## Existence is necessarily omnipotent

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

### Existence is necessarily omnipotent

Consider the following challenge: Can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist, as in it is hypothetical impossible for it to exist?

The argument in a nutshell, is as follows:
(1) There is existence/x exists
(2) Everything that exists, does so only in existence
(3) We are fully dependent on existence
(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows
(5) Anything that is either rational/comprehensible/understandable, necessarily belongs to existence (existence accommodates it; as in existence has the potential to create it or produce it. This is what makes it a hypothetical possibility and this is why it has meaning. So a unicorn is a potential thing that Existence can produce) On the other hand, anything that is either irrational or incomprehensible is necessarily non-existent (existence does not accommodate it. For example, no square-circles can ever exist, such a phrase is absurd and makes no sense)
(6) “infinity”, “eternal”, “almighty” and “all knowing”, are all rational concepts that we have an understanding of. So Existence must accommodate these concepts. To deny this is to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing. Therefore, either:
6a) The potential is there for something to become almighty, or 6b) Something has always been almighty and will always be almighty.

Only that which is all-existing can be almighty and all-knowing because you can't be almighty if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence. Similarly, you can't be all-knowing if you don't have reach or access to all of existence. So:

(7) Only Existence can be almighty and all knowing

Existence has always existed and will always exist and nothing can ever take its place or substitute it in any way. Existent beings cannot expand to become that which is all-existing/omnipresent/Existence. Given 7, Nothing can ever become almighty from a non-almighty state. So 6a is impossible/absurd. But the concept of almighty has meaning and we have an understanding of it. It is not like the concept of a square-circle which is clearly an absurdity/contradiction/paradox/non-existence/nothingness.

THEREFORE, Existence must accommodate the concept. So given that it can't be 6a, this leaves 6b. So 6b is necessarily true.

In language and reason, everything belongs to the following 4 categories:

Necessary (Existence, omnipotence, omniscience etc.)

Potential (Anything that can be brought about, so all hypothetical universes, creatures and beings that don't contain any absurdity, contradictions or paradoxes in their definition. An infinite Existence can accommodate all hypothetical possibilities)

Absurd (Absurd is anything that is necessarily non-existent or nothingness; something that have never existed and will never exist, like a square-circle or a married-bachelor)

Unknown (What we can't classify as either of the aforementioned three goes here. For example a 10th sense. There may be beings that have a 10th sense in existence or which would mean existence accommodates it; or, there the phrase 10th sense may be an absurdity like a married-bachelor. Essentially it's unknown to us and so irrelevant in our application of language and reason to it. As in we can't say its necessary, potential or absurd)

Again, can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist?

https://philosophyneedsgod.wordpress.com
Certainly real

Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

I have some possible answers to your question, offered more to help me understand your argument than to refute it:

1) "Something that can resist the force of gravity indefinitely without expending energy."
This is what we might call "empirically impossible". There's nothing in the colloquial meaning of the words that prevents such a thing from being possible, but from everything we know about the nature of gravity and energy, things will tend toward a certain direction in the gravity gradient unless energy is expended to resist that motion. Every test we've ever done has confirmed this, and it is a necessary result of other discovered laws (I believe it follows from the 2nd law).

One might offer some version of the multiverse, in which some universe exists where gravity behaves differently. I think this is really playing the with meaning of gravity, but it offers another point of clarification: does your question tolerate qualifiers like "in the universe we inhabit"? With sufficient such qualifiers, it seems easy to come up with something that is meaningful but can never exist (to the extent the phrase "can never exist" is itself meaningful -- more on that in #3 below): "a 1"x1" cube of pine wood cut from an earth pine tree all of whose properties are within one standard deviation of normal in the distribution among pine trees, and to which no procedures unknown to premodern humans have been applied, and which remains motionless when placed in a vacuum in a gravity well in our universe when not in contact with any other object or material and to which no force of any kind other than the force of gravity is being applied". That is both meaningful and known to not exist.

2) "The largest prime number."
This is logically impossible, we can prove in a number of ways that no such number exists. But the proof is not obvious; it isn't immediately nonsensical in the way that "square circle" is immediately nonsensical. And it is meaningful, and indeed many proofs rely on the very meaning of the thing to show that no such number exists. If it had no meaning, it would be impossible to prove that it does not exist (and anything whose nonexistence is proven by contradiction is subject to this objections).

3) "A thing that has meaning but can never exist."
This is basically the liar's paradox. If nothing can both have meaning and not exist, then "a thing that has meaning but can never exist" either doesn't have meaning or exists. But if that's true, then either "a thing that doesn't exist" exists; or the original question has no meaning, and it's tantamount to asking, "Can you think of a [shnrgesfrmp]?"

Self-referential arguments are almost unfair, they break everything, but given the logical structure of your project, I think it's important to note that it seems self-undermining without some ad hoc restriction that prevents the move.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi

Posts: 5679
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

This doesn't persuade me. One can picture non-existence as easily. Or, so it seems. True, non-existence must also exist in its own way, however, that merely shows the vagueness of the word existence. Assuming I am something like my own "prime mover", in a certain sense I can see how I could be destroyed. And, so to, Zeus, Deos, God, or however one like to speak of the prime mover of all things. After all, only speech is the measure of such as a "prime mover" or the ultimate support of a thing.
Guide

Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

Carleas wrote:I have some possible answers to your question, offered more to help me understand your argument than to refute it:
One might offer some version of the multiverse, in which some universe exists where gravity behaves differently. I think this is really playing the with meaning of gravity, but it offers another point of clarification: does your question tolerate qualifiers like "in the universe we inhabit"?

If it's empirically impossible, then it's absurd. So it doesn't satisfy the question as that which is absurd is not meaningful.

"a 1"x1" cube of pine wood cut from an earth pine tree all of whose properties are within one standard deviation of normal in the distribution among pine trees, and to which no procedures unknown to premodern humans have been applied, and which remains motionless when placed in a vacuum in a gravity well in our universe when not in contact with any other object or material and to which no force of any kind other than the force of gravity is being applied". That is both meaningful and known to not exist.

The example with the pine wood, Is it empirically possible? If yes, then it is something that can exist. Correct me if I'm wrong.

2) "The largest prime number."
This is logically impossible, we can prove in a number of ways that no such number exists. But the proof is not obvious; it isn't immediately nonsensical in the way that "square circle" is immediately nonsensical. And it is meaningful, and indeed many proofs rely on the very meaning of the thing to show that no such number exists. If it had no meaning, it would be impossible to prove that it does not exist (and anything whose nonexistence is proven by contradiction is subject to this objections).

The phrase largest prime number is either an unknown or absurd. I'm not a mathematician but my instincts say it's absurd. In any case, if there is a largest prime number, we have 0 knowledge of it. It would be just like saying the 100th sense (something which we have 0 knowledge of so we don't know if it's absurd or possible). On the other hand, if the phrase largest prime number is contradictory/paradoxical/absurd, then it falls in the same category as a married-bachelor, a square-circle and so on.

You said that "If it had no meaning, it would be impossible to prove that it does not exist" What is the meaning? Give me a definition.

In trying to conclusively prove whether something exists or not, it's a matter of determining whether something is paradoxical/contradictory/absurd or not. If it is, then it does not matter how one comes to the conclusion that it is absurd. The manner in which one has concluded absurdity does alter the fact that it is absurd and therefore therefore meaningless/indefinable.

3) "A thing that has meaning but can never exist."
This is basically the liar's paradox. If nothing can both have meaning and not exist, then "a thing that has meaning but can never exist" either doesn't have meaning or exists. But if that's true, then either "a thing that doesn't exist" exists; or the original question has no meaning, and it's tantamount to asking, "Can you think of a [shnrgesfrmp]?"

Self-referential arguments are almost unfair, they break everything, but given the logical structure of your project, I think it's important to note that it seems self-undermining without some ad hoc restriction that prevents the move.

It doesn't have meaning. That's the point I'm trying to prove. The whole point of my question was to show that it is impossible to think of something that has meaning but can never exist/existence can never accommodate/existence will never have the potential to produce. Something that has meaning but can never exist is an absurd/contradictory/paradoxical sentence, as in it has no meaning which becomes clear when an example or definition is impossible to give.

This is why existence must accommodate all meaningful things including the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience.
Certainly real

Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

Guide wrote:This doesn't persuade me. One can picture non-existence as easily. Or, so it seems. True, non-existence must also exist in its own way, however, that merely shows the vagueness of the word existence. Assuming I am something like my own "prime mover", in a certain sense I can see how I could be destroyed. And, so to, Zeus, Deos, God, or however one like to speak of the prime mover of all things. After all, only speech is the measure of such as a "prime mover" or the ultimate support of a thing.

I disagree, one cannot picture non-existence easily. One can picture change easily and one can understand negation, such as when I shift my focus from thing A to thing B, I negate/stop focusing on thing A, but this is not the same as non-existence. Non-existence is the negation of existence. You cannot negate existence. Per the dictates of reason, existence has always existed and will always exist. Anything other than this is absurd/pardoxical/contradictory/meaningless.

Zeus can be destroyed/changed to ash. In fact any "god" can be destroyed/changed to ash. The only thing that cannot be destroyed or changed, is Existence. Existence is the true God. Existence is necessarily all-existing, almighty, all-knowing, infinite and eternal. Always has been, always will be.
Certainly real

Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

What I mean is Zeus is a muthos in the sense of a picturable thing that stands for an idea one is groping for. Zeus, in Homer, says, I can take one side of the rope in tugofwar, and the other gods take the other, and I will drag them over the ditch. This suggests the power of the prime mover, which is not a visible thing, but the name for the laws that make all things possible, the invisible thought of the ultimate existence of all possibilities. I agree one can't picture non-existence, but it is readily thought, it is simply removal of the last thing. For instance I picture blackness, and then say, it too is removed. I can't picture non-existence, but I think it. Otherwise, what does existence mean? I'm not persudaded that something one can say, and in some way know what one is saying, existence, can not readily be thought as not being.
Guide

Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

It seems you're using an idiosyncratic definition of "meaning". Take the example of 'perpetual motion machine'. We know now (to the extent we can know empirical facts) that such a device is impossible, it's an empirical impossibility. But for some time, people searched for such a device, no one knew if it was possible.

Now, ask, what were we looking for? What have we proved cannot exist? How do we rule out a thing that we can't meaningfully state? If someone says, "I've devised a proof that a perpetual motion machine is impossible", it seems the wrong response to say, "A what? I understood 'I've devised a proof that...' and '...is impossible', but in the middle there you made some noises that conveyed no meaning." And what of people using the phrase before such a proof? If, prior to our empirical disproof, someone said, "I'm trying to devise a perpetual motion machine", by your argument the appropriate response would be, "Well, I'll have to wait to see if I understand what you just told me. If you find it, I understand, if you don't, then there were some meaningless noises in what you just said."

Turning to logical/mathematical impossibilities like 'largest prime number', let me offer again that to say that anything that is impossible is meaningless is to deny any possibility of a proof by contradiction, which is a common form of disproof. Any proof that begins "assume $$p$$ is the largest prime number" and goes on to show that it produces a contradiction, must undermine itself, because once successful, the first line of the proof becomes meaningless.

This may be a result of "largest prime number" being a composite of two meaningful parts: 'largest number with a given property' and 'the property of being prime'. Both exist, they are meaningful. It's a novel definition of "meaning" to say that two meaningful parts lose their meaning when put together. Given that we can draw inferences from the parts, and continue to be able to draw inferences from them when they are placed together as the composite 'largest number with the property of being prime', it is strange to say that the idea has no meaning. If a number $$p$$ is the largest prime number, then a number $$q$$ such that $$q>p$$ is not prime; if 'largest prime number' has no meaning, then that syllogism doesn't work, because nothing follows from a meaningless statement.

To the self-referential point, it seems you concede that you are asking "Can you think of a [shnrgesfrmp]" ('shnrgesfrmp' being a random assortment of letters that convey no meaning). But your conclusion doesn't follow from not being able to think of a shnrgesfrmp.

(Aside for clarification: are all meaningless statements equivalent?)

Finally, your conclusion is question begging. Could someone pre-Euclid have said "'largest prime number' is meaningful, therefor it must exist"? It seems not, given subsequent history. "X is meaningful" provides no additional evidence of existence, even where you've defined 'meaningful' as here, because a proof or disproof just overrides meaning along with existence. If tomorrow someone offers a rigorous disproof of omnipotence, by your lights the term is deprived of both meaning and existence, in the same way that the 'largest prime number' and the 'perpetual motion machine' were.

To put it another way, if meaning $$\equiv$$ existence, then you make no more progress saying "omnipotence is meaningful, therefor it exists" than you would saying "omnipotence exists, therefor it exists". It's tautologically true that if X exists, X exists, but that tautology is not evidence for the existence of X.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi

Posts: 5679
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

Guide wrote:I agree one can't picture non-existence.

It's not just a matter of picturing it. I can't picture infinity, but I understand it. I cannot understand non-existence. Non-existence is literally the negation of existence. Is this not absurd?

it is simply removal of the last thing. For instance I picture blackness, and then say, it too is removed.

Then your definition or understanding of existence is rationally problematic. You can change things in existence to something else but you cannot change existence itself, nor can you negate it. Consider this: Did existence come from nothing or has Existence always existed and it will always exist? If it ceases to exist, where will it go? To non-existence? What bridges existence and non-existence? Per dictates of reason, there has never been and will never be such a bridge.
Certainly real

Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

Accidental double post (deleted) Sorry
Last edited by Certainly real on Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Certainly real

Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

Carleas wrote:It seems you're using an idiosyncratic definition of "meaning". Take the example of 'perpetual motion machine'. We know now (to the extent we can know empirical facts) that such a device is impossible, it's an empirical impossibility. But for some time, people searched for such a device, no one knew if it was possible.

Again, if it's empirically impossible, then it goes in the absurd category regardless of how or when the absurdity was recognised. Once the paradox or contradiction has been recognised, then it generates the same things as a square-circle or the bendy straight line and so on. That which is generated, is the negation of meaning.

Now, ask, what were we looking for? What have we proved cannot exist? How do we rule out a thing that we can't meaningfully state?

I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from. I grappled with the same problem myself. Consider the following:

We always considered triangles as being possible in our universe and this had meaning because we were not aware of how gravity would make straight lines impossible. No absurdity there. But when the semantical gaps focused on got more complex by us taking gravity into account, we acknowledged a paradox with regards to triangles being possible in our universe. The phrase "triangles in our universe" then amounted to "the bendy straight line" (which is absurd and the same as a square-circle or a married-bachelor) Does the bendy straight line have meaning? Do any paradoxical phrases have any meaning?

If someone says, "I've devised a proof that a perpetual motion machine is impossible", it seems the wrong response to say, "A what? I understood 'I've devised a proof that...' and '...is impossible', but in the middle there you made some noises that conveyed no meaning." And what of people using the phrase before such a proof? If, prior to our empirical disproof, someone said, "I'm trying to devise a perpetual motion machine", by your argument the appropriate response would be, "Well, I'll have to wait to see if I understand what you just told me. If you find it, I understand, if you don't, then there were some meaningless noises in what you just said."

Yes, in the same way that one might have once said "I've devised a proof that a triangle in our universe is impossible". This has meaning because the additional premise (gravity) has not been added to the equation to yield the absurdity (negation of meaning), but again, it does not matter how or when the absurdity is reached, once it's reached, it is absurd. Has never existed and will never exist. A bendy straight line can never exist and will never exist.

Turning to logical/mathematical impossibilities like 'largest prime number', let me offer again that to say that anything that is impossible is meaningless is to deny any possibility of a proof by contradiction, which is a common form of disproof. Any proof that begins "assume $$p$$ is the largest prime number" and goes on to show that it produces a contradiction, must undermine itself, because once successful, the first line of the proof becomes meaningless.

This is not the case. Some absurdities are clear. Some, you discover, just like with the triangle example. I am saying that absurdities are things that have never existed and will never exist, this does nothing with regards to those who reveal/expose/prove absurdities in a thing or how they do it.

This may be a result of "largest prime number" being a composite of two meaningful parts: 'largest number with a given property' and 'the property of being prime'. Both exist, they are meaningful. It's a novel definition of "meaning" to say that two meaningful parts lose their meaning when put together. Given that we can draw inferences from the parts, and continue to be able to draw inferences from them when they are placed together as the composite 'largest number with the property of being prime', it is strange to say that the idea has no meaning. If a number $$p$$ is the largest prime number, then a number $$q$$ such that $$q>p$$ is not prime; if 'largest prime number' has no meaning, then that syllogism doesn't work, because nothing follows from a meaningless statement.

The parts do have meaning. I am not denying this. But together they yield an absurdity (something that has no meaning) and all absurdities are the same. What's the difference between a square-circle or a bendy straight line or a married bachelor? They are all phrases that generate the same thing. Paradox/contradiction/absurdity. People say there are different paradoxes. Sure, there are different ways of getting to paradoxes or forming absurdities, but ultimately, paradoxes/contradiction/absurdities are all the same. They are meaningless and cannot be defined. If you can tell me the difference in meaning between a square-circle and a married-bachelor, then you'd prove me wrong. But you will not succeed in this for neither of them have meaning.

To the self-referential point, it seems you concede that you are asking "Can you think of a [shnrgesfrmp]" ('shnrgesfrmp' being a random assortment of letters that convey no meaning). But your conclusion doesn't follow from not being able to think of a shnrgesfrmp.

I don't understand what you mean here. I certainly agree that you cannot think of something that has meaning but can never exist. The phrase "has meaning but can never exist" is absurd when you try to think about it, you recognise the absurdity. Same as with a triangle in our universe. You may not recognise the absurdity at first, but upon reflection and reasoning, the absurdity becomes clear.

(Aside for clarification: are all meaningless statements equivalent?)

Yes. They are all meaningless, so how do we differentiate between their meaninglessness? There are different ways of forming absurdities and paradoxes but once formed, they are all meaningless. One is not more or less meaningful than the other.

Finally, your conclusion is question begging. Could someone pre-Euclid have said "'largest prime number' is meaningful, therefor it must exist"? It seems not, given subsequent history.

True. You are right. Sometimes we are not aware of all the premises and are there unaware of paradoxes. Both reason and history demonstrate this.

"X is meaningful" provides no additional evidence of existence, even where you've defined 'meaningful' as here, because a proof or disproof just overrides meaning along with existence. If tomorrow someone offers a rigorous disproof of omnipotence, by your lights the term is deprived of both meaning and existence, in the same way that the 'largest prime number' and the 'perpetual motion machine' were.

I see where you're coming from. Some day, someone may prove that actually we have triangles in our universe (unlikely, but possible; throw in a counter premise that accounts for gravity such that the environment allows for straight lines, and the paradox is removed). This is true of all class of concepts or semantical gaps that I've labelled as potentials. Now consider the following:

We have never and will never even come close to doubting existence (that which is omnipresent/all-existing). Do you agree with this? The class of concept that existence is, is such that it can never be denied. How do you rationally deny existence using reason? The very thought is absurd, is it not? Can you doubt reason using reason? Do you see the paradox?

Omnipotence is the same class/type/category of concepts that omnipresence is. Whatever way or method of paradox you attempt to form with omnipotence, the same would apply to omnipresence. To say that at some point in the future someone might disprove the coherence of omnipotence is to say that someone in the future might disprove the coherence of omnipresence.

Remember, with the triangle and gravity example I gave a hypothetically possible way in which that which we have classed as absurd could end up not being absurd: Some day, someone may prove that actually we have triangles in our universe (unlikely, but possible; throw in a counter premise that accounts for gravity such that the environment allows for straight lines, and the paradox is removed)

Can you do the same with omnipresence? Can you do it with omnipotence or omniscience? What possible counter premise is there?

Again, consider the definitions:

Omnipresence: That which is all-existing
Omnipotence: That which is all-mighty
Omniscience: That which is all-knowing

To put it another way, if meaning $$\equiv$$ existence, then you make no more progress saying "omnipotence is meaningful, therefor it exists" than you would saying "omnipotence exists, therefor it exists". It's tautologically true that if X exists, X exists, but that tautology is not evidence for the existence of X.

Omnipotence exists. Existence exists. It's not a matter of if. It necessarily does.
Certainly real

Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

It seems unpersuasive to argue “logically” against what one can think. If existence is limited in all sorts of ways, that it can't have a boundary, since that would indicate it was different from something else, and that it can't be before in time, or after in time, and so on, existence is measured by the standards of something in existence, namely speech. This direction leads to the absurdity of the notion of existence.

“It's not just a matter of picturing it. I can't picture infinity, but I understand it. I cannot understand non-existence. Non-existence is literally the negation of existence. Is this not absurd?”

I don’t find it so. It seems quite straightforward. There is a logical problem only.

Now, according to the Sabeans the stars are the highest thing, and they are bodies of a kind. Accordingly they teach that the highest genus is body. In this context, the ability to conceive of another genus, an invisible genus, is absurd. So, either existence is absurd, both as being and non-being, or it is conceivable.

I suppose you would admit to a distinction between actuality and existence? Or, do you allow that such distinctions are worth consideration?

“You can change things in existence to something else but you cannot change existence itself”

In this sense “existence” seems to be absurd. And for the same reasons. However, this is simply a limit of logic, and one can easily grasp what is meant by existence and nonexistence. Thought it remain vague.

Also, I would say, when one wakes from dreamless sleep, one somehow senses the coming into existence of existence as such.
Guide

Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

Guide wrote:It seems unpersuasive to argue “logically” against what one can think. If existence is limited in all sorts of ways, that it can't have a boundary, since that would indicate it was different from something else, and that it can't be before in time, or after in time, and so on, existence is measured by the standards of something in existence, namely speech. This direction leads to the absurdity of the notion of existence.

Existence is not limited. To say that it is, is absurd and paradoxical. Can you not see the problem with the following sentences: Existence is finite. Existence came from non-existence. Existence borders non-existence. Are these sentences acceptable to you? Is there any alternative to acknowledging Existence as infinite and eternal?

Existence is a semantical gap/concept that we are aware of. The mechanisms of how or why we are aware of it is irrelevant. What is clear and without controversy is that the definition of Existence is necessarily: that which is all-existing/omnipresent.

I don’t find it so. It seems quite straightforward. There is a logical problem only.

I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that non-existence is a rational concept? Can you clarify?

Now, according to the Sabeans the stars are the highest thing, and they are bodies of a kind. Accordingly they teach that the highest genus is body. In this context, the ability to conceive of another genus, an invisible genus, is absurd. So, either existence is absurd, both as being and non-being, or it is conceivable.

If you consider Existence as absurd or as an absurd concept, our discussion will bear no fruit. If you disagree with the following definition: Existence = that which is all-existing/omnipreent, our discussion will bear no fruit. Also, if you are willing to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing, our discussion will bear no fruit.

suppose you would admit to a distinction between actuality and existence? Or, do you allow that such distinctions are worth consideration?

By actuality, are you referring to reality? If yes, then reason makes a clear distinction between reality and Existence. Anything that exists, does so in Existence. This includes all realities regardless of their natures (whether it's another universe, dream etc.)

In this sense “existence” seems to be absurd. And for the same reasons. However, this is simply a limit of logic, and one can easily grasp what is meant by existence and nonexistence. Thought it remain vague.

How is it absurd? If I have a triangle and within this triangle things change, does the triangle change, is triangle no longer defined as a triangle? So long as the traits and definition of Existence don't change, it does not change. This is regardless of whether or not things within it change. Again, Existence changing (it not being the all-existing, as well as it becoming something different than omnipotent, infinite and eternal) would be paradoxical and absurd.

Also, I would say, when one wakes from dreamless sleep, one somehow senses the coming into existence of existence as such.

You can switch things off, you can change them, but you can't take them out of Existence as it would be paradoxical to say that a thing can go into non-existence.

Consider the following two sentences:
1) The ice cube changed to water (the ice cube was no longer in location xyz time t reality p)
2) The ice cube went into non-existence (the ice cube didn't change to water, it went into non-existence)

Are 1 and 2 the same? Do you agree that 2 is absurd? Can anything ever go into non-existence?

Just as you can't have something come from nothing, you cannot have something go into nothing. Also bear in mind that the semantical gaps always remain in Existence. As in for example, Existence will always have the potential to generate or produce a unicorn or an ice cube.
Certainly real

Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

Certainly real wrote:Consider the following challenge: Can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist, as in it is hypothetical impossible for it to exist?

The argument in a nutshell, is as follows:
(1) There is existence/x exists
(2) Everything that exists, does so only in existence
(3) We are fully dependent on existence
(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows

OOPS SYNTAX ERROR

"Existence" is a concept of mind.
Cant go any further.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE

barbarianhorde
Philosopher

Posts: 1347
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: in the cupboard by your kn knees

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

barbarianhorde wrote:
Certainly real wrote:Consider the following challenge: Can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist, as in it is hypothetical impossible for it to exist?

The argument in a nutshell, is as follows:
(1) There is existence/x exists
(2) Everything that exists, does so only in existence
(3) We are fully dependent on existence
(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows

OOPS SYNTAX ERROR

"Existence" is a concept of mind.
Cant go any further.

So are you saying that our mind is not limited by what Existence allows?
Certainly real

Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

No, but that existence in your argument is limited by what your mind allows too. So that's why you get syntax error in that moment, no more computation is possible even if it's so well meant. It's always the same like the Baron von Munchhausen.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE

barbarianhorde
Philosopher

Posts: 1347
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: in the cupboard by your kn knees

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

barbarianhorde wrote:No, but that existence in your argument is limited by what your mind allows too. So that's why you get syntax error in that moment, no more computation is possible even if it's so well meant. It's always the same like the Baron von Munchhausen.

2) The limits of your mind do not dictate the limits of Existence. They may dictate the limits of your existence but they don't dictate the limits of Existence. Agreed?
3) Existence (which your mind is entirely dependent on) determines the limits of your mind and your mind cannot go beyond/outside of existence because that would be absurd. Agreed?
Certainly real

Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

For whoever it was who wrote this:

You can change things in existence to something else but you cannot change existence itself”

Since everything *in* existence is also EXISTENCE itself, I have no idea how *existence* can remain unchanged, unmoved, like an island dis-connected from itself.

You seem to think of existence as some kind of fixed entity instead of a living, breathing, flowing reality evolving over time.
The way that I look at it, change is the only constant.

Even if you think of *everything* as a *part* of existence, how does existence NOT change when a part of it does?
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake

“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience

“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake

Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker

Posts: 15299
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

Can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist, as in it is hypothetical impossible for it to exist?
Peace.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling
Heroine

Posts: 7119
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

Arcturus Descending wrote:Since everything *in* existence is also EXISTENCE itself, I have no idea how *existence* can remain unchanged, unmoved, like an island dis-connected from itself.

Things in Existence can change. But Existence itself can never change (as in it can never change from being infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient) It would be paradoxical if it did.

There are existing things. The only way a thing can be considered as different/changed is if it no longer matches its definition. For example ice becomes water, so it's no longer a solid (core to the definition of ice)

The only existing thing that can never change in its definition is that which is infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient. It has always been this way and it will always be this way.

You seem to think of existence as some kind of fixed entity instead of a living, breathing, flowing reality evolving over time.
The way that I look at it, change is the only constant.

Even if you think of *everything* as a *part* of existence, how does existence NOT change when a part of it does?

If for example I change my hairstyle, I still remain human. That definition hasn't changed, but it can. If I turn to ash, then I'm no longer human.

By me changing my hairstyle, I haven't changed from being human. I've just changed the style of my hair which changes how I look.
Certainly real

Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

WendyDarling wrote:
Can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist, as in it is hypothetical impossible for it to exist?
Peace.

Peace is hypothetically possible
Certainly real

Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

Certainly real wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:
Can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist, as in it is hypothetical impossible for it to exist?
Peace.

Peace is hypothetically possible

When people don't understand what a word or idea means, how can it be said to possibly hypothetically exist? That is why peace will never exist, people have no clue what peace even is.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling
Heroine

Posts: 7119
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

Certainly real wrote:
barbarianhorde wrote:No, but that existence in your argument is limited by what your mind allows too. So that's why you get syntax error in that moment, no more computation is possible even if it's so well meant. It's always the same like the Baron von Munchhausen.

The mind can be changed by an experience.

2) The limits of your mind do not dictate the limits of Existence. They may dictate the limits of your existence but they don't dictate the limits of Existence. Agreed?

They dictate the limit of what can be conceived, so also of "existence". Which is a concept, right? Im just trying to throw the obvious wrench in the wheel, the solipsist argument, see if you can deal with it.

3) Existence (which your mind is entirely dependent on) determines the limits of your mind and your mind cannot go beyond/outside of existence because that would be absurd. Agreed?

I agree that you just proved you cant understand existence except as a mental concept!
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE

barbarianhorde
Philosopher

Posts: 1347
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: in the cupboard by your kn knees

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

Certainly real wrote:
Existence itself can never change ( as in it can never change from being infinite / omnipresent / omnipotent / omniscient )

Existence is probably infinite / omnipresent because absolute nothing cannot exist indefinitely. But omnipotence / omniscience / omnibenevolence
[ which you keep leaving out as both Ecmandu and I have noticed ] are mutually incompatible. They are also the characteristics of God so then are
you saying that Existence is God ? That sounds suspiciously like pantheism / panentheism rather than the Abrahamic God who is usually given those
characteristics. Why do you not mention omnibenevolence along with the other two ?
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker

Posts: 519
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

Is Existence a thing?
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE

barbarianhorde
Philosopher

Posts: 1347
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: in the cupboard by your kn knees

### Re: Existence is necessarily omnipotent

barbarianhorde wrote:Is Existence a thing?

Can you, in actuality, pour every ocean into one paper cup?
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake

“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience

“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake

Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker

Posts: 15299
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Next