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

If it’s something we can verify experientially…

Yes!

I disagree. Essentially, after we established that can God know what it’s like to not know something via everything being informational and God having all the right tools to understand this information, you didn’t successfully refute this argument. If you think you did, show me where, and I’ll show you where I countered and then we can compare them directly.

We addressed the distinction between being a part of God and being God. We addressed the distinction between 1) knowing x and not knowing x at the same time (paradoxical) and how this is not the same as 2) knowing x and what it’s like to not know x (not paradoxical)

You’ve still to not clearly said, do you acknowledge the distinction between 1 and 2? My understanding is that you still insist that the item of knowledge you’re proposing: Namely, knowing x and not knowing x at the same time, is something that is knowable/not absurd.

I also made a clear distinction between how parts can be a certain way, without affecting the definition of the whole here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194327&start=125#p2710079
You didn’t directly address the post. You reiterated what you said and brought in the concept of infinity. Which again, I addressed in my last post to you.

Again, we are a part of the omnipresent/omniscient/Existence. We are not it, we are a part of it. It would be paradoxical otherwise. Address this point if you’re sincere.

God is Existence, so obviously God is never gonna know non-existence. It’s not something to be known. That is absurdity. Again, God knows what it’s like to not know something. This does not amount to knowing x and not know x at the same time. See, I addressed your point again, but you keep avoiding this very point. Address it directly if you’re genuine about philosophical debate.

That’s because you focus too much on unknowns. You don’t know the future so you don’t know how things might get balanced in terms of justice. Also, you don’t know what mechanisms kick in to counter some of the evil we see in our world. It’d take omnisience to make that judgement and it’d take omniscience to fully know the potential of all things in relation to each other. Unknowns are things that you can’t apply reason to. It’s an irrational move. By all means, if you see clear injustice and it’s clearly known to you and you want to uphold reason and morality, then do something. Perhaps give to charity and hope that you were part of the mechanism for some kind of justice (in this case wealth distribution), but don’t make assumptions about things that are outside your realm of knowledge like this wrong/injustice will never be righted.

It’s matter of reason. Knowns outweigh unknowns. Pure and simple. You don’t deny omnipresence just because you don’t know if existence can sustain beings with a 100 senses or not. You don’t deny the Perfect being doing/planning/designing perfectly because you don’t know the future and can’t see if things get balanced or if there is some benefit that may not have been derived otherwise. God does as it pleases, but what it does, it does perfectly because it is perfect. I can think of hypotheticals to how the evil you see can ultimately be a necessary thing in relation to bringing out the best of outcomes relative to the potential. However rejection of Existence as that which I’ve outlined, is blatantly paradoxical. You can’t give me any alternative hypotheticals. So again:

We don’t reject knowns in favour of unknowns. It’d be misguided to do so. To non-omniscient beings how God does perfectly is at times mysterious/unknown. But God always does perfectly.

It’s paradoxical so it’s meaningless.

There’s no external when it comes to Existence. That’s absurd. There’s nothing that isn’t a part of God/Existence. There’s nothing other than Existence. We’re in full agreement on this. What you don’t seem to address or acknowledge is that: We’re just a part of Existence, we are not Existence itself, we’re just a part of it. I’ve repeated this many times you either don’t understand it or you ignore it. Do you understand now?

What did I say that lead you to believe this? In any case, I acknowledge there’s a difference between the two, I don’t know where you got that idea from.

Dimensions are an aspect of Existence. They’ve always been an aspect of Existence and will always be an aspect of Existence. Paradoxical otherwise.

If it’s paradoxical, we can’t accept it. Something coming from nothing is not a matter of unknown, it’s simply impossible. We know this.

If I said something like: There are beings in Existence that have a 100 senses, then I’d be guessing. A matter of unknown. But if I say something like: You can’t doubt reason using reason, or, you can’t have something come from nothing; then I’m not guessing. I’m using reason. Reason is an aspect of Existence and it dictates things clearly and authoritatively. We can’t rationally deny it.

On the contrary, we’re always forced to conclude either faulty observation or unknown. We can’t conclude absurdities exist because that is a paradoxical sentence. We can never understand something like a married-bachelor existing or a square-circle existing.

Non-existence = the negation of Existence (which is absurd/paradoxical) Infinity = not having a beginning or an end. They are not the same thing. One is absurd, whilst the other is necessary. One is absurd, whilst the negation of the other is absurd.

We can clearly distinguish between things that are in Existence (us), and Existence (infinity/omnipresent) itself. We clearly recognise that we are not Existence, we are just a part of it.

We can’t have paradoxes. I’ve demonstrated how rejecting Existence as being Infinite is paradoxical. I’ve also demonstrated how omnipotence and omniscience are necessarily traits of the infinite/omnipresent. I’ve shown how their rejection is necessarily paradoxical.

If you see these concepts as paradoxical, then demonstrate how they amount to a paradox.

You’re argument was that god can deduce what we don’t know, which is entirely different than God knowing the subjective states of what it’s actually like to not know something.

You’re still using the word paradox incorrectly. It is either proof or disproof through contradiction.

if it’s the same being, it’s proof through contradiction that omniscience is an insoluble concept.

actually, the parts disprove the whole as you’re attempting to present it, demonstrably

Being part of it means that if anything is imperfect or contradictory in the subset, the set is flawed as well. Think about mathematical proofs, like fermata last theorem… the first submission of it has logical errors. After going back to the drawing board for several more years, the theorem was proven. You don’t have a proven theorem!

again, this is disingenuous on your part. I know what it’s like to not know someones middle name. God never has nor will.

“No means no” psychopath.

actually I’m using your own proof that something cannot come from nothing. That means if something comes from something else, it’s the first time in existence that it was substantiated, since it hasn’t always been, it necessarily comes from nothing at all. I’m using your own logic here.
Your logic leads to an absurdity… and no sigh none of this has to do with paradoxes.

[quote]

There’s no external when it comes to Existence. That’s absurd. There’s nothing that isn’t a part of God/Existence. There’s nothing other than Existence. We’re in full agreement on this. What you don’t seem to address or acknowledge is that: We’re just a part of Existence, we are not Existence itself, we’re just a part of it. I’ve repeated this many times you either don’t understand it or you ignore it. Do you understand now?

You’ve been saying it the whole damn time!!! " Existence is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent"

What are aspects? You’re still using things that exist to define existence. You can’t do that; it’s circular definitions.

That’s dogma. You’ve simply axiomized it to be true.

And yet every quantum event is something from nothing. That’s what randomness means (there is no cause).

But is reason a function of this universe or is it objective?

No, Bell proved there are no unknowns and repeated experimentation proved it was not faulty observation, so the only conclusion left is that absurdities exist.

Since we know absurdities exist, now we’re forced to conclude reasoning itself is relative to the construct in which it exists.

Lack of understanding doesn’t preclude existence.

If nonexistence is absurd and if absurdities are nonexistent, then nonexistence is nonexistent.

Things that are boundless are not things. Things have boundaries/borders/fences/walls/divisions between what is the thing and what is not. The infinite is not a thing and not anything that could exist. We can’t have boxes with no sides. Infinity is the box with an inside, but no outside.

Which is which?

Existence isn’t an it. Existence isn’t a thing to exist, but is a relationship between things.

Existence is not infinite for the same reason “relational” is not infinite. It’s like saying the color of 3 is loud.

I’ve demonstrated that it’s not logically possible to demonstrate omnis to be true. The key word is logic, so you’d have to assert some new form of logic to make conclusions about all-things. Or else just refuse to see logic and cling to faith.

I’m sorry, refresh my memory. You said existence must exist everywhere in the universe, which is true, but you haven’t said anything about existence outside the universe. I keep prodding you to :teasing-poke: Existence outside the universe is the million dollar question.

Omnipotence is impossible because one cannot have all advantages because every advantage has a disadvantage. For instance being big and strong requires lots of fuel, so one could easily be starved into submission. Being big also precludes being small and nimble. Likewise, being small precludes being strong. Being impermeable has the disadvantage of not being able to feel and being perceptive leaves one open to permeability. Being all-powerful is impossible.

Omniscience is impossible because one cannot know what it’s like to know what he doesn’t know. So either he will be ignorant of that, or he will be ignorant of something else.

Omnipresence is impossible because there would be nothing that is not embodied in order to provide context for existence, so the ubiquitous is a state of nonexistence.

Furthermore, all statements about “all” are not logical, including this one. Therein lies the paradox.

Here are some more:

All statements must be empirically verifiable, except this one.
All moral claims are immoral, except this one.
All objective claims are irrational, except this one.
It is truth that there is no truth.
Change is the only thing that stays the same.
We have a rule of no rules and religion of no religion.
We should not tell folks what they should do.

Ultimately, we cannot be the object of our own knowledge.

Boring.

Another paradox! Something is boring yet captivating enough to comment on :laughing:

The subjective states of what it’s actually like to not know something. You’re saying the same thing. Ultimately it amounts to the following:
This sounds to me like it amounts to A) Just different levels of non-omnisience. Or B) the subjective state of being non-omnisicient. Or C) Being non-omniscient.

Which of the above 3 are you referring to?

It has to be one of the. If I’m wrong, tell me that it’s neither and clarify some more. With regards to A and B, the same outcome occurs.

A and B both amount to what it’s like to not know something. This is not paradoxical. If it is, then say this is, so I know where we differ.

C is paradoxical. It amounts to knowing x and not knowing x at the same time. It amounts to being omniscient and non-omniscient at the same time. It amounts to x being both x and y at the same time. Do you see how C amounts to a paradox?

If your saying it’s A or B, then no paradoxes occur and you’ve given me a rational/meaningful/coherent sentence to deal with. If you’re saying it’s C, then you’ve given me a sentence that amounts to meaninglessness. It does not amount to being within the realms of knowing or doing.

You understand what I mean by my use of that word. That’s what matters.

A and B are meaningful sentences. C is paradoxical. If it amounts to A or B, then you’ve given me something meaningful just as I gave you something meaningful with the definition of omniscience. We can bring them into rational discourse. If what you’ve given me amounts to C, then how can something meaningless be brought into rational discourse? How can it amount to knowledge or something that’s doable to be relevant to the definitions that I’ve proposed.

Do you see the difference between being x and knowing what it’s like to be x? You are x and you know what it’s like to be x. But you don’t exclusively know what it’s like to be x just because you are x. You being x give rise to being x like. You can be copied with 100% accuracy. So something else can know what it’s like to be x like. Essentially, it’s just information that requires the right receptor to understand it to amount to knowledge. Saying that Existence/that which is omnipresent does not have all the necessary tools/senses/receptors/capacity to make full sense of what it’s like to be x is paradoxical.

Infinity is different. For example, infinity is indivisible. All other numbers are divisible.

Long story short, if the definition doesn’t change, then it doesn’t change. I demonstrated how you can have x within y whilst retaining both xness and yness. You’ve yet to show me how this is contradictory.

God has never been non-omniscient and never will be. But God knows what non-omnisience is like. These are two very different things. God knows non-omniscience but is not non-omniscient. God knows us but God isn’t us and we’re not it. We’re a part of it.

I’ll mirror your approach. “Unknown means unknown” omniscient pretender.

You’re not using my logic at all. I clearly state Existence is infinite it has always been existent and will always exist. What you’re saying is entirely different and then you’re attributing it to me.

I’m still saying it. It’s what reason dictates.

You’ve irreconcilably contradicted yourself so many times in this thread, and also lack comprehension…

I’m just going to say, “believe what you want to believe”

Contradicting ones self is an adaptation that heterosexual males use to acquire female mating privileges in this species.

Existence has dimensions. Dimensions are a feature/aspect of Existence. Can there be any other definition that doesn’t include this?

Also, so long as it’s true, there’s nothing wrong with being circular. I’ll give you an example.

Reason can’t be doubted. This is also circular but true because anything other than this is paradoxical.

Dogma is something that reason warns us about. If anything is paradoxical, we can’t accept it. We look for alternatives or for clarity or for more information until we understand what amounted to the paradox. It’s not just that we shouldn’t accept it. We literally can’t accept it because we can’t understand it.

You cannot understand something coming from nothing. Even if you can have something that is entirely random or unknown, it has not come from non-existence (absurdity). Either it was generated by or is sustained by something else, or, it’s always been there.

Reason is objective and infallible. Where we lack knowledge or make mistakes is not reason making mistakes; rather, it’s our inadequate or inappropriate use of it. Once we have all the appropriate pieces of knowledge to feed reason and we do it appropriately, reason gives us the truth.

I am not in disagreement with unknowns. I’m sure there are unknowns, but unknowns are not the same as paradoxes. Not knowing if there are aliens with a 100 senses is not the same as not knowing if there are aliens that can be a square and a circle at the same time. Or married-bachelor aliens. Do you see the difference between unknowns and absurdities?

Do you see the difference between unknown and absurd? Did reason give us cause to doubt it? How would it do so?

No but when rejecting something is paradoxical, you can’t reject it. You can’t doubt/reject reason, because it’s paradoxical. You can’t doubt/reject Existence as being infinite because it’s paradoxical. You can’t accept non-existence because it’s paradoxical. Again, unknowns are different to paradoxes. You can accept that there are unknowns, but you can’t accept that there are paradoxes.

Circular but true.

Show me how something being endless or boundless or limitless would be paradoxical. You can’t call a box infinity. That’s like saying the square-circle or the finite-infinite so that’s obviously gonna cause problems. You can however have a semi infinite object that is like a box in terms of width and height but endless in terms of depth. This is not paradoxical at all.

Non-existence is absurd. An infinite existence is not. Any thing other than an infinite Existence will involve non-existence (absurdity) in some way. For example the rejection of Existence being infinite, results in Existence sharing a border with non-existence.

Existence has to be something otherwise it would be nothing. What’s the alternative?
A relationship between things is an aspect of Existence. Relationships are something that Existence sustains and makes possible. Things aren’t related to each other and separated via non-existence, they’re separated and related to each via Existence. And it (Existence) necessarily has to be infinite to avoid the absurdity that is non-existence/nothingness.

Existence has to be a thing and it has to be omnipresent and infinite. Take our solar system for example. It is encompassed by our galaxy which is encompassed by the universe which is ultimately encompassed by Existence. We are separated by something in Existence, we’re not separated by non-existence. Something is omnipresent/infinite/omnipotent/omniscient/Existence.

Not just the universe though. Existence encompasses the universe. If it didn’t, the universe would be surrounded by non-existence. If the universe is expanding, what’s it expanding into? If it’s not non-existence, then it’s surely Existence right? What possible alternatives are there?

Not if you’re omnipresent. Being omnipresent means you have reach and access to all things. You can do anything that is imaginable. All the examples you give are in relation to non-omnipresent things. Non-omnipresent things can never be omnipotent, they’ll always lack in some area.

Knowing x and not knowing x at the same time is not the same as knowing x and knowing what it’s like to not know x at the same time. I know some things now, but I know what it’s like to not know them whilst knowing them at the same time. Simply via a process of negation, you can know what it’s like to know less than you know or even know what it’s like to be less than you are. I know what it’s like to be blind, but i’m not blind. This is a case of negating the senses.

What does this mean to you exactly? Without omnipresence, you end up with things being separated by non-existence. You’d end up with the paradox that is non-existence. Things within Existence are different. You’ve got different shapes, colours and so on, but they are all sustained by that which is omnipresent. Some may think this to be energy but I think it’s something else. Either way, without omnipresence, you end up with non-existence separating existing entities and that is paradoxical.

Your use of the word all is paradoxical. The word all is not paradoxical. Just because the word all can be used in a way that amounts to a paradox, doesn’t mean that the word itself is paradoxical. Here are some other uses of the word all that is not paradoxical.

All of my cloths need a wash
All existing things have the quality of existing
Existence exists everywhere/is all-existing
All unknowns are either rational (a trait of Existence or something that Existence has the potential to produce) or irrational (something that has never been and will never be)

No paradoxes in my use of the non-paradoxical word all.

Just a note to this interesting discussion; in order to understand something one must value it.

Actually, I do want to pick up on something said earlier in the thread:

“Not even God can defy the laws of logic”

This means that the laws of logic are outside of God in terms of potence, and if they exist as such, why even postulate god, using occhams razor?

The rules of logic are abstract, like math. It’s a relationship between statements when we get to language based arguments. If your premises are off, what seems illogical, may not be. Once we get into arguing about the possibilities of a deity, our premises, which seem so obvious to us, may not apply. My dog, hearing my girlfriend’s voice coming out of the phone, always looked very disturbed. He’d smell the damn thing. He knew she was not in there. But that was her voice. He was utterly disturbed. He’d look around. It was just wrong. It was unpleasant for him. Any deity is vastly further beyond us than we are to dogs, even enhanced with our technologies. QM, for example, should humble in front of what will turn out not to have been illogical when we get more data. And in relation to a deity, the necessary data might very well never be accessible to us.

Logic is not about phenomena, it is about the relationship, in this context, between statements.

We are at the mercy of our statements, which are tailored to work with metaphors based on our motor cortex system, for example. We don’t even know all the premises we swim in, though we peck at them and perhaps realize a few now and then.

The universe is expanding but its not expanding into anything [ think of the balloon analogy ]

With more data, the conclusions from the law of contradiction may change, the axioms may need to be changed, but the law itself doesn’t.

If the universe IS NOT expanding into anything then the universe IS expanding into nothing.

Not if the universe is all there is. There in not nothing around the universe. There is no around the universe. Further the universe could be infinite and yet at all places expanding. You could also have a universe where you go off one end and come in at the other. It is finite yet surrounded by itself. We don’t like these counterintuitive possibilities because we live in finite local areas where everything has something outside it.

or expanding into itself.

It makes no difference. Ultimately, it comes down to this: If the Universe is not infinite (and it clearly is not), then it’s not representative of Existence. Existence is necessarily infinite. Paradoxical otherwise. We all know this, yet somehow some choose to ignore this despite what reason dictates.

It can’t be infinite and expanding at the same time, it’s got to be one or the other. Yes, you could have a universe where you go off one end and come in at the other. Being finite and surrounded by itself is impossible. It’s either bounded in a circular fashion (therefore surrounded by something else) or bounded in another manner (still surrounded by something else). In neither of these cases is it infinite (boundless)