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

But the information is only available in the full AND in the correct context to the being itself.

Information only talks in context…

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.

You’re not addressing the point:

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?

Not that you defeated any of my other arguments, but I’ll just keep wandering down the trail you lay out when you avoid it.

Answer me this, can god only be perfect if we exist?
If so, does that not make God dependent upon us?

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.

No.

I didn’t say anything about our potential, I used a higher category and referred to our existence.

Do we need to exist in order for god to be perfect?

Clearly, god can be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient without any of us?

So I guess god just made us for god to be perfect?right?

Let me fill you in on the trap here:

If god is perfect alone, than creating us, doesn’t make him anymore perfect, which makes our creation absurd.

If god needs to create us to be perfect, then god is dependent upon us.

And honestly…

Throughout this entire thread, you admit, and then refuse to admit, that:

Your experience of life is different than gods and gods experience of life is different than yours.

When it suits your argument, they are different, when it doesn’t suit you argument, they are not.

You’re twisting yourself in strings of contradiction and absurdity.

The negation of everything is a thing. Nonexistence is not a thing. Omnipresence is nonexistence which isn’t a thing.

Nothing separates things in existence; they are joined. There can only be one thing. We can’t have 2 things in existence because if they are mutually exclusive (which is required in order to have 2 things), then they do not exist in relation to each other.

God could not have made the world from nothing. If he made the world, then he made it of himself and it’s continuous with him. Pantheism is the only way because if god were disconnected, then he wouldn’t exist in relation to the world.

But that isn’t infinite time, but lack of time. Eternity is absence of time; not infinite amounts of it.

Space is a fabric, a grid, a construct, an ether. Space is not space like you’re thinking. Space cannot be infinite because energy cannot be infinite. What lies beyond space is not anything that we can know. It must contain something… some potential or something that is a thing, but isn’t space.

Time and space is finite, so nothing can be infinite in terms of time and space. Omnipresence may be possible within the finite time and space, but it can’t be possible across infinity because it would be nothing.

Universe = everything that exists.

A computer character could not determine what our world looks like based on the information contained within the computer-generated environment. A subset cannot make conclusions about the main set. There is no way for us to know what we exist inside of.

Time and space do not exist; they are artifacts of a construct of fields and ether. Light sees neither time nor space. From our point of view it has taken 13 billion years for light to reach us from the farthest galaxy, but it was instant from light’s point of view. Therefore the fact that we see time and space is an artifact/consequence of something… some resistance to travel. I don’t know what it is, but I know it’s not eternal. If it were, then light wouldn’t be able to skirt the rules. For all intents and purposes, we may as well say we live in a computer (constructed environment).

Yes I suppose so, but what I’m saying with the light is “no potential” is not anything that ever existed. I think we need to differentiate between negative existence (potential to exist) and nonexistence (no potential).

They mean the same thing. All-existing = no-existing. Just like eternity is not infinite time, but absence of time, likewise infinite space is not infinite amounts of space, but lack of space.

One might be able to exist everywhere in finite space, just like a computer exists everywhere in a game world, but the computer couldn’t exist everywhere in the real world or there could be no computer nor game.

What’s the difference? I think if you know perfectly what it’s like to be that thing, then you are that thing.

To know what it’s like to be a cat, I’d have to have all the sensory input that a cat would have, so I’d be the cat. The only way to know is to experience (be).

What if there is only one being (god) playing the roles of all other beings (us)? How do you feel about that idea?

If god is dreaming, then everything is god (omnipresence) and god knows all (omniscience) and god has all the power because there is nothing that is not god in god’s dream. God is the guy sitting at the bar having a sword fight with himself with toothpicks because he’s bored lol

That’s a good point. So being is understanding is experiencing. Knowing and being are the same: I think therefore I am lol

Alright then I’ll focus on us and not our potential.

No. Us existing does not make God any more or less Perfect, Infinite, Omnipresent.

Yes

We don’t know God’s reasoning because we’re not God. The outline is that whatever it does, it does perfectly. God was perfect and it created us, no paradoxes in this. You make it sound like God needed to create us to accomplish being perfect. If that is what you’re implying, that is paradoxical.