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

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.

Why? You’re imperfect. You can do something that makes you neither more or less imperfect. Have you done something absurd?

God is perfect. God creates us. This does not make God any more or less perfect. What’s the problem?

A) God doesn’t need to create us to be perfect. B) God is Perfect and it created us. In no way does B amount to: C) God needed to create us to be perfect. A is true, but B just happens to be the case.

Show me where I did this.

We are in agreement on this. Pantheism entails that God is Existence. Which is essentially saying that God is Omnipresent. So why do you consider omnipresence as amounting to non-existence?

The negation of everything is not a thing though. When you negate everything, are you still left with a thing? The negation of everything = non-existence and I agree, non-existence isn’t a thing. It’s absurd.

Omnipresence has clear meaning. Non-existence is the negation of meaning. Non-omnipresence is the negation of meaning. Omnipresence is not equal to non-omnipresence. That which is meaningful and that which is meaningless are not equal.

How does time come into existence from a state of non-existence? Consider the following:

Universe A is endless
Universe B is without time

Do they mean the same thing?

A will never run out of time. B never had time to begin with. Do you agree that there is a clear difference between A and B?

Infinity and nothing are not the same. Consider the following:

Existence A is infinite
Existence B is nothing/non-existent

A has always existed and will always exist. B has never existed and will never exist.
So, are A and B the same?

If the universe amounts to the following traits: Omnipotence, Infiniteness, Omnipresence, then the universe = everything that exists. If not, then the universe is not everything that exists.

In a 2D world that contains 2D rational agents, those agents won’t know what it’s like to be 3D. But they will still understand that Existence is necessarily Perfect, Infinite and Omnipresent (in length, width and time)

Not necessarily. If you have all the relevant senses/tools/capacity/potential to fully understand all the information, then you can know what it’s like to be thing X without actually being thing X.

True.

It’s true that you’d have to have all the potential and the capacity that the cat had. But this doesn’t amount to being the cat. You can be more than the cat. So long as your capacity and potential is not deficient in relation to the cat’s, then you can fully know what it’s like to be the cat without ever becoming the cat.

Actually, by definition, everything god does is perfect, which means creating us is part of that necessary perfection. Are you going to challenge gods perfection by saying that god is perfect by not making us? So what you say is that god is both perfect by not creating us and by creating us.

Since, in a practical sense, every being besides god would and wants to commit suicide (they just don’t have the means that they’d use). I would hardly call gods creation perfect. Remember, by your theology, god can only create imperfect beings forever and ever and ever.

You define perfection as the ability to ONLY create imperfection, forever and ever and ever.

This means god can’t even create gods own perfection!

How does the statement:

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

Cause you to not just stop your argument?
And cause you to say “where did I say that?”

It’s a very simple statement, and you literally look silly with your “acrobatics” to avoid such a pure statement, naked in its truth.

Yes, everything God does is perfect (maximally good all things considered). There’s a clear distinction between:

  1. Being Perfect and doing Perfectly
  2. Doing something to become Perfect

The Perfect being remains Perfect provided that its traits that amount to true Perfection are unaltered. It’s creation of us does not alter its traits in any way.

2 is absurd. 1 is not. God created us, so it’s something that amounts to a maximally good outcome all things considered. This isn’t the only possible maximally good outcome with regards to our potential. It is one of many. Omnibenevolance can be exercised in endless ways.

You can’t consider all things because you lack omniscience. You can’t demonstrate how what you describe would ultimately amount to an objective instance of the maximum good not being brought about all things considered.

I define true Perfection as Omnipotent/Omniscient, Infinite, Omnipresent and Omnibenevolant (always doing that which brings about the maximum amount of good all things considered). Creating imperfect beings can amount to something maximally good all things considered.

God can’t create another God. That’s paradoxical.

You exist non-omnipresently whilst God exists Omnipresently. Are the Omnipresent and the non-omnipresent equal? No. So the potency/quality of their experiences are not the same are they?

Certainly real,

You’re still shuffling around the statement!

Gods experience of existence is different than yours
Your experience of existence is different than gods

This refutes omnipresence, it doesn’t support it.

God has to know exactly what it’s like to not be god in order to know exactly what it’s like to be anyone besides god.

Either god isn’t god, or you are god.

Both statements you consider absurd (though through indirect means, you’ve several times made god claims about yourself - which is why I liken you to the error free cult leader)

You’re also playing serious word games around another oh so simple statement …

Per your theology, it is impossible for god to make perfect beings, or anything perfect in a being (because to even have a slight perfection means that god isn’t above them in that one area - which to you is a contradiction) there is no maximal goodness to creating beings that can never achieve represent or embody perfection of any sort… it can only be described as minimal goodness or worse.

God is God and I’m a part of God. God knows me fully whilst I don’t know it fully.

God can know what my experiences are like because I am a part of God. I cannot know what God’s experiences are like because I’m not God, I’m just a part of God. I don’t have the capacity to know what being omnipresent is like whereas that which is omnipresent has the full capacity to know what non-omnipresence is like. You fail to pay sufficient attention to this point.

The notion of Existence as not being one Omnipresent thing is clearly paradoxical and you know it.

With Existence being omnipresent, omnipotence and omniscience are meaningful. You can’t fault one of these omni concepts without faulting the other. No rational agent will ever question or doubt the nature of Existence as being Omnipresent.

Just because no other being other than God can be Perfect, doesn’t mean the potential isn’t there for them to become very good. Consider infinity in length and width. Just because nothing other than God is Infinite, doesn’t mean you can’t have really large things. You can even have semi-infinitely large things. That is the nature of Existence. It can sustain all things things endlessly.

Let’s work on this bolder section first. You can’t know what it’s like to be omnipresent because no being can, because if we attempt to break the concept down, it solves as god being unable to be god in order to know exactly what it’s like to not be god.
Existence is fragmented

The contradiction is not with me, it’s always been with you when you say, “that which is omnipresent has the full capacity to know what being non-omnipresent is like.” No! That’s a contradiction.
It would have to cease being omnipresent, and nothing more, which by your definition it never does. I’ve been addressing this point the whole time.

You just keep trying, as if you say it enough times, that magically it’s not a fatal contradiction to your hypothesis.

I gave you a description of how everything is a part of Existence and how Existence is Omnipresent. And I gave you clear examples of how whilst Existence is clearly and necessarily Omnipresent and Infinite, we are clearly finite and non-omnipresent.

So I gave you clear examples of how the infinite can fully sustain the finite thereby having full reach and access to the finite (meaning that it fully knows what all finite entities and semi-finite entities amount to in full)

You’ve yet to give me a contradiction free description of the nature of Existence.

I already countered your bold point, which is just the same contradiction stated as truth as before.

There must be otherness in order for there to be existents, this otherness is in the form of fragmentation of presence. A lack of fragmentation of presence allows for no otherness.

You look at omnipresence as a tiered hierarchy instead of what it actually is, the same one thing in everything, which is nothing.

If there is a god, by laws of logic, it cannot be omnipresent.