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

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?

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 in 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 perfection being any less infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient.

So where’s the paradox?

Certainly real,

Two things of note: you confuse infinity and eternity
You still use the word paradox incorrectly

So here’s you’re argument:

Everything that exists, exists in existence
Existants have the properties of knowledge, presence and power, all of which is inside of existence of which nothing is outside existence.

So, existence is doing everything that is being done in existence, and knowing everything that is known in existence. You take a further leap of logic, by defining this as perfect!

I notice you always leave omnibenevolence out when you list omnistates, probably because the argument of evil is the most damaging argument against such a being. Which by the way, is the only omnistate every being in existence cares about.

I don’t think you understand that in order for omnipresence to work, it has to be inside looking out and outside looking in.

Part of the power in the universe is murdering people, which if you do it, by definition, god, has to be doing it as part of all the power and presence in existence.

Per your argument, though we may not be god, god still commits every sin in existence.

Think of it this way. We know what a healthy liver is.
Our liver is inside of us, when it is unhealthy, we are sick.

Through this analogy … every organ in gods body is sick… except god!!!

That’s not rational.

Look into platonic forms (eternal) if you want to understand existence better.

Eternal means: never begins or ends
Infinite means: begins but doesn’t end

Definitions can be whatever we want them to be, but I’d argue that the definitions should not be as you posited because eternity is colloquially considered a special type of infinity that has to do with time. Furthermore, something that begins, but doesn’t end, doesn’t make sense to me because something cannot come from nothing, which is what would be required in order to have a something that began, but never ends.

I generally regard infinity as boundless and eternity as timeless (absence of time instead of infinite amounts of it, which is really the same thing). If there were infinite oranges, oranges would be in every location possible to the extent that there would be nothing but oranges because the condition would have to be satisfied that no more oranges could be added to the universe and that would only be possible if oranges were ubiquitous, and if that were the case, then there would be nothing that is not-orange and therefore no contrast or context in which oranges could be said to exist and therefore the oranges would not exist. So the infinite cannot be something that exists.

Hello. :obscene-drinkingcheers:

I’m not convinced you have a concept of what existence is.

This dot exists → .

The dot only exists because there is a contrasting background giving it context in which to exist. If there were no background, there could not be a dot and no dot could be said to exist.

So existence is a relation of one thing to another thing.

Abstract existence is not anything we can conceptualize or speak about as real because it would have no contrast or context, unless you could demonstrate how nothingness can be a thing such that we could have something in the context of nothing. But if nothingness were made into a thing, then we’re back to square one because something would exist in terms of the thing that is nothing and, once again, existence is relational instead of abstract.