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.
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?
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?
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.
Also, I’m not sure on the semantical gap you refer to when you say omnibenevolent. God being perfect entails that God does perfectly. The core and outline of what being perfect is, is clear. The outline and core of what doing perfectly is, is also clear. However given that we don’t have knowledge of the future and so many other items of knowledge that the omniscient being knows when planning, designing or calculating (all of which it does perfectly) it’s unknown to us what doing perfectly constitutes. So when you fault our universe or matters in relation to consent and free-will you are not in a suitable position to do so because of the unknowns that I’ve highlighted. I can equally throw in defence a load of unknowns to counter what you say but having a debate purely using unknowns or paradoxes will never bear any fruit or lead to progression. This is what reason dictates.
You’re essentially saying that the perfect being doesn’t exactly know what it’s like to be imperfect. Right? More importantly, am I right in saying that you think this because you think that the only way the perfect being can know what it’s like to be imperfect is by becoming imperfect (which is absurd) right?
Omniscience = knowing all that there is to know. Right?
You have your unique subjective experiences coupled with your disposition that make you Ecmandu. Right? Or is there more to you?
Every aspect of your disposition can be translated to pure information. Right? All your experiences, emotions, feelings, can be translated to pure information. Right? Every stimuli you’re exposed to can be translated to pure information. Right?
In other words, every aspect of your being and what it experiences and every aspect of those experiences can be translated to pure information. Right?
That which is omniscient has knowledge of all this information. So when every aspect of your being, including the experiences it goes through, including what that results in, can be translate to pure information/semantics, how can that which has all this information not fully and accurately know what it’s like to be you?