Another paradox! Something is boring yet captivating enough to comment on 
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)
Well, it’s good you are sure the universe is clearly not infinite. That might be worth a Nobel Prize, because cosmologists and astrophysicists are not sure if the universe is finite or infinite.
The universe must be infinite, otherwise there is a limit and an outside.
Unless we speak of finite universes inside of an infinite reality.
Infinity = motion itself
I just wanted to point out to certainly real, that another issue with his argument is that he claims there can be one and only one god, which means he’s defining god as unfalsifiable to every other being that can possibly exist. We can independently falsify atoms for example, things we can’t really see, but this one argument of his in particular demands! That nobody can falsify it. Convenient.
I actually now see certainly real as a cult leader, associating an unfalsifiable perfect being with himself.
He also states that all beings besides god are flawed and always will be.
Additionally, from my last post…
Certainly real didn’t comprehend that if something comes from something else, it, itself is the first time it’s been substantiated, which means that something that comes from something else must come from nothing at all or existence freezes forever.
I actually solved my own paradox, which I called the motion paradox through the formula: infinity equals motion. The moment you count an infinity, something moves, motion occurs.
This pure reason, the foundations of science. They can all be sure because they all clearly recognise that the universe had a beginning. This means that it’s necessarily not infinite. Being infinite means having no beginning and no end. So the universe does not qualify as infinite does it?
I’m Still coming to this thread…
Argghh…!!!
Let’s ponder certainly reals exact argument here.
God, the only and one and only, for all eternity, is the only perfect being.
This means that a perfect being cannot create anything but imperfect beings (by definition)
So, every being created by god will ALWAYS be imperfect (by certainly reals definition)…
And this being does everything we do, yet it is perfect, for never creating another perfect being and sinning in every being besides ITSELF?
I thought per argument that god is all selves.