Because God has to know all subjective states of ignorance to know all that is known in existence, if god doesn’t know them all, then it demonstrates a lack of omnipresence for intelligent beings, thus, a lack of omnipresence in general, or as far as we are concerned
The premises are correct because their rejection is paradoxical. Tell me which premise is incorrect, and I will show you how it’s rejection is impossible. So far, you’ve only focused on the premise that’s in relation to omniscience being meaningless, which I’ve addressed extensively.
You also brought in the concept of omnibenevolance as being problematic to a perfect being, which I addressed here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194327&start=25#p2709529
I’d say your use of the word infinite is wrong. Bear the following in mind when you read the rest of this post. You can never have two different things in the same place at at the same time. It would be paradoxical to say that you can. Bear the following key words/meanings in mind: Infinite (without beginning and without end) Semi-infinite (with a beginning but without an end) Finite (with both a beginning and an end)
The core argument+conclusion is as follows:
A) You can’t have two beings occupy the same place and time. B) You can’t have something come from nothing
This yields the following conclusion:
C) Only Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Any alternative to C will either lead to A or B or both. Try it, you’ll see.
Infinity has to be treated as a whole. It can’t be infinite in some dimensions whilst being finite or semi-infinite in others (absurdity B as you can’t have any dimension come from nothing or border non-existence) So it is necessarily infinite in all dimensions and can never be anything other than this and has never been anything other than this.
Bearing in mind A, no other being can be infinite in any dimension.
With regards to all dimensions, Existence is necessarily infinite. Consider time. You necessarily can’t have two infinite time lines as that amounts to A. But you can have two or more semi-infinite timelines within this infinite time line/dimension purely because an infinite time line allows for a semi-infinite amount of start points. Simply, this amounts to a semi-infinite amount of semi-infinite time lines. If there were no start points, then it’d be infinite and that would amount to A.
This applies to all dimensions. You can have a semi-infinite number of lines in/on any two dimensions. So long as it’s two dimensions or more and with a different start point, then no paradoxes occur.
If it’s two dimensions or more and with the same start point, then additional considerations go into place. Which I’ll discuss:
In a semi-infinite reality Q (one that’s semi-infinite in xyz and t, with start point Q = (QxQyQz and Qt)) you can have partially semi-infinite beings in relation to reality Q (beings that are Q-semi-infinite in some dimensions such as time, but Q-finite in other dimensions such as xyz, and you can have a semi-infinite number of these (let’s call them Q-immortals) Q-immortal beings.
Notice how I have attached Q to everything. It’s to signify that these immortals are all a part of this semi-infinite reality that is anchored/rooted in start point Q. All Q-immortals are somewhere on/equal to or after the start point QxQyQz Qt). No being in reality Q can be fully QxQyQz Qt because this amounts to paradox A. But you can have anything other than this. So you can have a semi infinite number of immortals that began when reality Q began. Call these Immortals Q1, and you can have this reality produce another set of immortals (the mechanisms of which don’t matter but let’s say some of the Q1 immortals gave birth to Q2 immortals) and so on semi-infinitely.
We talked about reality Q. Q is endlessly Q in xyz and t dimensions. It can produce partially semi-infinite Q-beings of its own as demonstrated with the Q-immortals. It can’t produce something that’s Q (xyz t) because that would amount to paradox A. Q-ness needs to separate all the things that it contains. But because Q-ness is endless, it can have an endless amount of Q anchored beings/realities. Amongst the things that it can contain: Anything that is less than/after than Q-ness, reality Q can accommodate.
Given what you’ve said in your previous posts, initially, to you it may look as though you can’t have a semi-infinite number of partially semi-infinite beings in reality Q that’s semi-infinite in the dimensions of space and time. It may look as though there’d be no room or space, but actually, there is. It ultimately amounts to this: There is endless space and time, so it can accommodate an endless number of spatially finite immortal beings. All these beings can be immortal (sharing this particular semi-infinite time line tied to reality Q). So long as both the reality that is semi-infinite in multiple dimensions and the immortal beings that inhabit it are anchored to the start point relative to Q, and the paradox of A is avoided, we’re well in line with the truth. That is the key difference between all beings/realities that are not God, and God. God necessarily has no start and no end point. Everything else necessarily has one (a start point) or both (a start point and an end point) in at least two or more of Existence’s/God’s dimensions.
That which is infinite can accommodate a semi-infinite number of these semi-infinite worlds. They all necessarily have to have a start point/tied/anchored in Existence/the infinite, but they don’t necessarily have to have an end point.
Semi-infinite = without end but with a beginning. The reason you can’t have an infinite number of beings is because there’s no room for such a possibility. The potential is not there. There’d be nothing to separate them. Everything must have at least two points in existence. If it didn’t have any points in Existence, then it would be Existence/infinity itself or absurdity/non-existence.
So that extensively addresses your misuse/misunderstanding of infinity.
With regards to God knowing what it’s like to not know something, we already discussed this extensively. A clear distinction was made between A) knowing x and not not knowing x at the same time (paradoxical) and B) knowing x and knowing what it’s like to not know x at the same time.
Circular but correct. Your misuse/misunderstanding of infinity make what you propose false/paradoxical/irrational.
I have addressed this.
I know perfection cannot be imperfection just as I know a square cannot be a circle. You can have a circle contain a square without the definition of the circle changing to something else. So long as the circle doesn’t change, it’s still circular regardless of what it contains or how that which it contains changes.
So, how much imperfection you ask? Perfection is that which is infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient. Anything that doesn’t match this definition is not perfect. So long as these traits don’t change, perfection is maintained regardless of what it contains within it.
Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Paradoxical otherwise:
So i’d say your understanding of infinite is wrong. Bear the following in mind when you read the rest of this post. You can never have two different things in the same place at at the same time. It would be paradoxical to say that you can. Bear the following key words/meanings in mind: Infinite (without beginning and without end) Semi-infinite (with a beginning but without an end) Finite (with both a beginning and an end)
The core argument+conclusion is as follows:
A) You can’t have two beings occupy the same place and time. B) You can’t have something come from nothing
This yields the following conclusion:
C) Only Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Any alternative to C will either lead to A or B or both. Try it, you’ll see.
Infinity has to be treated as a whole. It can’t be infinite in some dimensions whilst being finite or semi-infinite in others (absurdity B as you can’t have any dimension come from nothing or border non-existence) So it is necessarily infinite in all dimensions and can never be anything other than this and has never been anything other than this.
Bearing in mind A, no other being can be infinite in any dimension.
With regards to all dimensions, Existence is necessarily infinite. Consider time. You necessarily can’t have two infinite time lines as that amounts to A. But you can have two or more semi-infinite timelines within this infinite time line/dimension purely because an infinite time line allows for a semi-infinite amount of start points. Simply, this amounts to a semi-infinite amount of semi-infinite time lines. If there were no start points, then it’d be infinite and that would amount to A.
This applies to all dimensions. You can have a semi-infinite number of lines in/on any two dimensions. So long as it’s two dimensions or more and with a different start point, then no paradoxes occur.
In all dimensions. We know that we don’t everything about Existence (for example, how many senses are there, can it sustain a being with a 100 senses) these are unknowns. But what is know is that Existence has to be all-existing/omnipresent. Plus the other traits I’ve been mentioning. These are knowns because contrary to them with paradoxical. Unknowns are simply that, unknown, they don’t contradict the core traits of Existence.
Paradoxes are absurd. They will never make sense. Alway, it’s either a case of faulty observations, or unknowns. Never a case of absurdity. So with every example that you gave that appears to look like a contradiction/paradox, it is simply a matter of unknown or problems with the theory that’s being worked with. Again, if we observe something that appears to go in and out of Existence, we can never conclude this as it is absurd. We are forced to conclude the following:
A) Either it’s a case of faulty observation or
B) It’s a matter of unknown (particle went to an unknown dimension/reality or did something unknown)
Unknowns are unknown (we don’t know if they’re absurd are possible. We can’t apply reason to them as they are unknown). This is not the same as an absurdity where we have applied reason and it amounted to a paradox (faulty reasoning, or faulty positions of meanings/semantics, faulty use of language, faulty theories etc.)
Omnipresent entails being infinite in all dimensions. So that includes xyz and t plus possible unknowns. Omnipresence is not doubtable, it would be paradoxical.
How is does this render the nature of Existence as being anything other than infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient?
You can be sure. Paradoxes are always impossible. We can say this with certainty just as we can say that reason is infallible. Our use of reason however, is not so infallible.
I do accept that we may mistakenly not see something as amounting to a paradox on initial glance and we may mistakenly consider some things as paradoxical that aren’t but this doesn’t alter the fact that paradoxes are always impossible.
Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Paradoxical otherwise:
Bear the following in mind when you read the rest of this post. You can never have two different things in the same place at at the same time. It would be paradoxical to say that you can. Bear the following key words/meanings in mind: Infinite (without beginning and without end) Semi-infinite (with a beginning but without an end) Finite (with both a beginning and an end)
The core argument+conclusion is as follows:
A) You can’t have two beings occupy the same place and time. B) You can’t have something come from nothing
This yields the following conclusion:
C) Only Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Any alternative to C will either lead to A or B or both. Try it, you’ll see.
Infinity has to be treated as a whole. It can’t be infinite in some dimensions whilst being finite or semi-infinite in others (absurdity B as you can’t have any dimension come from nothing or border non-existence) So it is necessarily infinite in all dimensions and can never be anything other than this and has never been anything other than this.
Bearing in mind A, no other being can be infinite in any dimension.
With regards to all dimensions, Existence is necessarily infinite. Consider time. You necessarily can’t have two infinite time lines as that amounts to A. But you can have two or more semi-infinite timelines within this infinite time line/dimension purely because an infinite time line allows for a semi-infinite amount of start points. Simply, this amounts to a semi-infinite amount of semi-infinite time lines. If there were no start points, then it’d be infinite and that would amount to A.
This applies to all dimensions. You can have a semi-infinite number of lines in/on any two dimensions. So long as it’s two dimensions or more and with a different start point, then no paradoxes occur.
Certainly real,
You didn’t answer my question, but for now it’s neither here nor there. I proved that there are subjective states god has no access to. Mine’s demonstrable, yours is not. Omniscience is a flawed premise. You even state yourself that none of us can be this, so it’s unfalsifiable by your own definition, but I did falsify omniscience by what we can all demonstrate. I don’t think you truly understand …
It is a PROOF that god has NEVER known what it’s like to not know something, but we have, and in an infinite cosmos, there are an infinite number of subjective states that god has 0% access to. This means that a human can judge a human better than god.
But… I’m going to blow your mind further …
Before I do, I need to say this!
To say that a perfect being planned all of this, and we should just accept it, is actually a really scary way to look at life, as in sadistic and psychopathic (“you don’t know, this is going to hurt, but it’s NECESSARILY for the BEST”). NO MEANS NO !!! There’s no other philosophy to be had there. Now you’re coming off as a serious creep. That’s your argument against omnibenevolence? Ouch man, psychopath cult leader vibes here.
Here’s what’s going to blow your mind:
Something that comes from something else came from nothing at all. Even if god does it.
I gave you a proof earlier and you ignored it.
If god knows every reason why god does what god does, and all of those reasons are internal, then god knows nothing about why there’s an external to act upon, which means there’s no otherness in existence.
This causes a state called logical Catatonia where the being in question cannot perceive existence.
Additionally, you confuse, “all the knowledge of existence is in existence”. With the statement, existence knows all the knowledge in existence.
You’re taking existence outside of itself, which you yourself said is impossible.
I still don’t see why knowledge is needed in order to exist. For instance, the Christian god is the technocrat who could explain how he created the universe, but the Hindu god would have no idea and he would say he just did it. Both gods exist everywhere: Yahweh exists everywhere by definition and Brahman exists everywhere because everything is made of Brahman, but he has no idea how he does anything just like you’ve no idea how you beat your heart. Existence doesn’t seem to be dependent upon knowledge (conceptual knowledge).
Infinity is not anything that can exist and is actually a result of the circularity of self-inspection (infinity is an error message). The day infinity exists is the day forever has arrived. It’s impossible.
Here is a good read on the topic theorangeduck.com/page/infinity-doesnt-exist
That wasn’t my point. Knowledge is needed in order to KNOW you exist, if I can disprove omnipresence of knowledge, I can disprove omnipresence in general.
He missed the big one in this essay.
Anything finite in an infinite universe, where the standard of mathematics is that of infinite set converge, force the fact that anything finite inside infinity has a zero percent chance of existing!
I want to clarify this better.
If I live one day out of an infinite number of days, upon converging that infinity, the day becomes so infinitesimal that it has a zero percent chance of occurring!
What are dimensions? You’re still trying to define existence in terms of something that already exists.
What does the universe look like from the outside? There is no outside and there is no “look” outside the universe and there are no dimensions outside and there is no “where” outside. Existence inside this universe is being a function of the universe, but outside the universe, there is nothing to exist as a function of and therefore no possible way to exist outside. But that begs the question of how the universe exists because what would it exist as a function of? That’s the paradox.
But you’re just postulating that. You’re making an axiom of the impossibility of absurdities from the context of inside the universe in order to draw conclusions about things outside the universe. You may be right and you may be wrong, but you’re just guessing.
Yeah, that’s what Einstein thought. He thought there were hidden variables that would determine what appear to be random results, but John Bell proved there are no hidden variables. IOW, events are absolutely causeless.
Or in the case of Einstein vs Borh: C) We’re forced to conclude absurdities exist.
Infinite in all directions = nonexistence. The ubiquitous cannot be said to exist because there is nothing to contrast it to.
We can’t make statements about everything. Alan Watts gave a great talk about this:
Start at 10:00
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7vFOU8e0wU[/youtube]
You can only say everything in the universe is ___________ if you made an exception. Then, according to logical analysis, you could have made a meaningful statement. But when you start making statements about everything, there’s nothing you can do about it: you can’t prove it and you can’t disprove it. And so they say “You think you have said something, you haven’t really said anything at all.”
We can’t make logical statements about everything, so omniwhatevers are absurdities right off the bat.
And existence is relational. Abstract existence will never make sense to us.
Maybe it’s a failure on my part, but I still can’t see how you’re connecting the proof of omnipresence of knowledge to omnipresence in general. I think finite things can have a omnipresence like a glass being 100% full of water or a piece of metal having an omnipresence of steel, so the problem comes in with the omnipresence inside the infinite and I maintain that’s nonexistence because ubiquitousness would have no contrast. In order to exist, there needs to be a place of nonexistence to provide contrast.
Yes I agree and so does Alan Watts. He said “Something that only happens once in infinite time, never happens.” I think Nietzsche is down with it as well, if his infinite reoccurence theory is a guide.
In infinite time (causality), any odds of happening become certain, so if something has a chance of occurring, then it will occur infinite times. It’s digital: either it happens infinite times or it never happens. But nothing can happen just once.
Because omnipresence of knowledge is a subset of omnipresence in general, if the subset is proven non omnipresent, then by virtue, the superset has a proven gap.
Paradoxes only exist within the confines of this universe like certain paradoxes will exist within the confines of a computer-generated environment, but beings inside the environment who are trying to draw conclusions about the outside environment are stabbing in the dark because they have no way to relate to it.
For example, you say squared circles are impossible, yet looking at an alarm clock we see squared circles (zero) because the resolution is terribly low and the clock only has 7 pixels to work with. Within that construct there is no difference between a rectangle and an oval. Even in our environment they say the planck distance is the shortest distance, so there are no true circles, but only polygons with lots of sides. Perhaps in that light, PI will not be infinite.
Disproof of subsets invalidates the general category? Are you sure?
Claim: omnipresence of some things are possible.
Omnipresence of X is not possible therefore the claim is invalid. Is that true?