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 Certainly real » Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:00 pm

Ecmandu wrote:You're not using paradox correctly, you have only used proof through contradiction, to which it must be established whether the premises are correct.


The premises are correct because their rejection is paradoxical. Tell me which premise is incorrect, and I will show you how it's rejection is impossible. So far, you've only focused on the premise that's in relation to omniscience being meaningless, which I've addressed extensively.

You also brought in the concept of omnibenevolance as being problematic to a perfect being, which I addressed here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194327&start=25#p2709529

Answer me this, an argument you did avoid, I can address all of your replies, but I want your answer to this. God has never known what it's like to not know someone's middle name. Every being besides god, which is probably infinite in number, has known what it's like to not know someone's middle name.


I'd say your use of the word infinite is wrong. Bear the following in mind when you read the rest of this post. You can never have two different things in the same place at at the same time. It would be paradoxical to say that you can. Bear the following key words/meanings in mind: Infinite (without beginning and without end) Semi-infinite (with a beginning but without an end) Finite (with both a beginning and an end)

The core argument+conclusion is as follows:

A) You can't have two beings occupy the same place and time. B) You can't have something come from nothing

This yields the following conclusion:

C) Only Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Any alternative to C will either lead to A or B or both. Try it, you'll see.

Infinity has to be treated as a whole. It can't be infinite in some dimensions whilst being finite or semi-infinite in others (absurdity B as you can't have any dimension come from nothing or border non-existence) So it is necessarily infinite in all dimensions and can never be anything other than this and has never been anything other than this.

Bearing in mind A, no other being can be infinite in any dimension.

With regards to all dimensions, Existence is necessarily infinite. Consider time. You necessarily can't have two infinite time lines as that amounts to A. But you can have two or more semi-infinite timelines within this infinite time line/dimension purely because an infinite time line allows for a semi-infinite amount of start points. Simply, this amounts to a semi-infinite amount of semi-infinite time lines. If there were no start points, then it'd be infinite and that would amount to A.

This applies to all dimensions. You can have a semi-infinite number of lines in/on any two dimensions. So long as it's two dimensions or more and with a different start point, then no paradoxes occur.

If it's two dimensions or more and with the same start point, then additional considerations go into place. Which I'll discuss:

In a semi-infinite reality Q (one that's semi-infinite in xyz and t, with start point Q = (QxQyQz and Qt)) you can have partially semi-infinite beings in relation to reality Q (beings that are Q-semi-infinite in some dimensions such as time, but Q-finite in other dimensions such as xyz, and you can have a semi-infinite number of these (let's call them Q-immortals) Q-immortal beings.

Notice how I have attached Q to everything. It's to signify that these immortals are all a part of this semi-infinite reality that is anchored/rooted in start point Q. All Q-immortals are somewhere on/equal to or after the start point QxQyQz Qt). No being in reality Q can be fully QxQyQz Qt because this amounts to paradox A. But you can have anything other than this. So you can have a semi infinite number of immortals that began when reality Q began. Call these Immortals Q1, and you can have this reality produce another set of immortals (the mechanisms of which don't matter but let's say some of the Q1 immortals gave birth to Q2 immortals) and so on semi-infinitely.

We talked about reality Q. Q is endlessly Q in xyz and t dimensions. It can produce partially semi-infinite Q-beings of its own as demonstrated with the Q-immortals. It can't produce something that's Q (xyz t) because that would amount to paradox A. Q-ness needs to separate all the things that it contains. But because Q-ness is endless, it can have an endless amount of Q anchored beings/realities. Amongst the things that it can contain: Anything that is less than/after than Q-ness, reality Q can accommodate.

Given what you've said in your previous posts, initially, to you it may look as though you can't have a semi-infinite number of partially semi-infinite beings in reality Q that's semi-infinite in the dimensions of space and time. It may look as though there'd be no room or space, but actually, there is. It ultimately amounts to this: There is endless space and time, so it can accommodate an endless number of spatially finite immortal beings. All these beings can be immortal (sharing this particular semi-infinite time line tied to reality Q). So long as both the reality that is semi-infinite in multiple dimensions and the immortal beings that inhabit it are anchored to the start point relative to Q, and the paradox of A is avoided, we're well in line with the truth. That is the key difference between all beings/realities that are not God, and God. God necessarily has no start and no end point. Everything else necessarily has one (a start point) or both (a start point and an end point) in at least two or more of Existence's/God's dimensions.

That which is infinite can accommodate a semi-infinite number of these semi-infinite worlds. They all necessarily have to have a start point/tied/anchored in Existence/the infinite, but they don't necessarily have to have an end point.

Semi-infinite = without end but with a beginning. The reason you can't have an infinite number of beings is because there's no room for such a possibility. The potential is not there. There'd be nothing to separate them. Everything must have at least two points in existence. If it didn't have any points in Existence, then it would be Existence/infinity itself or absurdity/non-existence.

So that extensively addresses your misuse/misunderstanding of infinity.

With regards to God knowing what it's like to not know something, we already discussed this extensively. A clear distinction was made between A) knowing x and not not knowing x at the same time (paradoxical) and B) knowing x and knowing what it's like to not know x at the same time.

Your replies are circular, and these facts make them false.


Circular but correct. Your misuse/misunderstanding of infinity make what you propose false/paradoxical/irrational.
I have addressed this.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Certainly real » Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:07 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Perfection cannot be imperfection (as it cannot 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

That makes no sense since perfection by definition has to be free of all imperfection no matter how tiny
How much imperfection can perfection have before it becomes imperfect ? Logically it can be any at all


I know perfection cannot be imperfection just as I know a square cannot be a circle. You can have a circle contain a square without the definition of the circle changing to something else. So long as the circle doesn't change, it's still circular regardless of what it contains or how that which it contains changes.

So, how much imperfection you ask? Perfection is that which is infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient. Anything that doesn't match this definition is not perfect. So long as these traits don't change, perfection is maintained regardless of what it contains within it.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Certainly real » Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:12 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Infinity is that which has no beginning and no end in any dimension

Temporal infinity can have either a beginning with no end or no beginning with an end
And it can of course be infinite in both directions though this is not actually necessary



Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Paradoxical otherwise:
So i'd say your understanding of infinite is wrong. Bear the following in mind when you read the rest of this post. You can never have two different things in the same place at at the same time. It would be paradoxical to say that you can. Bear the following key words/meanings in mind: Infinite (without beginning and without end) Semi-infinite (with a beginning but without an end) Finite (with both a beginning and an end)

The core argument+conclusion is as follows:

A) You can't have two beings occupy the same place and time. B) You can't have something come from nothing

This yields the following conclusion:

C) Only Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Any alternative to C will either lead to A or B or both. Try it, you'll see.

Infinity has to be treated as a whole. It can't be infinite in some dimensions whilst being finite or semi-infinite in others (absurdity B as you can't have any dimension come from nothing or border non-existence) So it is necessarily infinite in all dimensions and can never be anything other than this and has never been anything other than this.

Bearing in mind A, no other being can be infinite in any dimension.

With regards to all dimensions, Existence is necessarily infinite. Consider time. You necessarily can't have two infinite time lines as that amounts to A. But you can have two or more semi-infinite timelines within this infinite time line/dimension purely because an infinite time line allows for a semi-infinite amount of start points. Simply, this amounts to a semi-infinite amount of semi-infinite time lines. If there were no start points, then it'd be infinite and that would amount to A.

This applies to all dimensions. You can have a semi-infinite number of lines in/on any two dimensions. So long as it's two dimensions or more and with a different start point, then no paradoxes occur.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Certainly real » Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:13 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
I notice you always leave omnibenevolence out when you list omnistates

I mentioned omnibenevolence but he ignored it because it is not compatible with omnipotence
A perfect being can conceivably be one or the other but not both as they contradict each other


I addressed it here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194327&start=25#p2709529
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Certainly real » Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:25 pm

Serendipper wrote:But omnipresent in what? All-existing in what? If you say something exists everywhere, then you have to define what "where" is, and so something else must exist first (ie spacetime fabric, aether, xyz coordinates).


In all dimensions. We know that we don't everything about Existence (for example, how many senses are there, can it sustain a being with a 100 senses) these are unknowns. But what is know is that Existence has to be all-existing/omnipresent. Plus the other traits I've been mentioning. These are knowns because contrary to them with paradoxical. Unknowns are simply that, unknown, they don't contradict the core traits of Existence.

I see what you're saying and it's sensible, but sometimes I wonder. I mean, we have quantum superposition where one thing exists in two positions, which is absurd; we have quantum tunneling where one thing travels through another thing; Michio Kaku gives his phd students the absurd problem of calculating the probability that they will vanish and reappear on the planet Mars viewtopic.php?f=4&t=193940

It seems as if the designation of logical impossibility is not sufficient to relegate something to truly being impossible. Heat can also flow from the cold to the hot, but as a matter of odds, it practically never does.


Paradoxes are absurd. They will never make sense. Alway, it's either a case of faulty observations, or unknowns. Never a case of absurdity. So with every example that you gave that appears to look like a contradiction/paradox, it is simply a matter of unknown or problems with the theory that's being worked with. Again, if we observe something that appears to go in and out of Existence, we can never conclude this as it is absurd. We are forced to conclude the following:

A) Either it's a case of faulty observation or
B) It's a matter of unknown (particle went to an unknown dimension/reality or did something unknown)

Unknowns are unknown (we don't know if they're absurd are possible. We can't apply reason to them as they are unknown). This is not the same as an absurdity where we have applied reason and it amounted to a paradox (faulty reasoning, or faulty positions of meanings/semantics, faulty use of language, faulty theories etc.)

Existence in this case would be a concept rather than a thing. And we still need to define what omnipresent means outside of the spacetime construct.


Omnipresent entails being infinite in all dimensions. So that includes xyz and t plus possible unknowns. Omnipresence is not doubtable, it would be paradoxical.

What I mean is the universe is trying to figure itself out and it can't because an object cannot be subject to itself. One point cannot inspect itself and infinities result from trying, like the infinite regression seen from pointing a camera at its own monitor.


How is does this render the nature of Existence as being anything other than infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Certainly real » Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:29 pm

Serendipper wrote:Yes that's true from within the construct of language and logic, but the nonconceptual is the set of things that are not conceptualized, which would (presumably) include absurdities. I'm not saying absurdities exist or are possible, I'm just not sure that they aren't.... because ultimately, at least one absurdity has to be or we wouldn't be here.


You can be sure. Paradoxes are always impossible. We can say this with certainty just as we can say that reason is infallible. Our use of reason however, is not so infallible.

I do accept that we may mistakenly not see something as amounting to a paradox on initial glance and we may mistakenly consider some things as paradoxical that aren't but this doesn't alter the fact that paradoxes are always impossible.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Certainly real » Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:32 pm

Serendipper wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Infinity is that which has no beginning and no end in any dimension

Temporal infinity can have either a beginning with no end or no beginning with an end
And it can of course be infinite in both directions though this is not actually necessary

I disagree. I don't think a timeline can have a start and no end. First of all, what started it and why should the starting point be an arbitrary demarcation in causality? Second, there would never be a point in time where we could say it is infinite because we'd have to wait for the end to do so, but the end never comes. However if time had no beginning, then it would always be infinite and infinite time cannot end lest it have a boundary and therefore not be infinite. Eternity can't have a beginning.


Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Paradoxical otherwise:

Bear the following in mind when you read the rest of this post. You can never have two different things in the same place at at the same time. It would be paradoxical to say that you can. Bear the following key words/meanings in mind: Infinite (without beginning and without end) Semi-infinite (with a beginning but without an end) Finite (with both a beginning and an end)

The core argument+conclusion is as follows:

A) You can't have two beings occupy the same place and time. B) You can't have something come from nothing

This yields the following conclusion:

C) Only Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Any alternative to C will either lead to A or B or both. Try it, you'll see.

Infinity has to be treated as a whole. It can't be infinite in some dimensions whilst being finite or semi-infinite in others (absurdity B as you can't have any dimension come from nothing or border non-existence) So it is necessarily infinite in all dimensions and can never be anything other than this and has never been anything other than this.

Bearing in mind A, no other being can be infinite in any dimension.

With regards to all dimensions, Existence is necessarily infinite. Consider time. You necessarily can't have two infinite time lines as that amounts to A. But you can have two or more semi-infinite timelines within this infinite time line/dimension purely because an infinite time line allows for a semi-infinite amount of start points. Simply, this amounts to a semi-infinite amount of semi-infinite time lines. If there were no start points, then it'd be infinite and that would amount to A.

This applies to all dimensions. You can have a semi-infinite number of lines in/on any two dimensions. So long as it's two dimensions or more and with a different start point, then no paradoxes occur.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:46 pm

Certainly real,

You didn't answer my question, but for now it's neither here nor there. I proved that there are subjective states god has no access to. Mine's demonstrable, yours is not. Omniscience is a flawed premise. You even state yourself that none of us can be this, so it's unfalsifiable by your own definition, but I did falsify omniscience by what we can all demonstrate. I don't think you truly understand ...

It is a PROOF that god has NEVER known what it's like to not know something, but we have, and in an infinite cosmos, there are an infinite number of subjective states that god has 0% access to. This means that a human can judge a human better than god.

But... I'm going to blow your mind further ...

Before I do, I need to say this!

To say that a perfect being planned all of this, and we should just accept it, is actually a really scary way to look at life, as in sadistic and psychopathic ("you don't know, this is going to hurt, but it's NECESSARILY for the BEST"). NO MEANS NO !!!! There's no other philosophy to be had there. Now you're coming off as a serious creep. That's your argument against omnibenevolence? Ouch man, psychopath cult leader vibes here.

Here's what's going to blow your mind:

Something that comes from something else came from nothing at all. Even if god does it.

I gave you a proof earlier and you ignored it.

If god knows every reason why god does what god does, and all of those reasons are internal, then god knows nothing about why there's an external to act upon, which means there's no otherness in existence.
This causes a state called logical Catatonia where the being in question cannot perceive existence.

Additionally, you confuse, "all the knowledge of existence is in existence". With the statement, existence knows all the knowledge in existence.

You're taking existence outside of itself, which you yourself said is impossible.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

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

Postby Serendipper » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:25 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Serendipper wrote:But how you do connect omniscience to omnipresence?


Because God has to know all subjective states of ignorance to know all that is known in existence, if god doesn't know them all, then it demonstrates a lack of omnipresence for intelligent beings, thus, a lack of omnipresence in general, or as far as we are concerned


I still don't see why knowledge is needed in order to exist. For instance, the Christian god is the technocrat who could explain how he created the universe, but the Hindu god would have no idea and he would say he just did it. Both gods exist everywhere: Yahweh exists everywhere by definition and Brahman exists everywhere because everything is made of Brahman, but he has no idea how he does anything just like you've no idea how you beat your heart. Existence doesn't seem to be dependent upon knowledge (conceptual knowledge).
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby Serendipper » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:33 am

Certainly real wrote:Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Paradoxical otherwise:

Infinity is not anything that can exist and is actually a result of the circularity of self-inspection (infinity is an error message). The day infinity exists is the day forever has arrived. It's impossible.

Here is a good read on the topic http://theorangeduck.com/page/infinity-doesnt-exist
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:35 am

Serendipper wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
Serendipper wrote:But how you do connect omniscience to omnipresence?


Because God has to know all subjective states of ignorance to know all that is known in existence, if god doesn't know them all, then it demonstrates a lack of omnipresence for intelligent beings, thus, a lack of omnipresence in general, or as far as we are concerned


I still don't see why knowledge is needed in order to exist. For instance, the Christian god is the technocrat who could explain how he created the universe, but the Hindu god would have no idea and he would say he just did it. Both gods exist everywhere: Yahweh exists everywhere by definition and Brahman exists everywhere because everything is made of Brahman, but he has no idea how he does anything just like you've no idea how you beat your heart. Existence doesn't seem to be dependent upon knowledge (conceptual knowledge).


That wasn't my point. Knowledge is needed in order to KNOW you exist, if I can disprove omnipresence of knowledge, I can disprove omnipresence in general.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

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

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:42 am

Serendipper wrote:
Certainly real wrote:Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Paradoxical otherwise:

Infinity is not anything that can exist and is actually a result of the circularity of self-inspection (infinity is an error message). The day infinity exists is the day forever has arrived. It's impossible.

Here is a good read on the topic http://theorangeduck.com/page/infinity-doesnt-exist


He missed the big one in this essay.

Anything finite in an infinite universe, where the standard of mathematics is that of infinite set converge, force the fact that anything finite inside infinity has a zero percent chance of existing!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

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

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:51 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Certainly real wrote:Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Paradoxical otherwise:

Infinity is not anything that can exist and is actually a result of the circularity of self-inspection (infinity is an error message). The day infinity exists is the day forever has arrived. It's impossible.

Here is a good read on the topic http://theorangeduck.com/page/infinity-doesnt-exist


He missed the big one in this essay.

Anything finite in an infinite universe, where the standard of mathematics is that of infinite set converge, force the fact that anything finite inside infinity has a zero percent chance of existing!


I want to clarify this better.

If I live one day out of an infinite number of days, upon converging that infinity, the day becomes so infinitesimal that it has a zero percent chance of occurring!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

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

Postby Serendipper » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:08 am

Certainly real wrote:
Serendipper wrote:But omnipresent in what? All-existing in what? If you say something exists everywhere, then you have to define what "where" is, and so something else must exist first (ie spacetime fabric, aether, xyz coordinates).


In all dimensions. We know that we don't everything about Existence (for example, how many senses are there, can it sustain a being with a 100 senses) these are unknowns. But what is know is that Existence has to be all-existing/omnipresent. Plus the other traits I've been mentioning. These are knowns because contrary to them with paradoxical. Unknowns are simply that, unknown, they don't contradict the core traits of Existence.

What are dimensions? You're still trying to define existence in terms of something that already exists.

What does the universe look like from the outside? There is no outside and there is no "look" outside the universe and there are no dimensions outside and there is no "where" outside. Existence inside this universe is being a function of the universe, but outside the universe, there is nothing to exist as a function of and therefore no possible way to exist outside. But that begs the question of how the universe exists because what would it exist as a function of? That's the paradox.

I see what you're saying and it's sensible, but sometimes I wonder. I mean, we have quantum superposition where one thing exists in two positions, which is absurd; we have quantum tunneling where one thing travels through another thing; Michio Kaku gives his phd students the absurd problem of calculating the probability that they will vanish and reappear on the planet Mars viewtopic.php?f=4&t=193940

It seems as if the designation of logical impossibility is not sufficient to relegate something to truly being impossible. Heat can also flow from the cold to the hot, but as a matter of odds, it practically never does.


Paradoxes are absurd. They will never make sense. Alway, it's either a case of faulty observations, or unknowns. Never a case of absurdity.

But you're just postulating that. You're making an axiom of the impossibility of absurdities from the context of inside the universe in order to draw conclusions about things outside the universe. You may be right and you may be wrong, but you're just guessing.

So with every example that you gave that appears to look like a contradiction/paradox, it is simply a matter of unknown or problems with the theory that's being worked with.

Yeah, that's what Einstein thought. He thought there were hidden variables that would determine what appear to be random results, but John Bell proved there are no hidden variables. IOW, events are absolutely causeless.

Again, if we observe something that appears to go in and out of Existence, we can never conclude this as it is absurd. We are forced to conclude the following:

A) Either it's a case of faulty observation or
B) It's a matter of unknown (particle went to an unknown dimension/reality or did something unknown)

Or in the case of Einstein vs Borh: C) We're forced to conclude absurdities exist.

Existence in this case would be a concept rather than a thing. And we still need to define what omnipresent means outside of the spacetime construct.


Omnipresent entails being infinite in all dimensions.

Infinite in all directions = nonexistence. The ubiquitous cannot be said to exist because there is nothing to contrast it to.

We can't make statements about everything. Alan Watts gave a great talk about this:

Start at 10:00



You can only say everything in the universe is ___________ if you made an exception. Then, according to logical analysis, you could have made a meaningful statement. But when you start making statements about everything, there's nothing you can do about it: you can't prove it and you can't disprove it. And so they say "You think you have said something, you haven't really said anything at all."

What I mean is the universe is trying to figure itself out and it can't because an object cannot be subject to itself. One point cannot inspect itself and infinities result from trying, like the infinite regression seen from pointing a camera at its own monitor.


How is does this render the nature of Existence as being anything other than infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient?

We can't make logical statements about everything, so omniwhatevers are absurdities right off the bat.

And existence is relational. Abstract existence will never make sense to us.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby Serendipper » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:17 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Serendipper wrote:I still don't see why knowledge is needed in order to exist. For instance, the Christian god is the technocrat who could explain how he created the universe, but the Hindu god would have no idea and he would say he just did it. Both gods exist everywhere: Yahweh exists everywhere by definition and Brahman exists everywhere because everything is made of Brahman, but he has no idea how he does anything just like you've no idea how you beat your heart. Existence doesn't seem to be dependent upon knowledge (conceptual knowledge).


That wasn't my point. Knowledge is needed in order to KNOW you exist, if I can disprove omnipresence of knowledge, I can disprove omnipresence in general.

Maybe it's a failure on my part, but I still can't see how you're connecting the proof of omnipresence of knowledge to omnipresence in general. I think finite things can have a omnipresence like a glass being 100% full of water or a piece of metal having an omnipresence of steel, so the problem comes in with the omnipresence inside the infinite and I maintain that's nonexistence because ubiquitousness would have no contrast. In order to exist, there needs to be a place of nonexistence to provide contrast.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby Serendipper » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:23 am

Ecmandu wrote:If I live one day out of an infinite number of days, upon converging that infinity, the day becomes so infinitesimal that it has a zero percent chance of occurring!

Yes I agree and so does Alan Watts. He said "Something that only happens once in infinite time, never happens." I think Nietzsche is down with it as well, if his infinite reoccurence theory is a guide.

In infinite time (causality), any odds of happening become certain, so if something has a chance of occurring, then it will occur infinite times. It's digital: either it happens infinite times or it never happens. But nothing can happen just once.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:30 am

Serendipper wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
Serendipper wrote:I still don't see why knowledge is needed in order to exist. For instance, the Christian god is the technocrat who could explain how he created the universe, but the Hindu god would have no idea and he would say he just did it. Both gods exist everywhere: Yahweh exists everywhere by definition and Brahman exists everywhere because everything is made of Brahman, but he has no idea how he does anything just like you've no idea how you beat your heart. Existence doesn't seem to be dependent upon knowledge (conceptual knowledge).


That wasn't my point. Knowledge is needed in order to KNOW you exist, if I can disprove omnipresence of knowledge, I can disprove omnipresence in general.

Maybe it's a failure on my part, but I still can't see how you're connecting the proof of omnipresence of knowledge to omnipresence in general. I think finite things can have a omnipresence like a glass being 100% full of water or a piece of metal having an omnipresence of steel, so the problem comes in with the omnipresence inside the infinite and I maintain that's nonexistence because ubiquitousness would have no contrast. In order to exist, there needs to be a place of nonexistence to provide contrast.


Because omnipresence of knowledge is a subset of omnipresence in general, if the subset is proven non omnipresent, then by virtue, the superset has a proven gap.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

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

Postby Serendipper » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:34 am

Certainly real wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Yes that's true from within the construct of language and logic, but the nonconceptual is the set of things that are not conceptualized, which would (presumably) include absurdities. I'm not saying absurdities exist or are possible, I'm just not sure that they aren't.... because ultimately, at least one absurdity has to be or we wouldn't be here.


You can be sure. Paradoxes are always impossible. We can say this with certainty just as we can say that reason is infallible. Our use of reason however, is not so infallible.

I do accept that we may mistakenly not see something as amounting to a paradox on initial glance and we may mistakenly consider some things as paradoxical that aren't but this doesn't alter the fact that paradoxes are always impossible.

Paradoxes only exist within the confines of this universe like certain paradoxes will exist within the confines of a computer-generated environment, but beings inside the environment who are trying to draw conclusions about the outside environment are stabbing in the dark because they have no way to relate to it.

For example, you say squared circles are impossible, yet looking at an alarm clock we see squared circles (zero) because the resolution is terribly low and the clock only has 7 pixels to work with. Within that construct there is no difference between a rectangle and an oval. Even in our environment they say the planck distance is the shortest distance, so there are no true circles, but only polygons with lots of sides. Perhaps in that light, PI will not be infinite.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby Serendipper » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:41 am

Ecmandu wrote:Because omnipresence of knowledge is a subset of omnipresence in general, if the subset is proven non omnipresent, then by virtue, the superset has a proven gap.

Disproof of subsets invalidates the general category? Are you sure?

Claim: omnipresence of some things are possible.

Omnipresence of X is not possible therefore the claim is invalid. Is that true?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:57 am

Serendipper wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Because omnipresence of knowledge is a subset of omnipresence in general, if the subset is proven non omnipresent, then by virtue, the superset has a proven gap.

Disproof of subsets invalidates the general category? Are you sure?

Claim: omnipresence of some things are possible.

Omnipresence of X is not possible therefore the claim is invalid. Is that true?


If it's something we can verify experientially...

Yes!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

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

Postby Certainly real » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:15 pm

Ecmandu wrote:I proved that there are subjective states god has no access to. Mine's demonstrable, yours is not


I disagree. Essentially, after we established that can God know what it's like to not know something via everything being informational and God having all the right tools to understand this information, you didn't successfully refute this argument. If you think you did, show me where, and I'll show you where I countered and then we can compare them directly.

We addressed the distinction between being a part of God and being God. We addressed the distinction between 1) knowing x and not knowing x at the same time (paradoxical) and how this is not the same as 2) knowing x and what it's like to not know x (not paradoxical)

You've still to not clearly said, do you acknowledge the distinction between 1 and 2? My understanding is that you still insist that the item of knowledge you're proposing: Namely, knowing x and not knowing x at the same time, is something that is knowable/not absurd.

I also made a clear distinction between how parts can be a certain way, without affecting the definition of the whole here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194327&start=125#p2710079
You didn't directly address the post. You reiterated what you said and brought in the concept of infinity. Which again, I addressed in my last post to you.

You even state yourself that none of us can be this, so it's unfalsifiable by your own definition


Again, we are a part of the omnipresent/omniscient/Existence. We are not it, we are a part of it. It would be paradoxical otherwise. Address this point if you're sincere.

It is a PROOF that god has NEVER known what it's like to not know something

God is Existence, so obviously God is never gonna know non-existence. It's not something to be known. That is absurdity. Again, God knows what it's like to not know something. This does not amount to knowing x and not know x at the same time. See, I addressed your point again, but you keep avoiding this very point. Address it directly if you're genuine about philosophical debate.

To say that a perfect being planned all of this, and we should just accept it, is actually a really scary way to look at life

That's because you focus too much on unknowns. You don't know the future so you don't know how things might get balanced in terms of justice. Also, you don't know what mechanisms kick in to counter some of the evil we see in our world. It'd take omnisience to make that judgement and it'd take omniscience to fully know the potential of all things in relation to each other. Unknowns are things that you can't apply reason to. It's an irrational move. By all means, if you see clear injustice and it's clearly known to you and you want to uphold reason and morality, then do something. Perhaps give to charity and hope that you were part of the mechanism for some kind of justice (in this case wealth distribution), but don't make assumptions about things that are outside your realm of knowledge like this wrong/injustice will never be righted.

NO MEANS NO !!!! There's no other philosophy to be had there. Now you're coming off as a serious creep. That's your argument against omnibenevolence? Ouch man, psychopath cult leader vibes here.


It's matter of reason. Knowns outweigh unknowns. Pure and simple. You don't deny omnipresence just because you don't know if existence can sustain beings with a 100 senses or not. You don't deny the Perfect being doing/planning/designing perfectly because you don't know the future and can't see if things get balanced or if there is some benefit that may not have been derived otherwise. God does as it pleases, but what it does, it does perfectly because it is perfect. I can think of hypotheticals to how the evil you see can ultimately be a necessary thing in relation to bringing out the best of outcomes relative to the potential. However rejection of Existence as that which I've outlined, is blatantly paradoxical. You can't give me any alternative hypotheticals. So again:

We don't reject knowns in favour of unknowns. It'd be misguided to do so. To non-omniscient beings how God does perfectly is at times mysterious/unknown. But God always does perfectly.

Here's what's going to blow your mind:

Something that comes from something else came from nothing at all. Even if god does it.


It's paradoxical so it's meaningless.

If god knows every reason why god does what god does, and all of those reasons are internal, then god knows nothing about why there's an external to act upon, which means there's no otherness in existence.
This causes a state called logical Catatonia where the being in question cannot perceive existence.

Additionally, you confuse, "all the knowledge of existence is in existence". With the statement, existence knows all the knowledge in existence.

You're taking existence outside of itself, which you yourself said is impossible.


There's no external when it comes to Existence. That's absurd. There's nothing that isn't a part of God/Existence. There's nothing other than Existence. We're in full agreement on this. What you don't seem to address or acknowledge is that: We're just a part of Existence, we are not Existence itself, we're just a part of it. I've repeated this many times you either don't understand it or you ignore it. Do you understand now?

Additionally, you confuse, "all the knowledge of existence is in existence". With the statement, existence knows all the knowledge in existence.


What did I say that lead you to believe this? In any case, I acknowledge there's a difference between the two, I don't know where you got that idea from.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Certainly real » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:47 pm

Serendipper wrote:What are dimensions? You're still trying to define existence in terms of something that already exists.


Dimensions are an aspect of Existence. They've always been an aspect of Existence and will always be an aspect of Existence. Paradoxical otherwise.

What does the universe look like from the outside? There is no outside and there is no "look" outside the universe and there are no dimensions outside and there is no "where" outside.


What does the universe look like from the outside? There is no outside and there is no "look" outside the universe and there are no dimensions outside and there is no "where" outside. Existence inside this universe is being a function of the universe, but outside the universe, there is nothing to exist as a function of and therefore no possible way to exist outside. But that begs the question of how the universe exists because what would it exist as a function of? That's the paradox.


If it's paradoxical, we can't accept it. Something coming from nothing is not a matter of unknown, it's simply impossible. We know this.

But you're just postulating that. You're making an axiom of the impossibility of absurdities from the context of inside the universe in order to draw conclusions about things outside the universe. You may be right and you may be wrong, but you're just guessing.


If I said something like: There are beings in Existence that have a 100 senses, then I'd be guessing. A matter of unknown. But if I say something like: You can't doubt reason using reason, or, you can't have something come from nothing; then I'm not guessing. I'm using reason. Reason is an aspect of Existence and it dictates things clearly and authoritatively. We can't rationally deny it.

Or in the case of Einstein vs Borh: C) We're forced to conclude absurdities exist.


On the contrary, we're always forced to conclude either faulty observation or unknown. We can't conclude absurdities exist because that is a paradoxical sentence. We can never understand something like a married-bachelor existing or a square-circle existing.

Infinite in all directions = nonexistence. The ubiquitous cannot be said to exist because there is nothing to contrast it to.


Non-existence = the negation of Existence (which is absurd/paradoxical) Infinity = not having a beginning or an end. They are not the same thing. One is absurd, whilst the other is necessary. One is absurd, whilst the negation of the other is absurd.

You can only say everything in the universe is ___________ if you made an exception. Then, according to logical analysis, you could have made a meaningful statement. But when you start making statements about everything, there's nothing you can do about it: you can't prove it and you can't disprove it. And so they say "You think you have said something, you haven't really said anything at all."


We can clearly distinguish between things that are in Existence (us), and Existence (infinity/omnipresent) itself. We clearly recognise that we are not Existence, we are just a part of it.

We can't make logical statements about everything, so omniwhatevers are absurdities right off the bat.


We can't have paradoxes. I've demonstrated how rejecting Existence as being Infinite is paradoxical. I've also demonstrated how omnipotence and omniscience are necessarily traits of the infinite/omnipresent. I've shown how their rejection is necessarily paradoxical.

If you see these concepts as paradoxical, then demonstrate how they amount to a paradox.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:54 pm

I disagree. Essentially, after we established that can God know what it's like to not know something via everything being informational and God having all the right tools to understand this information, you didn't successfully refute this argument. If you think you did, show me where, and I'll show you where I countered and then we can compare them directly.


You're argument was that god can deduce what we don't know, which is entirely different than God knowing the subjective states of what it's actually like to not know something.

We addressed the distinction between being a part of God and being God. We addressed the distinction between 1) knowing x and not knowing x at the same time (paradoxical) and how this is not the same as 2) knowing x and what it's like to not know x (not paradoxical)


You're still using the word paradox incorrectly. It is either proof or disproof through contradiction.

You've still to not clearly said, do you acknowledge the distinction between 1 and 2? My understanding is that you still insist that the item of knowledge you're proposing: Namely, knowing x and not knowing x at the same time, is something that is knowable/not absurd.


if it's the same being, it's proof through contradiction that omniscience is an insoluble concept.

I also made a clear distinction between how parts can be a certain way, without affecting the definition of the whole here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194327&start=125#p2710079
You didn't directly address the post. You reiterated what you said and brought in the concept of infinity. Which again, I addressed in my last post to you.


actually, the parts disprove the whole as you're attempting to present it, demonstrably

You even state yourself that none of us can be this, so it's unfalsifiable by your own definition


Again, we are a part of the omnipresent/omniscient/Existence. We are not it, we are a part of it. It would be paradoxical otherwise. Address this point if you're sincere.


Being part of it means that if anything is imperfect or contradictory in the subset, the set is flawed as well. Think about mathematical proofs, like fermata last theorem… the first submission of it has logical errors. After going back to the drawing board for several more years, the theorem was proven. You don't have a proven theorem!

It is a PROOF that god has NEVER known what it's like to not know something

God is Existence, so obviously God is never gonna know non-existence. It's not something to be known. That is absurdity. Again, God knows what it's like to not know something. This does not amount to knowing x and not know x at the same time. See, I addressed your point again, but you keep avoiding this very point. Address it directly if you're genuine about philosophical debate.


again, this is disingenuous on your part. I know what it's like to not know someones middle name. God never has nor will.

To say that a perfect being planned all of this, and we should just accept it, is actually a really scary way to look at life

That's because you focus too much on unknowns. You don't know the future so you don't know how things might get balanced in terms of justice. Also, you don't know what mechanisms kick in to counter some of the evil we see in our world. It'd take omnisience to make that judgement and it'd take omniscience to fully know the potential of all things in relation to each other. Unknowns are things that you can't apply reason to. It's an irrational move. By all means, if you see clear injustice and it's clearly known to you and you want to uphold reason and morality, then do something. Perhaps give to charity and hope that you were part of the mechanism for some kind of justice (in this case wealth distribution), but don't make assumptions about things that are outside your realm of knowledge like this wrong/injustice will never be righted.

NO MEANS NO !!!! There's no other philosophy to be had there. Now you're coming off as a serious creep. That's your argument against omnibenevolence? Ouch man, psychopath cult leader vibes here.


It's matter of reason. Knowns outweigh unknowns. Pure and simple. You don't deny omnipresence just because you don't know if existence can sustain beings with a 100 senses or not. You don't deny the Perfect being doing/planning/designing perfectly because you don't know the future and can't see if things get balanced or if there is some benefit that may not have been derived otherwise. God does as it pleases, but what it does, it does perfectly because it is perfect. I can think of hypotheticals to how the evil you see can ultimately be a necessary thing in relation to bringing out the best of outcomes relative to the potential. However rejection of Existence as that which I've outlined, is blatantly paradoxical. You can't give me any alternative hypotheticals. So again:

We don't reject knowns in favour of unknowns. It'd be misguided to do so. To non-omniscient beings how God does perfectly is at times mysterious/unknown. But God always does perfectly.


"No means no" psychopath.

Here's what's going to blow your mind:

Something that comes from something else came from nothing at all. Even if god does it.


It's paradoxical so it's meaningless.


actually I'm using your own proof that something cannot come from nothing. That means if something comes from something else, it's the first time in existence that it was substantiated, since it hasn't always been, it necessarily comes from nothing at all. I'm using your own logic here.
Your logic leads to an absurdity… and no *sigh* none of this has to do with paradoxes.

If god knows every reason why god does what god does, and all of those reasons are internal, then god knows nothing about why there's an external to act upon, which means there's no otherness in existence.
This causes a state called logical Catatonia where the being in question cannot perceive existence.

Additionally, you confuse, "all the knowledge of existence is in existence". With the statement, existence knows all the knowledge in existence.

You're taking existence outside of itself, which you yourself said is impossible.


There's no external when it comes to Existence. That's absurd. There's nothing that isn't a part of God/Existence. There's nothing other than Existence. We're in full agreement on this. What you don't seem to address or acknowledge is that: We're just a part of Existence, we are not Existence itself, we're just a part of it. I've repeated this many times you either don't understand it or you ignore it. Do you understand now?[quote/]

So if everything comes from God, then there is no otherness for God to perceive. That causes oblivion, logical catatonia.

Additionally, you confuse, "all the knowledge of existence is in existence". With the statement, existence knows all the knowledge in existence.


What did I say that lead you to believe this? In any case, I acknowledge there's a difference between the two, I don't know where you got that idea from.


You've been saying it the whole damn time!!! " Existence is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent"
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

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

Postby Serendipper » Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:56 am

Certainly real wrote:Dimensions are an aspect of Existence.

What are aspects? You're still using things that exist to define existence. You can't do that; it's circular definitions.

If it's paradoxical, we can't accept it.

That's dogma. You've simply axiomized it to be true.

Something coming from nothing is not a matter of unknown, it's simply impossible. We know this.

And yet every quantum event is something from nothing. That's what randomness means (there is no cause).

But you're just postulating that. You're making an axiom of the impossibility of absurdities from the context of inside the universe in order to draw conclusions about things outside the universe. You may be right and you may be wrong, but you're just guessing.


If I said something like: There are beings in Existence that have a 100 senses, then I'd be guessing. A matter of unknown. But if I say something like: You can't doubt reason using reason, or, you can't have something come from nothing; then I'm not guessing. I'm using reason. Reason is an aspect of Existence and it dictates things clearly and authoritatively. We can't rationally deny it.

But is reason a function of this universe or is it objective?

Or in the case of Einstein vs Borh: C) We're forced to conclude absurdities exist.


On the contrary, we're always forced to conclude either faulty observation or unknown.

No, Bell proved there are no unknowns and repeated experimentation proved it was not faulty observation, so the only conclusion left is that absurdities exist.

We can't conclude absurdities exist because that is a paradoxical sentence.

Since we know absurdities exist, now we're forced to conclude reasoning itself is relative to the construct in which it exists.

We can never understand something like a married-bachelor existing or a square-circle existing.

Lack of understanding doesn't preclude existence.

Infinite in all directions = nonexistence. The ubiquitous cannot be said to exist because there is nothing to contrast it to.


Non-existence = the negation of Existence (which is absurd/paradoxical)

If nonexistence is absurd and if absurdities are nonexistent, then nonexistence is nonexistent.

Infinity = not having a beginning or an end.

Things that are boundless are not things. Things have boundaries/borders/fences/walls/divisions between what is the thing and what is not. The infinite is not a thing and not anything that could exist. We can't have boxes with no sides. Infinity is the box with an inside, but no outside.

They are not the same thing. One is absurd, whilst the other is necessary. One is absurd, whilst the negation of the other is absurd.

Which is which?

We can clearly distinguish between things that are in Existence (us), and Existence (infinity/omnipresent) itself. We clearly recognise that we are not Existence, we are just a part of it.

Existence isn't an it. Existence isn't a thing to exist, but is a relationship between things.

We can't make logical statements about everything, so omniwhatevers are absurdities right off the bat.


We can't have paradoxes. I've demonstrated how rejecting Existence as being Infinite is paradoxical.

Existence is not infinite for the same reason "relational" is not infinite. It's like saying the color of 3 is loud.

I've also demonstrated how omnipotence and omniscience are necessarily traits of the infinite/omnipresent.

I've demonstrated that it's not logically possible to demonstrate omnis to be true. The key word is logic, so you'd have to assert some new form of logic to make conclusions about all-things. Or else just refuse to see logic and cling to faith.

I've shown how their rejection is necessarily paradoxical.

I'm sorry, refresh my memory. You said existence must exist everywhere in the universe, which is true, but you haven't said anything about existence outside the universe. I keep prodding you to :teasing-poke: Existence outside the universe is the million dollar question.

If you see these concepts as paradoxical, then demonstrate how they amount to a paradox.


Omnipotence is impossible because one cannot have all advantages because every advantage has a disadvantage. For instance being big and strong requires lots of fuel, so one could easily be starved into submission. Being big also precludes being small and nimble. Likewise, being small precludes being strong. Being impermeable has the disadvantage of not being able to feel and being perceptive leaves one open to permeability. Being all-powerful is impossible.

Omniscience is impossible because one cannot know what it's like to know what he doesn't know. So either he will be ignorant of that, or he will be ignorant of something else.

Omnipresence is impossible because there would be nothing that is not embodied in order to provide context for existence, so the ubiquitous is a state of nonexistence.

Furthermore, all statements about "all" are not logical, including this one. Therein lies the paradox.

Here are some more:

All statements must be empirically verifiable, except this one.
All moral claims are immoral, except this one.
All objective claims are irrational, except this one.
It is truth that there is no truth.
Change is the only thing that stays the same.
We have a rule of no rules and religion of no religion.
We should not tell folks what they should do.

Ultimately, we cannot be the object of our own knowledge.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby Guide » Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:13 am

Boring.
Guide
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users