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.