[b]
God is a philosophical being not an empirical one
The characteristics he has do not exist in reality
So to say that God is in human beings or vice versa is to falsely conflate the philosophical with the empirical
The confusion over omniscience is resolved when the two are separated and kept separate as they should be
[/b]
True paradoxes cannot exist for they would invalidate logic which is the foundation of mathematics
Were logic invalidated then contradictory truth statements would have equal epistemological value
I doubt the sincerity of this comment.
Let’s uphold reason.
Given that you now seem to be trying, I’ll repeat myself again.
Because we are not all omnipresent/Existence and you cannot be omniscient if you don’t have access to all things/omnipresence
Once again: We are existing in Existence/God, but we are not Existence/God.
Us being in Existence/God or
Existence/God being in us is not the same as:
Us being Existence/God
Non-existence being in us is paradoxical. So is:
Us being Existence or:
Existence being us. Which just leaves:
We are in Existence/Existence is in us
The rest of your argument doesn’t follow because it assumes that the following statement is rational: We are all God/Existence. As demonstrated above, this statement is paradoxical and therefore not rational.
The rest of your argument doesn’t follow because it assumes that the following statement is rational: We are all God/Existence. As demonstrated above, this statement is paradoxical and therefore not rational. Again to demonstrate the same paradox using different words: If we change/sin in Existence, this is not the same as Existence changing/sinning. It would be absurd for Existence to ever change. Things in Existence change, but Existence itself never changes.
First give me a basic argument that doesn’t contain a paradox in its first premise, then try giving me harder ones.
If that is the case, then why bother?
Empirical is everything that we experience or observe in this[/b] reality which is in Existence. But Existence and our understanding of it is not limited to our sensory experiences/observations. That would be absurd.
The characteristics are not limited to our reality as that would be absurd. You cannot have omnipresence/Existence limited to a finite reality. You’d have to deal with the paradox of something coming from nothing and reason dictates that we can never ignore paradoxes.
As you correctly highlighted, Existence and reality are not the same thing. That would be paradoxical (no need to demonstrate, as we agree on this point)
Reason and language clearly dictate 4 categories to all things: The necessary, the potential, the absurd, the unknown. Agreed?
Existence being infinite (necessary), means it has the potential to generate all hypothetical possibilities (potentials)
See how this is paradox free? Now if you consider any alternative to this, I guarantee you absurdity. Try it.
Reason dictates that Existence is not beyond what can be sensed. It is beyond/more than what we can sense but reason dictates that sensing something and understanding something are two different things. We understand that Existence may have aspects that we are unaware of (this is not paradoxical). For example Q: Reason tells us that we don’t know if Existence has the potential to generate/sustain a being with a 100 senses, but we know it can generate/sustain unicorns. Q is not something that we sense, it is something that we understand. Agreed?
We understand that there is Existence, because non-existence is absurd. We understand that Existence is infinite, because Existence being finite/us/our reality is absurd. So reason clearly dictates and demonstrates that we understand Existence is infinite (therefore, beyond/greater than our senses, as we are not infinite/Existence) Do you see the circle of truth?
We can empirically observe that which is in our reality (the stuff we sense) we can theorise and describe these observations so long asthey never ever amount to paradoxes like a particle going in an out of Existence. Going into another dimension or reality is fine, but we certainly cannot say going into non-existence (absurd). Right?
Reason dictates that we can never ignore or believe in anything paradoxical. It dictates that we acknowledge that which has meaning (is rational) appropriately (By distinguishing that which is necessary from that which is potential/hypothetically possible) and to not apply it to that which we have no knowledge of/Is entirely unknown (we can’t rationally investigate or talk about or theorise about beings that have a 100 senses)
I think that’s a fair statement, but it does not contradict what I said. From a limited perspective, which we always have, we judge that, for example, something cannot both be a wave and a particle at the same time. However once we get evidence that this is the case, we realize that our conceptions - whether linguistic or metaphysical or both - made something seem like a paradox when it wasn’t.
Right now we do not know what other phenomena would seem paradoxical if true/possible, may not be.
I think there is hubris in metaphysical deduction, given that we have limited knowledge.
So to go back to your original response: When scientists observe what they would have considered a paradox, they need to look at the assumptions built into previous language and ontology that made it seem like what is now observed could not be.
We do not know what we can rule out, using deduction because our language and our ontology may have incorrect assumptions.
Certainly real,
Then you’re just stating that nothing INSIDE!!! God sins because god is perfect. You’re stating that no matter what we do, we can’t possibly sin. Otherwise god isn’t perfect. If you think we being inside of god can sin, then perfect beings have sin IN them.
You’re also playing games with words that contradict their meaning, omnipresence means being everywhere, that means everywhere would be omniscient. Your inside/outside distinction contradicts the definition of the terms you are presumably trying to demonstrate
I agree but we can rule some things out. For example we can rule out the possibility of something going into non-existence. Can we not?
Scientists will never conclude that something can be two different things at the same time as that has no meaning. They will either conclude: The observation is faulty or that it is incomplete. Our planet is a good analogy for this:
The earth being round was considered paradoxical at one point because it appeared to amount to something being straight and round at the same time (which is absurd). Long story short, we can make faulty or incomplete observations (it would be hubris to deny this) but we cannot deny that which is necessarily paradoxical: For example something coming from nothing or existence bordering non-existence or something being two different things at the same time (it would be misguided/irrational to deny this) It is these necessaries that yield the knowledge that Existence is necessarily infinite and eternal.
Do we agree on the difference between the absurd and the unknown?
You’re accusing me of word games. We’re both using words that label meaningful things/language to communicate. If we use language irrationally/incorrectly then we’re gonna get paradoxes/meaninglessness. The whole point of rational discourse is to avoid paradoxes.
You keep making the same mistake because you keep failing to directly address or pay sufficient attention to the following:
That which is omnipresent/omniscient is everywhere. Are we everywhere? Are we omnipresent?
We are within that which is omnipresent. Do you not see the difference?
Yes, I agree. It literally means being everywhere is being omniscient. We are not being everywhere are we? So we are not omnipresent nor are we omniscient. We’re just in it. There is a clear difference in semantics/meaning.
Again: We are in Existence is not the same as We are Existence. We clearly recognise that we are not Existence. We are just existing in Existence.
Actually, if omnipresence is everywhere, then by definition, we should be omnipresent as well, because it’s in EVERY aspect of us, not just some.
It seems like some things no longer exist. But perhaps that is not what you mean. I would likely hesitate to be certain about the answer to that question.
But wave particle duality is like that. Now we know that this is a way of being. So, it is one thing with the qualities of things we considered not possible in one thing at one moment in time. So now it is possible and things are no longer what we thought they were.
From our current perspective, things we think we can rule out deductively, may in fact later turn out to be possible, because of deficiencies in our models, ontologies, language and intution.
I am not arguing that what is self-contradictory is the case. I am arguing that what seems self-contradictory, may turn out not to be.
I don’t know if these things that seem paradoxical will turn out to be not so, given assumptions in them.
I think it is hubris to think you can readily place things in each box with certainty.
Let’s say energy is omnipresent. We’re made up of energy. That makes us a part of energy/the omnipresent. It doesn’t make us omnipresent does it? It’s in every aspect of us but we’re not in every aspect of it are we?
You’re made up of energy and so am I. Energy is in every aspect of both of us. We’re not in every aspect of energy. We’re just a part of it. We’re not the whole of it.
Give me one example.
It isn’t. If you put the observation in premise by premise format you’ll see that it doesn’t amount to a paradox.
Scepticism and doubt need to be rational. You cannot say, right now it feels like we can’t doubt reason, but one day we might discover that we can. We never doubt paradoxes as being paradoxes. Once something amounts to a paradox, we know we’ve gone wrong somewhere, we don’t think, ah the paradox is real. We can never accept something going into non-existence as non-existence is paradoxical. Existence being finite is paradoxical. These things have never changed and will never change with regards to them being paradoxes.
Again, we simply make observations that may appear to amount to a paradox but that is either a fault in the observation or an incomplete observation. No rational person will tell you anything different.
I think it’s irrational/paradoxical do doubt reason. I think it’s irrational to think that paradoxes will ever become non-paradoxical. We’ve never had such an example and we never will.
We have had examples where the consensus of rational people, generally the best at reasoning, were sure that something is a paradox and so could not exist. When it turned out to exist, they reevaluated, being reasoners. You however seem to think you could not possibly be in error or have any false assumptions that make it possible for you to make deductive errors.
Despite my making it clear what I meant about paradoxes, you continue to not place things in the context of limited knowledge that people have coupled with the possibility that they are making assumptions that are not the case. But you know that you, unlike experts in all sorts of fields will never find that you have faulty ontological assumptions that are affecting your deductive conclusions. You have final and infallible reason. Great.
I think I will restrict my communication to people who 1) actually respond to what I write and 2) who are open to revision, that they might revise something or find they have made faulty assumptions in the future. That they consider this possible.
That leads to a discussion and not just being told over and over that X is the case, as if this is an argument, or being implicitly insulted by being told any rational person would disagree with me.
I don’t need an ontological guru.
Reason is an unreliable tool for determining what actually exists or can exist because it can be rooted in false or untested assumptions about reality. This is why any hypothesis has to be potentially falsifiable and why empiricism is ultimately more reliable than reason. Empiricism obviously has its limitations but to employ reason where empiricism cannot go is to assume that reason is both infallible and superior to empiricism which is simply not true
You have made a number of statements which are either false or unknown based upon your fallacious use of reason
You do not know that Existence is infinite
There is no evidence that Existence can generate or sustain unicorns [ a strange claim to make ]
There are things that pop in and out of existence [ virtual particles ] so they are not paradoxical
Real paradoxes do not exist in reality because that is not actually possible there can only be assumed paradoxes
Also you cannot assume the metaphysical or supernatural exists simply because it cannot actually be disproven
And I never said that Existence and Reality are different because in actual fact I treat them as exactly the same
That is a grossly false assumption. Give me one such example. I’ve already addressed the one that you attempted to give as a paradox as not amounting to a paradox and you’ve yet to comment on my reply to your belief that scientists have observed something paradoxical.
Again, unknowns are not the same as paradoxes. I’ve given good examples.
You say this because you can’t distinguish between what an unknown is and what a paradox is. The very fact that you think a paradox could be ever understood, let alone observed is testament to this fact. Again, give me an example in any field, where a paradox was/is understood.
I think this comment to be quiet unfair. Particularly when my replies to you have been detailed and your replies to mine haven’t even addressed key points, in particular the distinction between the unknown and the absurd.
What you need is to be able to recognise the difference between the unknown and the absurd. I’ll make another attempt to clarify:
Think about the usage of language in every context. Law, science, maths, conversation with friends. Whenever what we say amounts to a paradox, It creates problems. Unless of course, the goal is humour.
We say that guy’s the killer but his alibi is solid (so he can’t be the killer otherwise it would be paradoxical)
We make an observation that a particle is going in and out of Existence but we can’t accept a bridge to non-existence so we say: Either our observation is faulty (problem with the scientific instruments) or incomplete (perhaps the particle went to a another reality or dimension that is unknown to us)
Can you see the difference between the unknown and the absurd?
How can reason be unreliable? Give me an example where reason has been unreliable.
Our observations are unreliable and I’ll give you an example. At one point in time, we observed and believed that the earth was not round. Our observation was false and we later made another observation that showed the earth to be round.
This is not reason being unreliable, this is empiricism being unreliable. Now, can you give me an example of reason being unreliable?
Without reason, there would be no empiricism. It’s reason that dictates that you can’t have something come from nothing. And science, with whatever observations it makes, will always have to make sure that any theory or observation it makes does not amount to a paradox. This is what reason dictates and science/empiricism abides by it.
Fallacious use of reason is evident when what you say is contradictory or paradoxical, agreed?
With that said, saying that Existence is finite amounts to something coming from nothing. This amounts to a paradox. So evidently, existence is not finite, it is infinite as it would be paradoxical (fallacious reasoning) to say otherwise.
Can you think of something meaningful that can never exist?
No they don’t. Show me one credible source that decided to somehow interpret any scientific observation as amounting to something going into non-existence and then coming back.
Paradoxes do not exist anywhere in Existence. Nowhere in Existence will we ever find a married-bachelor or a bendy-straight line or…non-existence. Hence why a finite Existence is absurd.
The observation that the Earth was flat was actually true from a specific point of reference. The problem was that this information was used to
determine a false conclusion. So the problem was therefore not with the observation itself but the assumption that it supported. The empirical
evidence was perfectly reliable but the non empirical conclusion based on reason was entirely unreliable. Any time there is a conflict between
reason and empiricism then empiricism will always win simply because it deals with what is actually real as opposed to what is supposedly real
Science does not say something comes from nothing. The definition of a singularity as a non existent point of infinite density cannot exist as a physical entity
Therefore if singularities do exist they can only be infinitesimal points of finite density. This is one thing that both empiricism and reason actually agree upon
As has just been said science does not say something comes from nothing. Existence may very well be temporally infinite but there
is no evidence to support this because physics breaks down at the Big Bang and so what happened before then is currently unknown
Meaningfulness is dependent upon subjective interpretation which renders the question invalid
Even if this was not so meaningfulness and existence are not automatically compatible anyway