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

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

A geodesic is a straight line in four dimensional spacetime bent by the effect of gravity upon mass
Also in reality there are no such things as absolute straight lines as they only exist in mathematics

Certainly real,

I won the debate here

viewtopic.php?p=2709918#p2709918

I stated that if we are all INSIDE god, then either there is no sin, or there is sin IN god.
I used your own logic about us not being existence but rather in existence against your perfection argument. You couldn’t handle the disproof, per your reply, which just stated that we are in existence and not existence itself.

Besides, if energy is omnipresent, every quanta is energy, and would be omnipresent.

We are energy and energy is omnipresent does not logically extend to we are God and God is omnipresent so that cannot be accepted
Energy is an observed phenomenon while God cannot be observed at all for he resides in the metaphysical / supernatural for all time

You’re making the same logical mistake as certainly real, you’re assuming that a being has to be omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, perfect etc… and any argument that counters it is wrong.

I’m pointing out that such a being doesn’t exist.

If god is everywhere, and god (everywhere) is omniscient, than we must all be omniscient for that to be true.

God has never experienced not knowing someone’s middle name, this means there’s an infinite amount of subjective states that we can prove god doesn’t have access to.

Also if we are all inside God then that means there is either no sin or there is sin inside a perfect being.

Neither you nor certainly real have addressed these arguments on their merits. I’m not using circular arguments like you two are

Were we inside God then his existence could actually be demonstrated by virtue of the fact but it cannot so it cannot be true
Usually theists will refer to God as being inside them so reversing it is unusual although not from a panentheistic perspective

This is all academic however as the entity known as God remains immune to investigation
And so winning any philosophical argument is therefore a Pyrrhic victory and nothing else

Ecmandu I do not believe in God so why would I be making arguments for his existence

Omniscience and omnipotence and omnibenelovence are all incompatible and so cannot be the characteristics of God anyway
So if he does exist he has to be a logical being as a non logical being such as the multi omni one above cannot exist in reality


Even God cannot violate the Law Of Non Contradiction or any law of logic

On the contrary, it was not reason that was flawed. It was what we observed. To us it looked like the earth was flat. This was a flaw or rather a lack of observation, not a flaw or lack of reasoning.

Again, empiricism is reliant on reason. It’s not the other way round. Reason needs to be fed observations for science to exist. Observations don’t need to be fed reason; observations need to get organised and made sense of by reason in order for science to exist. If something is paradoxical/irrational, then it can’t be made sense of. It therefore can’t be science because paradoxes are devoid of any meaning. If you look at the philosophy of Science, you’ll find that it’s reason that dictates what constitutes good science.

I acknowledge that what happened before the Big Bang is unknown, but this is why I’m emphasising the difference between the unknown and the absurd:

Unknown = what happened before the Big Bang.

Absurd = Something coming from nothing.

Absurdities will always remain absurd.

Perhaps I made the mistake of portraying humanity as being infallible in its use of reason. I do not believe this. We are fallible, but reason itself is infallible. Our challenge is to use it right. Again, I acknowledge that we are fallible and that we may falsely see something as paradoxical that isn’t actually paradoxical on initial glance (I’ve witnessed myself make this mistake).

Having said that though, surely some things are abundantly clear as always being paradoxical. Such as the impossibility of something coming from nothing. No philosopher in history has ever managed to come close to doubting this. Any who attempted to doubt this, ultimately descended into madness and pure absurdity/nihilism. Perhaps Nietsche is one such example.

What I’m trying to say is, the doubting of reason, or the denial of existence, has never happened and will never happen. Even empiricism verifies this when we look to our history.

Fair enough Ecmandu. You are right to say there is sin IN God and I won’t disagree with you on that. But that doesn’t make my position paradoxical.

If a part of Existence is imperfect that does not mean that the whole of Existence is imperfect. So long as the traits are maintained, then my position is not paradoxical. To demonstrate:

Me sinning does not make that which is omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient/infinite (perfection) any less omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient/infinite, does it? So my position is without paradox, unless you can prove otherwise.

You’re position is still paradoxical/irrational. You reject omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience. Again, these concepts are not hypothetical possibilities, they are not absurd, and they are not unknown; so they are necessary. Existence is necessarily omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient/infinite.

Again, being a part of omnipresence is not the same as being omnipresent. Is it? You can’t be omniscient if you’re not omnipresent. I’ve addressed your point about imperfect beings in the perfect being sinning. I didn’t ignore your argument but you seem to ignore that there’s a difference between being a part of omnipresence/Existence and being omnipresent/Existence

There is no contradiction in Existence being infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient. Where is the contradiction?

There is, however, a contradiction in rejecting Existence as being infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient. I’ve demonstrated before.

Nice try. If there’s sin in me, I’m imperfect, but if there’s sin in god, god is still perfect?

I don’t think so.

Per your reply to surreptitious, actually platonic forms describe the universe better than a contradictory being. They are eternal forms in a different dimension that project from us.

You and me are both imperfect by default. Our imperfection is not because we sin, it’s because we are not perfect (infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient.)

The definition of true perfection is: that which is infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient. So long as this definition holds, there are no paradoxes.

Being in something and being something are different things. I have a liver in me. I am a human. A liver has a definition, and a human has a definition. A liver and a human do not have the same definition. Still, a liver is part of a human.

Perfection has a definition (see above). Imperfection also has a definition (Anything that lacks omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience/infiniteness). Logically, if infiniteness/omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience ceases to be or is altered in any way, then we no longer have perfection. So long as perfection is not altered, we still have perfection.

Perfection can’t be imperfection (as it can’t be anything other than infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient) but it can have imperfection within it. It can have imperfection within it because perfection containing imperfection does not alter perfection in any way. Perfection containing imperfection does not result in the end of perfection being infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient in any way.

So where’s the paradox?