experiences but the concepts omnishape, omnifeeling, omnitaste and omnicolour are evidently absurd. Right? Whilst there is nothing that is omnishape or omnicolour, there are various shapes or colours. God knows all shapes and colours that can exist/do exist. If shapes and colours can be fully broken down into pure information, then they can be known without being experienced. Right? The same applies to feelings, sensations, tastes, scents and anything else that plays a part in an experience. Right? If I look at a green room with my eyes acting as the filter/reciever that receives the light, then God knows all the information such as how my eyesight is, whether I’m colour blind and so on. Right? By combining all the information together, God is able to know what it’s like to see a green room through my eyes. Right? All experiences are an interconnected web of information/semantical gaps that God is fully aware of as God is omnipresent. So God is able to know what experience x is like through the subjective perspective of subject y. Right? We are nothing more than subjective perspectives of a rational nature receiving/having/being filtered with various experiences. God knows fully what it’s like to be us and God knows fully what our potential is.

In conclusion: God fully knows what it’s like to be us (where what it’s like to be something does actually constitute knowledge and thus is included in the real of knowledge and knowing) because god has all the information that amounts to us and our experiences, whilst we don’t. Everything can be broken down into information or semantical gaps and this information can be understand or known. God being omnipresent understands and knows all information thus God is omniscient. Where is the absurdity in this?

Knowing that you don’t know something is a TYPE of knowledge, it is not the lack of knowledge.

This makes omniscience impossible.

If God knows everything, God knows exactly what it’s like to be a being that doesn’t know everything.

Disproof through contradiction.

You’re referring to consent which is a matter of free will. Our understanding with regards to free will is as follows. Either it’s entirely random, or it’s entirely determined, or it’s something in between or something else that is unknown to us like a 100th sense. If it’s a matter of randomness, then consent is irrelevant. If it’s a matter of it being pre-determined, then consent again, is irrelevant. If it’s somewhere in between, then again, consent is irrelevant as none of these descriptions seem to satisfy our view of free-will and what would amount to a consent. Which could mean that if it’s unknown, like a 100th sense, then it’s unknown territory and we can’t apply reason to it. It would be like saying God not knowing what the 100th sense is amounts to contradictions in omniscience. We don’t know if there is a 100th sense so we don’t know if it falls in the realm of knowledge or not. Our lack of knowledge or awareness or unknowns has no bearing on omniscience. Absurdities and paradoxes clearly rule things out of Existence.

If you take the random view or pre-determined view, the way that that would amount to consent, is still such that omniscience is maintained. If you disagree, tell me why and I will address it. I’ve covered this topic before.