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

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:31 am

Certainly real wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
God is a philosophical being not an empirical one

Empirical is everything that we experience or observe in this reality which is in Existence
But Existence and our understanding of it is not limited to our sensory experiences / observations. That would be absurd
surreptitious75 wrote:
The characteristics he has do not exist in reality

The characteristics are not limited to our reality as that would be absurd. You cannot have omnipresence / Existence limited to a finite reality
You would have to deal with the paradox of something coming from nothing and reason dictates that we can never ignore paradoxes

As you correctly highlighted Existence and reality are not the same thing. That would be paradoxical ( no need to demonstrate as we agree on this point )

Reason and language clearly dictate 4 categories to all things : The necessary the potential the absurd the unknown. Agreed?

Existence being infinite ( necessary ) means it has the potential to generate all hypothetical possibilities ( potentials )
See how this is paradox free ? Now if you consider any alternative to this I guarantee you absurdity

Reason dictates that Existence is not beyond what can be sensed. It is beyond / more than what we can sense but reason dictates that sensing something and understanding something are two different things. We understand that Existence may have aspects that we are unaware of ( this is not paradoxical ) For example
Q : Reason tells us that we dont know if Existence has the potential to generate / sustain a being with a 100 senses but we know it can generate / sustain unicorns
Q : is not something that we sense it is something that we understand. Agreed?

We understand that there is Existence because non existence is absurd. We understand that Existence is infinite because Existence being finite / us / our reality is absurd. So reason clearly dictates and demonstrates that we understand Existence is infinite ( therefore beyond / greater than our senses as we are not infinite / Existence ) Do you see the circle of truth?

We can empirically observe that which is in our reality ( the stuff we sense ) we can theorise and describe these observations so long as they never ever
amount to paradoxes like a particle going in an out of Existence. Going into another dimension or reality is fine but we certainly cannot say going into non
existence ( absurd ) Right?

Reason dictates that we can never ignore or believe in anything paradoxical. It dictates that we acknowledge that which has meaning ( is rational ) appropriately
( By distinguishing that which is necessary from that which is potential / hypothetically possible)
and to not apply it to that which we have no knowledge of /
Is entirely unknown
( we cant rationally investigate or talk about or theorise about beings that have a 100 senses )

Reason is an unreliable tool for determining what actually exists or can exist because it can be rooted in false or untested assumptions about reality. This is why any hypothesis has to be potentially falsifiable and why empiricism is ultimately more reliable than reason. Empiricism obviously has its limitations but to employ reason where empiricism cannot go is to assume that reason is both infallible and superior to empiricism which is simply not true

You have made a number of statements which are either false or unknown based upon your fallacious use of reason

You do not know that Existence is infinite
There is no evidence that Existence can generate or sustain unicorns [ a strange claim to make ]
There are things that pop in and out of existence [ virtual particles ] so they are not paradoxical
Real paradoxes do not exist in reality because that is not actually possible there can only be assumed paradoxes

Also you cannot assume the metaphysical or supernatural exists simply because it cannot actually be disproven
And I never said that Existence and Reality are different because in actual fact I treat them as exactly the same
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:53 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:We have had examples where the consensus of rational people, generally the best at reasoning, were sure that something is a paradox and so could not exist. When it turned out to exist, they reevaluated, being reasoners.


That is a grossly false assumption. Give me one such example. I've already addressed the one that you attempted to give as a paradox as not amounting to a paradox and you've yet to comment on my reply to your belief that scientists have observed something paradoxical.

Despite my making it clear what I meant about paradoxes, you continue to not place things in the context of limited knowledge that people have coupled with the possibility that they are making assumptions that are not the case.


Again, unknowns are not the same as paradoxes. I've given good examples.

But you know that you, unlike experts in all sorts of fields will never find that you have faulty ontological assumptions that are affecting your deductive conclusions. You have final and infallible reason. Great.

You say this because you can't distinguish between what an unknown is and what a paradox is. The very fact that you think a paradox could be ever understood, let alone observed is testament to this fact. Again, give me an example in any field, where a paradox was/is understood.

I think I will restrict my communication to people who 1) actually respond to what I write and 2) who are open to revision, that they might revise something or find they have made faulty assumptions in the future. That they consider this possible.

I think this comment to be quiet unfair. Particularly when my replies to you have been detailed and your replies to mine haven't even addressed key points, in particular the distinction between the unknown and the absurd.

That leads to a discussion and not just being told over and over that X is the case, as if this is an argument, or being implicitly insulted by being told any rational person would disagree with me.

I don't need an ontological guru.


What you need is to be able to recognise the difference between the unknown and the absurd. I'll make another attempt to clarify:

Think about the usage of language in every context. Law, science, maths, conversation with friends. Whenever what we say amounts to a paradox, It creates problems. Unless of course, the goal is humour.

We say that guy's the killer but his alibi is solid (so he can't be the killer otherwise it would be paradoxical)

We make an observation that a particle is going in and out of Existence but we can't accept a bridge to non-existence so we say: Either our observation is faulty (problem with the scientific instruments) or incomplete (perhaps the particle went to a another reality or dimension that is unknown to us)

Can you see the difference between the unknown and the absurd?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:18 am

surreptitious75 wrote:Reason is an unreliable tool for determining what actually exists or can exist because it can be rooted in false or untested assumptions about reality. This is why any hypothesis has to be potentially falsifiable and why empiricism is ultimately more reliable than reason.

How can reason be unreliable? Give me an example where reason has been unreliable.

Our observations are unreliable and I'll give you an example. At one point in time, we observed and believed that the earth was not round. Our observation was false and we later made another observation that showed the earth to be round.

This is not reason being unreliable, this is empiricism being unreliable. Now, can you give me an example of reason being unreliable?

Empiricism obviously has its limitations but to employ reason where empiricism cannot go is to assume that reason is both infallible and superior to empiricism which is simply not true


Without reason, there would be no empiricism. It's reason that dictates that you can't have something come from nothing. And science, with whatever observations it makes, will always have to make sure that any theory or observation it makes does not amount to a paradox. This is what reason dictates and science/empiricism abides by it.

You have made a number of statements which are either false or unknown based upon your fallacious use of reason

You do not know that Existence is infinite


Fallacious use of reason is evident when what you say is contradictory or paradoxical, agreed?
With that said, saying that Existence is finite amounts to something coming from nothing. This amounts to a paradox. So evidently, existence is not finite, it is infinite as it would be paradoxical (fallacious reasoning) to say otherwise.
There is no evidence that Existence can generate or sustain unicorns [ a strange claim to make ]

Can you think of something meaningful that can never exist?
There are things that pop in and out of existence [ virtual particles ] so they are not paradoxical

No they don't. Show me one credible source that decided to somehow interpret any scientific observation as amounting to something going into non-existence and then coming back.

Real paradoxes do not exist in reality because that is not actually possible there can only be assumed paradoxes

Paradoxes do not exist anywhere in Existence. Nowhere in Existence will we ever find a married-bachelor or a bendy-straight line or...non-existence. Hence why a finite Existence is absurd.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:38 pm

Certainly real wrote:
How can reason be unreliable? Give me an example where reason has been unreliable

Our observations are unreliable and I will give you an example. At one point in time we observed and believed that the earth was not round
Our observation was false and we later made another observation that showed the earth to be round

This is not reason being unreliable this is empiricism being unreliable. Now can you give me an example of reason being unreliable?

The observation that the Earth was flat was actually true from a specific point of reference. The problem was that this information was used to
determine a false conclusion. So the problem was therefore not with the observation itself but the assumption that it supported. The empirical
evidence was perfectly reliable but the non empirical conclusion based on reason was entirely unreliable. Any time there is a conflict between
reason and empiricism then empiricism will always win simply because it deals with what is actually real as opposed to what is supposedly real
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:48 pm

Certainly real wrote:
Without reason there would be no empiricism. It is reason that dictates that you cannot have something come from nothing. And science with whatever
observations it makes will always have to make sure that any theory or observation it makes does not amount to a paradox. This is what reason dictates
and science / empiricism abides by it

Science does not say something comes from nothing. The definition of a singularity as a non existent point of infinite density cannot exist as a physical entity
Therefore if singularities do exist they can only be infinitesimal points of finite density. This is one thing that both empiricism and reason actually agree upon
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:58 pm

Certainly real wrote:
Fallacious use of reason is evident when what you say is contradictory or paradoxical agreed?
With that said saying that Existence is finite amounts to something coming from nothing. This amounts to a paradox
So evidently existence is not finite it is infinite as it would be paradoxical ( fallacious reasoning ) to say otherwise

As has just been said science does not say something comes from nothing. Existence may very well be temporally infinite but there
is no evidence to support this because physics breaks down at the Big Bang and so what happened before then is currently unknown
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:07 pm

Certainly real wrote:
Can you think of something meaningful that can never exist?

Meaningfulness is dependent upon subjective interpretation which renders the question invalid
Even if this was not so meaningfulness and existence are not automatically compatible anyway
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:12 pm

Certainly real wrote:
Nowhere in Existence will we ever find a married bachelor or a bendy straight line

A geodesic is a straight line in four dimensional spacetime bent by the effect of gravity upon mass
Also in reality there are no such things as absolute straight lines as they only exist in mathematics
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:44 pm

Certainly real,

I won the debate here

viewtopic.php?p=2709918#p2709918

I stated that if we are all INSIDE god, then either there is no sin, or there is sin IN god.
I used your own logic about us not being existence but rather in existence against your perfection argument. You couldn't handle the disproof, per your reply, which just stated that we are in existence and not existence itself.

Besides, if energy is omnipresent, every quanta is energy, and would be omnipresent.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7261
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:46 pm

We are energy and energy is omnipresent does not logically extend to we are God and God is omnipresent so that cannot be accepted
Energy is an observed phenomenon while God cannot be observed at all for he resides in the metaphysical / supernatural for all time
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:02 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:We are energy and energy is omnipresent does not logically extend to we are God and God is omnipresent so that cannot be accepted
Energy is an observed phenomenon while God cannot be observed at all for he resides in the metaphysical / supernatural for all time


You're making the same logical mistake as certainly real, you're assuming that a being has to be omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, perfect etc... and any argument that counters it is wrong.

I'm pointing out that such a being doesn't exist.

If god is everywhere, and god (everywhere) is omniscient, than we must all be omniscient for that to be true.

God has never experienced not knowing someone's middle name, this means there's an infinite amount of subjective states that we can prove god doesn't have access to.

Also if we are all inside God then that means there is either no sin or there is sin inside a perfect being.

Neither you nor certainly real have addressed these arguments on their merits. I'm not using circular arguments like you two are
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7261
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:04 pm

Were we inside God then his existence could actually be demonstrated by virtue of the fact but it cannot so it cannot be true
Usually theists will refer to God as being inside them so reversing it is unusual although not from a panentheistic perspective

This is all academic however as the entity known as God remains immune to investigation
And so winning any philosophical argument is therefore a Pyrrhic victory and nothing else
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:23 pm

Ecmandu I do not believe in God so why would I be making arguments for his existence

Omniscience and omnipotence and omnibenelovence are all incompatible and so cannot be the characteristics of God anyway
So if he does exist he has to be a logical being as a non logical being such as the multi omni one above cannot exist in reality
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:26 pm


Even God cannot violate the Law Of Non Contradiction or any law of logic
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:06 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
How can reason be unreliable? Give me an example where reason has been unreliable

Our observations are unreliable and I will give you an example. At one point in time we observed and believed that the earth was not round
Our observation was false and we later made another observation that showed the earth to be round

This is not reason being unreliable this is empiricism being unreliable. Now can you give me an example of reason being unreliable?

The observation that the Earth was flat was actually true from a specific point of reference. The problem was that this information was used to
determine a false conclusion. So the problem was therefore not with the observation itself but the assumption that it supported. The empirical
evidence was perfectly reliable but the non empirical conclusion based on reason was entirely unreliable. Any time there is a conflict between
reason and empiricism then empiricism will always win simply because it deals with what is actually real as opposed to what is supposedly real


On the contrary, it was not reason that was flawed. It was what we observed. To us it looked like the earth was flat. This was a flaw or rather a lack of observation, not a flaw or lack of reasoning.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:12 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Without reason there would be no empiricism. It is reason that dictates that you cannot have something come from nothing. And science with whatever
observations it makes will always have to make sure that any theory or observation it makes does not amount to a paradox. This is what reason dictates
and science / empiricism abides by it

Science does not say something comes from nothing. The definition of a singularity as a non existent point of infinite density cannot exist as a physical entity
Therefore if singularities do exist they can only be infinitesimal points of finite density. This is one thing that both empiricism and reason actually agree upon


Again, empiricism is reliant on reason. It's not the other way round. Reason needs to be fed observations for science to exist. Observations don't need to be fed reason; observations need to get organised and made sense of by reason in order for science to exist. If something is paradoxical/irrational, then it can't be made sense of. It therefore can't be science because paradoxes are devoid of any meaning. If you look at the philosophy of Science, you'll find that it's reason that dictates what constitutes good science.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:29 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Fallacious use of reason is evident when what you say is contradictory or paradoxical agreed?
With that said saying that Existence is finite amounts to something coming from nothing. This amounts to a paradox
So evidently existence is not finite it is infinite as it would be paradoxical ( fallacious reasoning ) to say otherwise

As has just been said science does not say something comes from nothing. Existence may very well be temporally infinite but there
is no evidence to support this because physics breaks down at the Big Bang and so what happened before then is currently unknown


I acknowledge that what happened before the Big Bang is unknown, but this is why I'm emphasising the difference between the unknown and the absurd:

Unknown = what happened before the Big Bang.

Absurd = Something coming from nothing.

Absurdities will always remain absurd.

Perhaps I made the mistake of portraying humanity as being infallible in its use of reason. I do not believe this. We are fallible, but reason itself is infallible. Our challenge is to use it right. Again, I acknowledge that we are fallible and that we may falsely see something as paradoxical that isn't actually paradoxical on initial glance (I've witnessed myself make this mistake).

Having said that though, surely some things are abundantly clear as always being paradoxical. Such as the impossibility of something coming from nothing. No philosopher in history has ever managed to come close to doubting this. Any who attempted to doubt this, ultimately descended into madness and pure absurdity/nihilism. Perhaps Nietsche is one such example.

What I'm trying to say is, the doubting of reason, or the denial of existence, has never happened and will never happen. Even empiricism verifies this when we look to our history.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:45 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Certainly real,

I won the debate here

viewtopic.php?p=2709918#p2709918

I stated that if we are all INSIDE god, then either there is no sin, or there is sin IN god.
I used your own logic about us not being existence but rather in existence against your perfection argument. You couldn't handle the disproof, per your reply, which just stated that we are in existence and not existence itself.

Besides, if energy is omnipresent, every quanta is energy, and would be omnipresent.


Fair enough Ecmandu. You are right to say there is sin IN God and I won't disagree with you on that. But that doesn't make my position paradoxical.

If a part of Existence is imperfect that does not mean that the whole of Existence is imperfect. So long as the traits are maintained, then my position is not paradoxical. To demonstrate:

Me sinning does not make that which is omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient/infinite (perfection) any less omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient/infinite, does it? So my position is without paradox, unless you can prove otherwise.

You're position is still paradoxical/irrational. You reject omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience. Again, these concepts are not hypothetical possibilities, they are not absurd, and they are not unknown; so they are necessary. Existence is necessarily omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient/infinite.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:48 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:We are energy and energy is omnipresent does not logically extend to we are God and God is omnipresent so that cannot be accepted
Energy is an observed phenomenon while God cannot be observed at all for he resides in the metaphysical / supernatural for all time


You're making the same logical mistake as certainly real, you're assuming that a being has to be omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, perfect etc... and any argument that counters it is wrong.

I'm pointing out that such a being doesn't exist.

If god is everywhere, and god (everywhere) is omniscient, than we must all be omniscient for that to be true.

God has never experienced not knowing someone's middle name, this means there's an infinite amount of subjective states that we can prove god doesn't have access to.

Also if we are all inside God then that means there is either no sin or there is sin inside a perfect being.

Neither you nor certainly real have addressed these arguments on their merits. I'm not using circular arguments like you two are


Again, being a part of omnipresence is not the same as being omnipresent. Is it? You can't be omniscient if you're not omnipresent. I've addressed your point about imperfect beings in the perfect being sinning. I didn't ignore your argument but you seem to ignore that there's a difference between being a part of omnipresence/Existence and being omnipresent/Existence
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:51 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:Ecmandu I do not believe in God so why would I be making arguments for his existence

Omniscience and omnipotence and omnibenelovence are all incompatible and so cannot be the characteristics of God anyway
So if he does exist he has to be a logical being as a non logical being such as the multi omni one above cannot exist in reality


There is no contradiction in Existence being infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient. Where is the contradiction?

There is, however, a contradiction in rejecting Existence as being infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient. I've demonstrated before.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Sep 29, 2018 3:39 pm

Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Certainly real,

I won the debate here

viewtopic.php?p=2709918#p2709918

I stated that if we are all INSIDE god, then either there is no sin, or there is sin IN god.
I used your own logic about us not being existence but rather in existence against your perfection argument. You couldn't handle the disproof, per your reply, which just stated that we are in existence and not existence itself.

Besides, if energy is omnipresent, every quanta is energy, and would be omnipresent.


Fair enough Ecmandu. You are right to say there is sin IN God and I won't disagree with you on that. But that doesn't make my position paradoxical.

If a part of Existence is imperfect that does not mean that the whole of Existence is imperfect. So long as the traits are maintained, then my position is not paradoxical. To demonstrate:

Me sinning does not make that which is omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient/infinite (perfection) any less omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient/infinite, does it? So my position is without paradox, unless you can prove otherwise.

You're position is still paradoxical/irrational. You reject omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience. Again, these concepts are not hypothetical possibilities, they are not absurd, and they are not unknown; so they are necessary. Existence is necessarily omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient/infinite.


Nice try. If there's sin in me, I'm imperfect, but if there's sin in god, god is still perfect?

I don't think so.

Per your reply to surreptitious, actually platonic forms describe the universe better than a contradictory being. They are eternal forms in a different dimension that project from us.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7261
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:42 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Nice try. If there's sin in me, I'm imperfect, but if there's sin in god, god is still perfect?

I don't think so.

Per your reply to surreptitious, actually platonic forms describe the universe better than a contradictory being. They are eternal forms in a different dimension that project from us.


You and me are both imperfect by default. Our imperfection is not because we sin, it's because we are not perfect (infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient.)

The definition of true perfection is: that which is infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient. So long as this definition holds, there are no paradoxes.

Being in something and being something are different things. I have a liver in me. I am a human. A liver has a definition, and a human has a definition. A liver and a human do not have the same definition. Still, a liver is part of a human.

Perfection has a definition (see above). Imperfection also has a definition (Anything that lacks omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience/infiniteness). Logically, if infiniteness/omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience ceases to be or is altered in any way, then we no longer have perfection. So long as perfection is not altered, we still have perfection.

Perfection can't be imperfection (as it can't be anything other than infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient) but it can have imperfection within it. It can have imperfection within it because perfection containing imperfection does not alter perfection in any way. Perfection containing imperfection does not result in the end of perfection being infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient in any way.

So where's the paradox?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:45 pm

Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
Nice try. If there's sin in me, I'm imperfect, but if there's sin in god, god is still perfect?

I don't think so.

Per your reply to surreptitious, actually platonic forms describe the universe better than a contradictory being. They are eternal forms in a different dimension that project from us.


You and me are both imperfect by default. Our imperfection is not because we sin, it's because we are not perfect (infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient.)

The definition of true perfection is: that which is infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient. So long as this definition holds, there are no paradoxes.

Being in something and being something are different things. I have a liver in me. I am a human. A liver has a definition, and a human has a definition. A liver and a human do not have the same definition. Still, a liver is part of a human.

Perfection has a definition (see above). Imperfection also has a definition (Anything that lacks omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience/infiniteness). Logically, if infiniteness/omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience ceases to be or is altered in any way, then we no longer have perfection. So long as perfection is not altered, we still have perfection.

Perfection can't be imperfection (as in it can't be anything other than infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient) but it can have imperfection within it. It can have imperfection within it because perfection containing imperfection does not alter perfection in any way. Perfection containing imperfection does not result in the end of perfection being infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient in any way.

So where's the paradox?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:45 pm

Certainly real wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
Nice try. If there's sin in me, I'm imperfect, but if there's sin in god, god is still perfect?

I don't think so.

Per your reply to surreptitious, actually platonic forms describe the universe better than a contradictory being. They are eternal forms in a different dimension that project from us.


You and me are both imperfect by default. Our imperfection is not because we sin, it's because we are not perfect (infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient.)

The definition of true perfection is: that which is infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient. So long as this definition holds, there are no paradoxes.

Being in something and being something are different things. I have a liver in me. I am a human. A liver has a definition, and a human has a definition. A liver and a human do not have the same definition. Still, a liver is part of a human.

Perfection has a definition (see above). Imperfection also has a definition (Anything that lacks omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience/infiniteness). Logically, if infiniteness/omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience ceases to be or is altered in any way, then we no longer have perfection. So long as perfection is not altered, we still have perfection.

Perfection can't be imperfection (as in it can't be anything other than infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient) but it can have imperfection within it. It can have imperfection within it because perfection containing imperfection does not alter perfection in any way. Perfection containing imperfection does not result in perfection being any less infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient.

So where's the paradox?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:52 pm

Certainly real,

Two things of note: you confuse infinity and eternity
You still use the word paradox incorrectly

So here's you're argument:

Everything that exists, exists in existence
Existants have the properties of knowledge, presence and power, all of which is inside of existence of which nothing is outside existence.

So, existence is doing everything that is being done in existence, and knowing everything that is known in existence. You take a further leap of logic, by defining this as perfect!

I notice you always leave omnibenevolence out when you list omnistates, probably because the argument of evil is the most damaging argument against such a being. Which by the way, is the only omnistate every being in existence cares about.

I don't think you understand that in order for omnipresence to work, it has to be inside looking out and outside looking in.

Part of the power in the universe is murdering people, which if you do it, by definition, god, has to be doing it as part of all the power and presence in existence.

Per your argument, though we may not be god, god still commits every sin in existence.

Think of it this way. We know what a healthy liver is.
Our liver is inside of us, when it is unhealthy, we are sick.

Through this analogy ... every organ in gods body is sick.... except god!?!?!?!

That's not rational.

Look into platonic forms (eternal) if you want to understand existence better.

Eternal means: never begins or ends
Infinite means: begins but doesn't end
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7261
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users