For efficiency’s sake, I will try and address your main points. Anything that you’re not happy with or think that I’ve missed out, let me know and I will address it in my next post.
Non-existence is the negation of everything. You could say that non-existence is the negation of omnipresence. But you can’t say omnipresence and non-existence are the same thing.
What separates things in Existence? You might say time and space. Do you consider time and space as omnipresent?
Regarding infinity. Could time and space have come from nothing? If they did not come from nothing, then that leaves only one option. They have always been and will always be. This is the same as saying that the dimension of time is infinite. If space isn’t infinite, then this is like saying space has a beginning or a border. But what does it border? It cannot be non-existence as that would be paradoxical. So space, or that which contains space, is necessarily infinite.
If some omnipresent entity isn’t infinite in terms of time and space, then this amounts to something coming from nothing. Does it not?
Reason isn’t just in relation to our universe though. It’s in relation to everything that exists. Reason clearly tells us that there is more to Existence than just our universe. Time and space don’t end or start with our universe. That would be paradoxical.
They are still existent states are they not? That is my point. Nothing goes into non-existence. It either changes, or goes somewhere else. Just as you cannot have something come from nothing, you cannot have something go into nothing.
By saying omnipresence is non existence, omnipresence means one is all present in the all, which makes everything exactly the same, which is non-existence.
I admire what you’re trying to do, but you are so far from a proof
I appreciate the admiration, but all I’m doing is stating the obvious.
Non-existence = No existence. Omnipresence = being all-existing.
Being all-existing does not amount to the negation of being all-existing.
Everything is varying grades of potency of one thing. Consciousness is perhaps a good candidate where God is Existence and it is the most potent level of consciousness. This most potent level of consciousness has always existed and will always exist (the necessity of infinity dictates this). It sustains and gives rise to everything else including less potent levels of consciousness such as us.
I don’t know what that omnipresent thing is. I don’t know if its material or immaterial (it cannot be both as that would amount to Existence being two different things at a foundational level and that is absurd), but Existence being one thing which sustains everything else because it is infinitely potent such that it can give rise to finite and semi-infinite potent things, does not amount to absurdity. However, saying that not everything is made up of or sustained by the same thing, is absurd.
I’ve always maintained that to be God and not God at the same time is contradictory. It’s the same with anything. You can’t be two different things at the same time. A married-bahcleor, a square-circle and so on. We’re not in disagreement on this blatantly obvious fact. However, you’re clearly wrong in saying that you have to be something in order to know what it’s like to be that thing. This only holds true of God. As in you have to be God to know what it’s like to be God. This is why comments such as omnibenevoalnce (doing perfectly) being paradoxical are rationally absurd as only God can determine what doing perfectly constitutes.
Knowing what it’s like to be a thing can be reduced to pure information. With the right tools, this information can be fully and accurately deciphered. This amounts to fully knowing what it’s like to be something.
Information needs an appropriate and adequate source for it to amount to knowledge. A piece of paper has information. Knowledge is when a sufficiently sentient being accesses the paper with the appropriate tools (like knowledge of the language that is on the paper) and understands it.
Everything about us can be broken down to information. Right? We can label every aspect of us and we use language to communicate these things. It is always the case that knowable things ultimately amount to some kind of information. Do we agree on this crucial point? All types of information can be understood and deciphered fully if the appropriate and adequate senses/tools/recievers/receptable’s are in place. Agreed?
We amount to pile of information X, that goes through experiences (pile of information Y) and what that amounts to (Output pile of information Q) is either fully knowable, partially knowable or not at all knowable. If it’s not fully knowable, then it does not constitute and item of knowledge and so it is not required of that which is omniscient. If it’s something that is knowable (and it clearly is because we know what it’s like to be us) then the item of knowledge is known by that which is all-knowing.
Long story short, God can do all the things that we can do, but we can’t do all the things that it can’t do. Also, God knows all the things that we know, but we don’t know all the things that it knows.
Essentially, what I’m saying is this:
What X is like
What it’s like to be X like
What it’s like to be X
These are varying grades of intimately knowing the likeness of something. That which has the most tools/senses and the most experiences/informational content, is the one that can fully know all these varying grades of likeness.
Everyone except god (per your formulation of what god is), knows what it’s like to not be god. God can know that other people aren’t god, but unless god isn’t god, god can’t know precisely what it’s like to not be god. Everyone else can precisely know what it’s like to not be god. This means that there is more true knowledge in existence than one being can know.
This makes omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence insoluable concepts, by direct proof.
I’ve addressed the point. God doesn’t need to be us at the same time to know what it’s like to be us. Knowing what it’s like to be X is not the same as being X. Besides, we already established that we are a part of God, so God being self-aware, entails that God has full knowledge of us. In any case, I will try and further address your point.
Your sentence of “Everyone else can precisely know what it’s like to not be god” amounts to everyone knows precisely what it’s like to not be infinite. We understand omnipresence and infinity sufficiently, but we have no idea what it’s like to be infinite or omnipresent. It’s an unknown. Do you agree with this?
We clearly don’t have the potency or sufficiency to fully know what being omnipresent/infinite includes. Do you agree with this?
We don’t have the capacity. It’s logically absurd. On the other hand, the reverse does not encounter the same problem. The infinite/omnipresent clearly has the capacity to fully understand a finite or even semi-finite entity that it fully sustains. Do you agree with this? If not, why not? How can that which is infinite of which we are a part of, not fully understand what it’s like to be us?
Simply put, that which is infinite and omnipresent contains within it all the tools/senses/sentience potency and whatever else is necessary to fully understand an infinite amount of information. We will never have such an ability because we can never tap into infinity. But that which is infinite sustains the finite. It knows fully all that is knowable about the finite entity that it sustains.
It’s a different type of experience to parallel process every being in existence than to process only one being that doesn’t parallel process every being in existence.
This creates mutually exclusive knowledge states of what it is to be, both parties cannot 100% exactly what it’s like to be the other party.
It really doesn’t matter how you try to word it, by just insisting it has to be the case.
These two two different states force a contradiction to the concept of omniscience.
You mention mutually exclusive knowledge states. This may hold true with regards to us as you don’t sustain me and I don’t sustain you. But it does not hold true with regards to God which necessarily sustains everything. We can never be independent of God. We have always been and will always be dependent on God. So the idea that God is unaware of any knowledge we are in possession of is absurd given our complete dependence upon it.
Had we been independent of God, you might’ve had a point. But we are entirely dependent on God. This cannot be rationally denied. Hence, your argument fails.
Information and knowledge are not the same. Information does not have to be understood whereas knowledge does
Knowledge is therefore a subset of information : all knowledge is information but not all information is knowledge
That’s your best retort? Just because people are dependent upon each other, doesn’t automatically mean that they know everything about each other, in fact, I demonstrated with pure reason and logic, that they don’t.
I agree that information alone does not amount to knowledge. There needs to be an appropriate and adequate source that can take in the information and fully understand it. That amounts to knowledge.
You haven’t really addressed God and our absolute dependence upon it here. You mistake human relationships being of the same quality. Even if I bring a child into this world, that child is not entirely dependent upon me. Do you see the difference? I don’t supply the child with oxygen. I don’t sustain it’s consciousness. Do you see the difference?
Since our potential is a part of omnipresence, it would be absurd to say that that potential can go into non-existence. So with regards to the potential, yes. But with regards to us, no.
God being perfect means God being infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolant (where omnibenevolance = doing perfectly)
We are just potential. A part of omnipresence. As is the case with any potential thing, it changing to something else does not alter the aforementioned traits that amount to true perfection in any way. So we can cease to exist (our potential recycled or changed to something else) without it having any effect on the aforementioned traits.