Proof of an omnipotent being

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

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:37 pm

Certainly real wrote:
When proposing that something came from nothing the idea is that at one point in time there were no things at all = "nothingness" (not even air). There is nothing absurd about that concept. It isn't/wasn't a reality but it doesn't lack meaning.

You say at one point in time, there were no things at all. Is this not an absurdity? Was there no time at this point in time?

I think you are confusing concepts with actuality. There is an idea called "square-circle". We all know what that idea means. We also all know that such a thing cannot exist and is an incoherent concept. But still we know what the word meant = "a square that is also a circle".

We know that it doesn't exist but we understand the concept. It is not meaningless.

I agree that there was "no time when there was nothing at all". I agree that nothingness has never been the state of the universe. But I understand what it means to say "at time 0 there were no things". Time 0 is not a possibility. No things is not a possibility. I don't know that you know why that is true but I agree that it is true.

The point is that we both actually understand the concept and what those words mean - they are NOT meaningless just because we believe they are not real.

Certainly real wrote:
Ok but I distinguish "universe" from ideas or concepts. The physical universe is a universal set of all that physically exists.

What about all that exists in a not as real as us and our universe sort of way. Would you not describe them as existing things?

"not as real as our universe"? What does that mean? Aren't things either real or not? If they are not real then they don't exist, else they do exist. I did explain that concepts or ideas are not physically real but they still exist - even absurd/irrational concepts. In total = Existence.

Certainly real wrote:There is one more thing I wanted to understand regarding your beliefs on Existence before we go back to our earlier disagreement:

Clearly, you call that which has no end, infinite. Do you believe in something that has no beginning? Do you believe there can be more than one such thing? What do you call that which has no beginning?

I think if something exists that had no beginning then it also cannot have an end. Something with no beginning has existed for an infinity of time so certainly there couldn't be anything to stop it now.

I believe that the universe has always existed and will always exist. I understand a logic that demands that to be true. What else has always existed? That needs specificity. I can say that energy has always existed - mass has always existed - galaxies have always existed. In fact I haven't found flaw in James' calculation that everything that exists now has always existed - just somewhere else.

Certainly real wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:"Absolute" nothingness cannot exist, otherwise its existence makes it something.

Not true - simpleminded semantic fallacy.

"Absolutely nothing" is not a thing. It is No-Thing.


How can you have a state of no things? How can you have an existing state of nothingness? You cannot.

You cannot "have" it. But you can "understand it". You cannot have a square-circle but you certainly understand it else you wouldn't be able to know that you can't have it. Not being able to have something doesn't mean that the word for it is meaningless.

This - afdjkalfdlj - is meaningless so I can't tell if it exists.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:54 pm

“This - afdjkalfdlj - is meaningless so I can't tell if it exists.”

It definitely exists. But it also has meaning. It’s meaning is to signify absurdity.

You know obsrvr...

I know you’re here for James ... I get that.

Thing is... I know a lot more now than James ever did.

Unfortunately, my absolute cosmic consciousness came after James left ILP.

I’d give to talk to James right now. I’m an extremely bored person, James was interesting. But we move on. James spirit still lives within you. Know this. To that regard... I still get to talk with him. When you get super-bored by life here, it’s people, interesting people that keep it going. We have lots of interesting people on ILP ... don’t take it for granted.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11458
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Silhouette » Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:25 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:"Absolute" nothingness cannot exist, otherwise its existence makes it something.

Not true - simpleminded semantic fallacy.

"Absolutely nothing" is not a thing. It is No-Thing.

Cool. Insults. And not true either.

"Negation" and "thing" are both something. You really think negating "thing" cancels the something out of both? Since you probably do, ask yourself what is a word for? A word only functions to the extent that it refers to something. If "nothing" refers to something, then it's not nothing because it's referring to something, and if it refers to "no-thing" then it ceases to function as a word. The same goes for all human conception, which is largely verbal but not necessarily - if there isn't a thing that is being conceived then there is no human conception. If there is human conception going on at all with "no-thing" then it is of something and not absolute nothingness.

Ask yourself, are you a human? Are you communicating to other humans? If you're not using words, you are at least humanly conceiving. Try getting away from these facts to get to "no thing"... as soon as you try, you fail, and as soon as you stop trying you also fail. "Simpleminded" pff! You're not even thinking this through! Even if "objectively" there could be absolute "nothing", that doesn't have anything to do with us. Humans are a process - you can't simply "remove" that from philosophy.

Certainly real wrote:I can agree that they cease to exist in the same way that I cease to exist when I turn to ashes. But I cannot agree that they cease to exist without turning into something else, like I turn to something else. I cannot see how x can become nothing. Is it not contradictory to say x can become nothing, just like it is contradictory to say x can become a married bachelor?

Is this somethingness what they have turned into? When you say they cease to exist, have they become truly nothing? Or have they become something else? Or is there some thing in between no thing and some thing?

Like I keep saying, I refer you to the theoretical physicists who know this far better than I do.
Whatever "nothing is" when it's not "absolute nothingness" doesn't matter to this debate. What matters to this whole "nothingness/infinity" tangent is that finite somethingness is what finite human conception is necessarily limited to, so "nothing" and "infinity" are direct contradictions that cannot be taken literally since they can only ever be their direct opposites to us - and therefore invalid as precise terms.
All that matters to this debate is the fact that divinity has to be beyond human conception (or else it's just another mundanity like anything else in the purely natural universe), and therefore cannot exist to us. All this other stuff about perfection, infinity, nothingness, omnipotence, omniscience etc. doesn't change that.

Certainly real wrote:I see the logical contradiction in what you call 'absolute nothing' which I call 'nothing'. I do not see the logical contradiction in infinity. Can you show this to me?

Infinity contradicts the finitude of human conception.
To claim it's beyond human conception is a claim within human conception that can only be conceived humanly. To us, it's the same as saying finitude exists. You can tell yourself you're conceiving of infinity, but you aren't by definition of the finitude of human conception. You can tell yourself you understand the finites involved in a specific way to "get to infinity" (contradiction) and you can understand those finites as well as you like and it'll still not "get to infinity within your finite human conception. Finite human conception could grow and grow to see even more finitude, but it'll never "get to infinity". Any representation of infinity you want to use will be finite, and conceiving of the finite notation will not mean you understand the infinity that it is "supposed" to tend towards "through that notation". You understand the tendency of finites only. Not the infinity. What does "it exists beyond human conception" mean within human conception? It means limited finitude only, it doesn't make infinity exist to us.

What specifically don't you like about the above?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Jan 05, 2021 12:39 am

Silhouette wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:"Absolute" nothingness cannot exist, otherwise its existence makes it something.

Not true - simpleminded semantic fallacy.

"Absolutely nothing" is not a thing. It is No-Thing.

Cool. Insults. And not true either.

"Those who live in glass houses ---" O:)

Silhouette wrote:"Negation" and "thing" are both something. You really think negating "thing" cancels the something out of both? Since you probably do, ask yourself what is a word for? A word only functions to the extent that it refers to something.

If we remove the things - "negation" and "something" we end up with neither. Removing "thing" from "negation" means what? Removing "thing" from "something" gets us "some" - ?. So we end up with something (I don't know what) about some.
"Ask yourself what is a word for?"

Silhouette wrote:If "nothing" refers to something, then it's not nothing because it's referring to something, and if it refers to "no-thing" then it ceases to function as a word.

Who ever said it refers to "something"? And obviously "no-thing" relays meaning. Denying that is nonsense. "No-thing" is obviously different than "dfg%$gnr". "No-thing" has meaning (that there is not a thing present). "dfg%$gnr" does not - we couldn't even guess at what it means.

Silhouette wrote: If there is human conception going on at all with "no-thing" then it is of something and not absolute nothingness.

You appear to be confusing the concept of the word with the reality that the concept is referring to. We can use the word - "square-circle" and convey a concept (known to be impossible). We use it often (including you). But you are arguing that because there is no such thing as a square-circle in reality the word "square-circle" conveys no meaning. The same with "absolute-nothing".

Zero is the same as "nothing. Are you going to remove those meaningless "0"s from your bank account?

If words that refer to nonexistent things are meaningless, why are you using them all the time? Obviously you understand their meaning because you keep saying that they refer to nonexistent items.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Silhouette » Tue Jan 05, 2021 1:53 am

obsrvr524 wrote:"No-thing" has meaning (that there is not a thing present).

Thanks for doing my work for me.

"Not a thing present" lol. "Nothing has meaning"? Kinda like it has some degree of existence in order to convey meaning huh? Where's all this meaning coming from, eh?
I guess in practice it's something after all...

If you can show reasoning why a word/concept fails to function as intended then you can still meaningfully use that word to reference that reasoning rather than what it was intended for. The word itself still exists as a means to show that it can't refer to what it was intended to refer to, but that doesn't make something that's meaninglessness "meaningful" or a logical contradiction "existent". The meaning of the word remains but becomes clarified as actually something else - in the cases of nothing and infinity and God, they become revealed as their opposite. It's really not me confusing the signifer with the signified here...

I dunno dude, this is really basic stuff. I don't have the energy to do this all over again, do we have to?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Jan 05, 2021 2:14 am

Silhouette wrote: I don't have the energy to do this all over again, do we have to?

No. I am often tempted to get a dog to see color - but I won't argue with him about it.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jan 05, 2021 2:27 am

It’s more complicated.

‘Nothing’ is what allows us to decide what a contradiction actually is.

Every proof though contradiction uses the concept of nothing

The larger question is this: how do we conceive of a concept that’s impossible to exist?

I’m not talking about unicorns and dragons here... I’m literally talking about absolute nothingness.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11458
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Jan 05, 2021 3:08 am

Ecmandu wrote:how do we conceive of a concept that’s impossible to exist?

I’m not talking about unicorns and dragons here... I’m literally talking about absolute nothingness.

I don't have any trouble conceiving of it. Maybe it is just an issue of intelligence.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Silhouette » Tue Jan 05, 2021 11:03 am

obsrvr524 wrote:I don't have any trouble conceiving of it. Maybe it is just an issue of intelligence.

I think you're probably right :lol:
I've only been a member of Mensa for 7 and a half years so obviously it'll be way above my head :-"
Just FYI, I don't have any trouble conceiving of how you're conceiving of it, I just see its flaws - but hey, I'm the "colourblind dog" here, right? Fucking unbelievable...

Ecmandu wrote:The larger question is this: how do we conceive of a concept that’s impossible to exist?

I’m not talking about unicorns and dragons here... I’m literally talking about absolute nothingness.

You don't see a fundamental issue in "literally talking about absolute nothingness"?

When you pay attention to what's actually happening when you attempt to "conceive of a concept that's impossible to exist", you'll notice that all the relevant associations come to mind like pieces of a jigsaw, and whilst all these related concepts might be valid in themselves, when you attempt to put them together to accurately portray the intended concept - the pieces don't fit!
So any word or words you might use to describe this impossible concept have meaning only insofar as they lead nowhere, the process doesn't and cannot complete. It's like a hanging pointer in computer programming that didn't get assigned and just returns gibberish, or something trying to reach out and grab something else that isn't there - the intention and instructions about where to fish are there, but nobody's home. That's how far "meaning" goes when it comes to impossible concepts, and the only thing that can be concluded is certainly not that it gives something like "absolute nothingness itself" any meaning. In these cases it's only the words that try and fail that have meaning, and it's a poor thinker who thinks that this suffices to allow us to meaningfully talk about what's by definition beyond our reach with any precision - that which was intended to be referred to. The layman thinks the general direction and gist is enough - see obsrvr as an example.
What they end up doing instead is reaching out and grabbing the nearest things just to grab on to something and telling themselves meaninglessness now means something, it's so lazy. So in trying to conceive of and talk about things like absolute nothingness, they now think they have no trouble conceiving of it, without realising that they've just ended up conceiving of somethingness and have merely fooled themselves into thinking they now conceive of its opposite! The same with infinity - they flail around and mentally grab any finite associations to get the general direction they need to be going in, and think all these finites suffice as "meaningful infinity".

And then the gall to try and suggest that I'm the one who's lacking and not seeing what's going on... I defy anyone to read the above and insinuate that I don't see EXACTLY what's going on.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Jan 05, 2021 11:39 am

Silhouette wrote: I don't have any trouble conceiving of how you're conceiving of it, I just see its flaws

You got my curiosity up. Just how do you think that I conceive of "absolute nothingness" - And the inherent flaws therein?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Certainly real » Tue Jan 05, 2021 12:06 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Your two favorite words are semantic and paradox.

You almost always use them incorrectly

But let’s assume that the definitions are valuable as concepts...

How are we able to have words ‘absolute nothing’ if it’s so impossible for it to exist that nobody can even conceive it? See... we do have contradictions like married bachelor... we have poles with words. When these poles are opposite, we detect contradiction...

However! Absolute nothing is not an ordinary pole!!!

It’s the only possible pole that can’t be named or conceived of to even give it a word...

But here we are, exchanging it casually ...

What do you make of that?

You like to throw around the word perfection...


Are you telling me you've conceived of nothing?
Are you telling me that you think nothing is hypothetically possible?
Nothing in the sense of no thing other than x, is meaningful. Nothing in the sense of no thing, is meaningless.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Certainly real » Tue Jan 05, 2021 12:28 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:I think you are confusing concepts with actuality. There is an idea called "square-circle". We all know what that idea means. We also all know that such a thing cannot exist and is an incoherent concept. But still we know what the word meant = "a square that is also a circle".

We know that it doesn't exist but we understand the concept. It is not meaningless.

I agree that there was "no time when there was nothing at all". I agree that nothingness has never been the state of the universe. But I understand what it means to say "at time 0 there were no things". Time 0 is not a possibility. No things is not a possibility. I don't know that you know why that is true but I agree that it is true.

The point is that we both actually understand the concept and what those words mean - they are NOT meaningless just because we believe they are not real.

1) What is the difference between ‘married’ and ‘bachelor’? They both have different letter formations and different meanings.

2) What is the difference between ‘asdnjkasdnkj’ and ‘gngnrnjgsjnk’? They both have different letter formations. They are both meaningless.

3) What is the difference between ‘married man’ and ‘single woman’? They both have different word formations. They both have different meanings.

4) What is the difference between ‘married bachelor’ and ’round square’? They both have different word formations. They are both absurd. Do we say they both have different meanings?

Is there any difference between that which is entirely meaningless (such as ajkalg fnjadnjkf), and that which is absurd? That which is absurd is made up of meaningful words whereas that which is entirely meaningless is not made up of meaningful words. If we say there is an intelligible difference between a round squrare and a married bachelor, then this difference is in the words used to reach absurdity. Not in the absurdness and therefore meaninglessness that is generated. Despite this difference between gibberish and absurdity, both are meaningless. Compare again 3 and 4 to verify this. This difference may make it harder to see the meaninglessness of absurdity than it is to see the meaninglessness of pure gibberish. More importantly, it may also make the meaninglessness of one feel different to the meaninglessness of the other despite the meaninglessness of both being the same. Nothing/non-existence suggests that both existence and non-existence can exist. Married-bachelor suggests that x can be both married and a bachelor at the same time. Both are absurd, therefore both are as meaningless as sgjsdgjkl.

"not as real as our universe"? What does that mean? Aren't things either real or not? If they are not real then they don't exist, else they do exist. I did explain that concepts or ideas are not physically real but they still exist - even absurd/irrational concepts. In total = Existence.

I think if x is meaningful, then by definition, x exists. How truly real x is, is another matter. Unicorns exist, by definition. How real they are, is another matter. Existence exists, by definition, it is by definition at least as real as we are. As is the Omnipresent, Omnipotent, the Infinite, the Perfect (God).
I think if something exists that had no beginning then it also cannot have an end. Something with no beginning has existed for an infinity of time so certainly there couldn't be anything to stop it now.

Yes, agreed. I call this God. God Created all things in the beginning. As in all things except God, have a beginning. You call this universe. Do you think it Omnipotent and Perfect?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Certainly real » Tue Jan 05, 2021 12:38 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:how do we conceive of a concept that’s impossible to exist?

I’m not talking about unicorns and dragons here... I’m literally talking about absolute nothingness.

I don't have any trouble conceiving of it. Maybe it is just an issue of intelligence.


There's no way you can conceive of non-existence. You can conceive of the non-existence of x, provided that x is not existence. For example, I can conceive that there is nothing but x in this room. I cannot conceive there is non-existence in this room. Can you conceive a room with non-existence or nothing inside it?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Silhouette » Tue Jan 05, 2021 12:42 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Silhouette wrote: I don't have any trouble conceiving of how you're conceiving of it, I just see its flaws

You got my curiosity up. Just how do you think that I conceive of "absolute nothingness" - And the inherent flaws therein?

I explained it in my above response to Ecmandu - quoted again below.

You're off the hook for showing openness to criticism and ceasing the insults - consider any from me retracted, don't let me down.

Silhouette wrote:You don't see a fundamental issue in "literally talking about absolute nothingness"?

When you pay attention to what's actually happening when you attempt to "conceive of a concept that's impossible to exist", you'll notice that all the relevant associations come to mind like pieces of a jigsaw, and whilst all these related concepts might be valid in themselves, when you attempt to put them together to accurately portray the intended concept - the pieces don't fit!
So any word or words you might use to describe this impossible concept have meaning only insofar as they lead nowhere, the process doesn't and cannot complete. It's like a hanging pointer in computer programming that didn't get assigned and just returns gibberish, or something trying to reach out and grab something else that isn't there - the intention and instructions about where to fish are there, but nobody's home. That's how far "meaning" goes when it comes to impossible concepts, and the only thing that can be concluded is certainly not that it gives something like "absolute nothingness itself" any meaning. In these cases it's only the words that try and fail that have meaning, and it's a poor thinker who thinks that this suffices to allow us to meaningfully talk about what's by definition beyond our reach with any precision - that which was intended to be referred to. The layman thinks the general direction and gist is enough - see obsrvr as an example.
What they end up doing instead is reaching out and grabbing the nearest things just to grab on to something and telling themselves meaninglessness now means something, it's so lazy. So in trying to conceive of and talk about things like absolute nothingness, they now think they have no trouble conceiving of it, without realising that they've just ended up conceiving of somethingness and have merely fooled themselves into thinking they now conceive of its opposite! The same with infinity - they mentally flail around and grab any finite associations to get the general direction they need to be going in, and think all these finites suffice as "meaningful infinity".

And then the gall to try and suggest that I'm the one who's lacking and not seeing what's going on... I defy anyone to read the above and insinuate that I don't see EXACTLY what's going on.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Certainly real » Tue Jan 05, 2021 12:51 pm

Silhouette wrote:Like I keep saying, I refer you to the theoretical physicists who know this far better than I do.

Come on dude don't make that move. If obsrvr referred you to a theoretical physicist who claimed he can make sense of or conceive of nothing, would you accept it? Physics must be in line with the dictates of pure reason. Physics cannot claim that you can have something come from nothing, because nothingness is an absurdity/impossibility. We must not embrace absurdities in the name of unknowns. Unknowns should be treated as unknowns, and absurdities should be treated as absurdities. And that which is meaningful, should be treated as such. Just as a triangle should be treated like a triangle.
Whatever "nothing is" when it's not "absolute nothingness" doesn't matter to this debate.

It does matter because it is precisely this point that proves the existence of something infinite. This third way that you speak of, there can be no such thing. Either some x has always existed, or something came from absolutely nothing. The latter is clearly absurd, the former is not. What possible alternative is there? And again, why is it absurd for something to have always existed? Where is the paradox in this?
What matters to this whole "nothingness/infinity" tangent is that finite somethingness is what finite human conception is necessarily limited to, so "nothing" and "infinity" are direct contradictions that cannot be taken literally since they can only ever be their direct opposites to us - and therefore invalid as precise terms.
All that matters to this debate is the fact that divinity has to be beyond human conception (or else it's just another mundanity like anything else in the purely natural universe), and therefore cannot exist to us. All this other stuff about perfection, infinity, nothingness, omnipotence, omniscience etc. doesn't change that.

See above.
Infinity contradicts the finitude of human conception.

So if I say to you x has always existed, you reject this as being meaningful to you on the basis of the finitude of human conception? You then suggest that human conception is such that it can understand a third way? A way where some x has not always existed, and something did not come from absolutely nothing? And you would describe this third way as meaningful and non-paradoxical?

To claim it's beyond human conception is a claim within human conception that can only be conceived humanly. To us, it's the same as saying finitude exists. You can tell yourself you're conceiving of infinity, but you aren't by definition of the finitude of human conception. You can tell yourself you understand the finites involved in a specific way to "get to infinity" (contradiction) and you can understand those finites as well as you like and it'll still not "get to infinity within your finite human conception. Finite human conception could grow and grow to see even more finitude, but it'll never "get to infinity". Any representation of infinity you want to use will be finite, and conceiving of the finite notation will not mean you understand the infinity that it is "supposed" to tend towards "through that notation". You understand the tendency of finites only. Not the infinity. What does "it exists beyond human conception" mean within human conception? It means limited finitude only, it doesn't make infinity exist to us.

What specifically don't you like about the above?

It leaves us with a paradoxical/contradictory belief system with regards to the nature of Existence.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:11 pm

Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Your two favorite words are semantic and paradox.

You almost always use them incorrectly

But let’s assume that the definitions are valuable as concepts...

How are we able to have words ‘absolute nothing’ if it’s so impossible for it to exist that nobody can even conceive it? See... we do have contradictions like married bachelor... we have poles with words. When these poles are opposite, we detect contradiction...

However! Absolute nothing is not an ordinary pole!!!

It’s the only possible pole that can’t be named or conceived of to even give it a word...

But here we are, exchanging it casually ...

What do you make of that?

You like to throw around the word perfection...


Are you telling me you've conceived of nothing?
Are you telling me that you think nothing is hypothetically possible?
Nothing in the sense of no thing other than x, is meaningful. Nothing in the sense of no thing, is meaningless.


My point. And my very particular point is that you’re talking about things you don’t understand. And I’m using proof through contradiction to highlight this.

You talk about Omni this and Omni that... even perfection... without realizing that absolute nothing is the same argument.

You have a flaw in your posts.

I actually do experience absolute nothing ... you do too.. every night you go to sleep in your bed. Some of that time is absolute nothing. And then we come back from it.

I can teach you all these things. I can teach you all about existence man.

My job is to test our current plan that was submitted to keep us entertained forever.

I’m going to wake you up.

We were never born and we will never die. This current plan was an idea to keep us from getting bored with forever... all of us a spirits looked at the plan and said “why the fuck not?” That’s all this is. “Why the fuck not?”

I’m literally the being you ALL chose to test the plan.

Most of it I spend in hell. It’s not a glamorous or glorious job.

I was literally the being chosen by all of you to do this job ... thing is... if you want to have a discussion about existence ... I’m the person you ask.

God and enlightenment are toys... it’s part of the current plan. I step outside of all of it: my job is literally to test the plan. I have the power of god and I have the power of enlightenment ... you all gave that to me.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11458
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:39 pm

Certainly real wrote:--

I feel like this post got skipped over -
obsrvr524 wrote:Let's call the proposed set of all sets A{}.

Within that set there must be other sets that are NOT A{} - such as b{} (the set of all books) and c{} (the set of all cats).

And if A{} has A{} within it then we have A{} = A{A{}, b{}, c{}...}, right?

The quantity of A{} is infinite and the quantity of b{} and c{} might also be infinite (although not necessary) but certainly not 0.

So how can a set that is infinite (A{}) have the exact same quantity as a set that is infinite plus two more sets? We just agreed those are two different infinite sizes.

How can a set be larger than itself? That denies the logic of "A = A".


Now we are into this -
Certainly real wrote:There's no way you can conceive of non-existence. You can conceive of the non-existence of x, provided that x is not existence. For example, I can conceive that there is nothing but x in this room. I cannot conceive there is non-existence in this room. Can you conceive a room with non-existence or nothing inside it?
Silhouette wrote:You don't see a fundamental issue in "literally talking about absolute nothingness"?

When you pay attention to what's actually happening when you attempt to "conceive of a concept that's impossible to exist", you'll notice that all the relevant associations come to mind like pieces of a jigsaw, and whilst all these related concepts might be valid in themselves, when you attempt to put them together to accurately portray the intended concept - the pieces don't fit!
So any word or words you might use to describe this impossible concept have meaning only insofar as they lead nowhere, the process doesn't and cannot complete. It's like a hanging pointer in computer programming that didn't get assigned and just returns gibberish, or something trying to reach out and grab something else that isn't there - the intention and instructions about where to fish are there, but nobody's home. That's how far "meaning" goes when it comes to impossible concepts, and the only thing that can be concluded is certainly not that it gives something like "absolute nothingness itself" any meaning. In these cases it's only the words that try and fail that have meaning, and it's a poor thinker who thinks that this suffices to allow us to meaningfully talk about what's by definition beyond our reach with any precision - that which was intended to be referred to. The layman thinks the general direction and gist is enough - see obsrvr as an example.
What they end up doing instead is reaching out and grabbing the nearest things just to grab on to something and telling themselves meaninglessness now means something, it's so lazy. So in trying to conceive of and talk about things like absolute nothingness, they now think they have no trouble conceiving of it, without realising that they've just ended up conceiving of somethingness and have merely fooled themselves into thinking they now conceive of its opposite! The same with infinity - they mentally flail around and grab any finite associations to get the general direction they need to be going in, and think all these finites suffice as "meaningful infinity".

And then the gall to try and suggest that I'm the one who's lacking and not seeing what's going on... I defy anyone to read the above and insinuate that I don't see EXACTLY what's going on.

It seems now we have to argue about the meaning of "meaning" and the concept of "conceiving". I feel like I need to put on a mask and gloves to talk to you blokes - getting philosophy cooties all over my face and hands. :-?

Sil, I don't think you described (or even discussed) how I conceive of absolute nothingness.

To put it simply -
Conceiving Absolute Nothingness -
    I envision what would be a universe except that there are no stars, no Earth, no things, no light, no space, and no time - the complete lack of anything at all. It is the absolute lack of existence.

I know you are going to say there is something wrong with that and I am going to have to explain further. That is why I asked for your version of what you thought I was conceiving - envisioning as absolute nothingness.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Silhouette » Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:31 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:Sil, I don't think you described (or even discussed) how I conceive of absolute nothingness.

To put it simply -
Conceiving Absolute Nothingness -
    I envision what would be a universe except that there are no stars, no Earth, no things, no light, no space, and no time - the complete lack of anything at all. It is the absolute lack of existence.

I know you are going to say there is something wrong with that and I am going to have to explain further. That is why I asked for your version of what you thought I was conceiving - envisioning as absolute nothingness.

C'mon man, that's just the superficials. Surely your thinking goes a little deeper than that and really delves into exactly what's going on in your brain to try and enable you to conceive of the final result of your list?
My post was to get into the systematic details of the cognition process itself - are you telling me none of the intricate picking-apart that I described goes on in your head at all when you surgically and mercilessly self-examine your conception of absolute nothingness? I thought every philosopher breaks down every single inch of thought that they have in such a way as I laid out - or maybe even better?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Silhouette » Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:58 pm

Certainly real wrote:Come on dude don't make that move. If obsrvr referred you to a theoretical physicist who claimed he can make sense of or conceive of nothing, would you accept it? Physics must be in line with the dictates of pure reason. Physics cannot claim that you can have something come from nothing, because nothingness is an absurdity/impossibility. We must not embrace absurdities in the name of unknowns. Unknowns should be treated as unknowns, and absurdities should be treated as absurdities. And that which is meaningful, should be treated as such. Just as a triangle should be treated like a triangle.

It's not "a move", I'm trying to help you out more than I would be if I tried to explain it myself. There are people who have dedicated their professional lives to physics, and although I'm significantly more knowledgable on the subject than the layman, I'm still just a philosopher.
I'm in total agreement about pure reason - and that's exactly in line with where I'm directing you. Nothing and infinity contradict the finite somethingness of human conception, so pure reason dictates a third way that comes about from revaluating the premises and definitions that are leading you only to either one contradiction or another contradiction. Nothing and infinity are the "absurdities that we should treat as absurdities" - as you say. I'm agreeing with you here, and telling you that the best way to take the next step is to check out the theoretical physics that shines light on why this subject is only leading you to contradictions.
By pure reason, you yourself should be moving on from concluding "not nothing therefore infinite something". The only non-contradictory options available take the form of finite somethingness, so that's where you need to go. There's no two ways about it - your "infinity" conclusion is simply wrong, so you have to look deeper - "treat that triangle like a triangle".

Certainly real wrote:It does matter because it is precisely this point that proves the existence of something infinite. This third way that you speak of, there can be no such thing. Either some x has always existed, or something came from absolutely nothing. The latter is clearly absurd, the former is not. What possible alternative is there? And again, why is it absurd for something to have always existed? Where is the paradox in this?

You have to appreciate that you are a human finitely conceiving of "something having always existed". The paradox here is clear.
You're clearly saying that infinity can be conceived by finitude - how can you not see the inherent problem with this?
Your line of reasoning is "not nothing -> I think my finitude can conceive of infinity -> something is absolutely mutually exclusive from nothing -> therefore I must regress to finitude conceiving of infinity as the NOT absurd conclusion".
I'm saying move past both clear contradictions of nothing and infinity, and have a better grapple with your rigid assumption that something must be absolutely mutually exclusive from nothing. I'm telling you it's already been done by people who revaluate assumptions based on empirical evidence - which points to finite somethingness, exactly as one would expect from human conception that is limited to finite somethingness only. So I'm doing you a favour by nudging you in the direction of science to help you adjust your preconceptions, to help you get past accepting a clear contradiction due to faulty preconceptions.

Certainly real wrote:So if I say to you x has always existed, you reject this as being meaningful to you on the basis of the finitude of human conception? You then suggest that human conception is such that it can understand a third way? A way where some x has not always existed, and something did not come from absolutely nothing? And you would describe this third way as meaningful and non-paradoxical?

Yes.

Certainly real wrote:It leaves us with a paradoxical/contradictory belief system with regards to the nature of Existence.

I don't mean describe the same thing you were already thinking before you even read my answer, I mean comb through each part of it and highlight exactly which bit or bits are giving you trouble.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Jan 05, 2021 8:05 pm

Silhouette wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:Sil, I don't think you described (or even discussed) how I conceive of absolute nothingness.

To put it simply -
Conceiving Absolute Nothingness -
    I envision what would be a universe except that there are no stars, no Earth, no things, no light, no space, and no time - the complete lack of anything at all. It is the absolute lack of existence.

I know you are going to say there is something wrong with that and I am going to have to explain further. That is why I asked for your version of what you thought I was conceiving - envisioning as absolute nothingness.

C'mon man, that's just the superficials. Surely your thinking goes a little deeper than that and really delves into exactly what's going on in your brain to try and enable you to conceive of the final result of your list?
My post was to get into the systematic details of the cognition process itself - are you telling me none of the intricate picking-apart that I described goes on in your head at all when you surgically and mercilessly self-examine your conception of absolute nothingness? I thought every philosopher breaks down every single inch of thought that they have in such a way as I laid out - or maybe even better?

Glass houses ---


So you are saying that I am not actually conceiving of it because of how you think my brain works? :-?

Isn't that like saying that my calculator didn't get the right answer because I know it is designed wrong?

Since when does the mechanism involved determine the truth of the outcome? - "He is a bad person so obviously what he said is wrong".

I described what I envision. Was that a proper conception? How my brain worked to get there is irrelevant.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Certainly real » Tue Jan 05, 2021 8:23 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Your two favorite words are semantic and paradox.

You almost always use them incorrectly

But let’s assume that the definitions are valuable as concepts...

How are we able to have words ‘absolute nothing’ if it’s so impossible for it to exist that nobody can even conceive it? See... we do have contradictions like married bachelor... we have poles with words. When these poles are opposite, we detect contradiction...

However! Absolute nothing is not an ordinary pole!!!

It’s the only possible pole that can’t be named or conceived of to even give it a word...

But here we are, exchanging it casually ...

What do you make of that?

You like to throw around the word perfection...


Are you telling me you've conceived of nothing?
Are you telling me that you think nothing is hypothetically possible?
Nothing in the sense of no thing other than x, is meaningful. Nothing in the sense of no thing, is meaningless.


My point. And my very particular point is that you’re talking about things you don’t understand. And I’m using proof through contradiction to highlight this.

You talk about Omni this and Omni that... even perfection... without realizing that absolute nothing is the same argument.

You have a flaw in your posts.

I actually do experience absolute nothing ... you do too.. every night you go to sleep in your bed. Some of that time is absolute nothing. And then we come back from it.

I can teach you all these things. I can teach you all about existence man.

My job is to test our current plan that was submitted to keep us entertained forever.

I’m going to wake you up.

We were never born and we will never die. This current plan was an idea to keep us from getting bored with forever... all of us a spirits looked at the plan and said “why the fuck not?” That’s all this is. “Why the fuck not?”

I’m literally the being you ALL chose to test the plan.

Most of it I spend in hell. It’s not a glamorous or glorious job.

I was literally the being chosen by all of you to do this job ... thing is... if you want to have a discussion about existence ... I’m the person you ask.

God and enlightenment are toys... it’s part of the current plan. I step outside of all of it: my job is literally to test the plan. I have the power of god and I have the power of enlightenment ... you all gave that to me.


If you think that Perfection or the Omni concepts I've highlighted are irrational/absurd/paradoxical/meaningless like non-existence or nothingness is, then I can't help you.
You go to sleep. You don't go into nothingness. You were born. You did not come from nothingness. You cannot conceive of nothingness. You stop having memories or experiences. You did not go into nothingness. You did not come from nothingness.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Certainly real » Tue Jan 05, 2021 8:42 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:I feel like this post got skipped over -

Ok, I'll address it now:
Let's call the proposed set of all sets A{}.

Within that set there must be other sets that are NOT A{} - such as b{} (the set of all books) and c{} (the set of all cats).

And if A{} has A{} within it then we have A{} = A{A{}, b{}, c{}...}, right?

The quantity of A{} is infinite and the quantity of b{} and c{} might also be infinite (although not necessary) but certainly not 0.

So how can a set that is infinite (A{}) have the exact same quantity as a set that is infinite plus two more sets? We just agreed those are two different infinite sizes.

How can a set be larger than itself? That denies the logic of "A = A".

Consider the folder A in A. You open the A in A, and it has all other folders in it plus A. You go up an A, and it has all folders in it plus A. This is the case whichever direction you go. Where is there a problem with this? How does this lead to a set that is infinite that contains a set that is infinite of the same size, plus two more sets?

With that being said, I feel like you didn't really address the following:

There is no one thing that contains all things. Which means there is no existing thing that contains all existing things. This logically implies that there is at least one existing thing that does not exist. This is literally a case of a square being a circle. A case of an existing thing not being an existing thing. One thing cannot be two different things at the same time. Nor can something be nothing. Is it not the case that you have embraced these paradoxes by rejecting the set of all sets? How do you remedy these paradoxes without seeking refuge in the fact that the set of all sets is such that it contains/encompasses itself?

Again, A being in A may seem counterintuitive to the overly empirical, but how can anyone believe that there is at least one existing thing that does not exist? One cannot. Which is less blatantly paradoxical? That A contains A? Or that one thing can be two different things at the same time + something can be nothing?

It seems now we have to argue about the meaning of "meaning" and the concept of "conceiving". I feel like I need to put on a mask and gloves to talk to you blokes - getting philosophy cooties all over my face and hands. :-?

Sil, I don't think you described (or even discussed) how I conceive of absolute nothingness.

To put it simply -
Conceiving Absolute Nothingness -
I envision what would be a universe except that there are no stars, no Earth, no things, no light, no space, and no time - the complete lack of anything at all. It is the absolute lack of existence.

I know you are going to say there is something wrong with that and I am going to have to explain further. That is why I asked for your version of what you thought I was conceiving - envisioning as absolute nothingness.

What you envision still includes a universe. A universe is not nothing. So you did not conceive of absolute nothingness. You did not conceive of nothing. By definition you cannot. Just like you cannot conceive of a married bachelor.
Last edited by Certainly real on Tue Jan 05, 2021 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Certainly real » Tue Jan 05, 2021 8:56 pm

certainly real wrote:So if I say to you x has always existed, you reject this as being meaningful to you on the basis of the finitude of human conception? You then suggest that human conception is such that it can understand a third way? A way where some x has not always existed, and something did not come from absolutely nothing? And you would describe this third way as meaningful and non-paradoxical?

Silhouette wrote:Yes.

Then I don't know what to say. You are literally saying that nothing has always existed (as in no x has always existed), and yet it is not the case that something has come from nothing. It's like you saying triangle and then saying not triangle because there is an in between triangle and not triangle. I ask you for an alternative, and you suggest expert physicists have an alternative to this. You are suggesting that expert physicists have something that is not nothing and not something at the same time.

I mean no disrespect when I say this. But how is what you say any different to a 'religious' person telling me "God can create something from nothing, expert priests know this stuff, I can't full explain it to you because expert priests understand this stuff and can explain it better than me. Not only that, but God can create something that is both a thing and not a thing."

So are we to conclude our discussion with the fact that you believe existence has not always existed, and that it (existence) came from non-existence...but this non-existence is not non-existence it's a....

If it's not non-existence, then can it be anything other than existence???
Certainly real
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jan 05, 2021 9:04 pm

CR,

I’m just poking holes in your ideas... and it bothers you.

Everyone on earth knows what absolute nothingness is...

We experience it everyday in sleep.

Why does something that you and everyone knows bother you so much?

Because there are demonstrable things that everyone knows for a fact that you can’t wrap your head around? To make your argument work?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11458
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Postby Silhouette » Tue Jan 05, 2021 9:16 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:Glass houses ---

I'm not insulting you, man. I'm expressing self-doubt that I'm being provided with sufficient information.

Surely you examine your thought processes thoroughly before you accept your conclusions? Don't you agree that this is what philosophy does?

obsrvr524 wrote:So you are saying that I am not actually conceiving of it because of how you think my brain works? :-?

Isn't that like saying that my calculator didn't get the right answer because I know it is designed wrong?

Since when does the mechanism involved determine the truth of the outcome? - "He is a bad person so obviously what he said is wrong".

I described what I envision. Was that a proper conception? How my brain worked to get there is irrelevant.

I'm explaining how I think all brains work, along with how thoroughly I think they should work in line with that if they want to be strictly sure about what constitutes knowledge. Not your brain in particular.

You're asking a programming/mathematics enthusiast whether it matters if calculators are designed right? :| I can't tell you how ridiculously important it is for calculators and other programmes to be free of bugs... Minimal experience in these pursuits will show you exactly how easy it is to think you've nailed something because it seems to initially work and you intuit that it's got to be sound from your best estimations, only for unforeseen conditions to occur, or for omissions or other errors to reveal themselves to catastrophic effect. If it's not perfectly clean, other errors can and will follow.
Just to be clear, are you really trying to argue that as long as you get what you think is "the right answer", it doesn't matter how you get there?

This is a genuine question by the way - how can you possibly determine if it's the right answer if you haven't picked apart exactly how you got there?
Being a "bad person" or not has nothing to do with it - that's a moral objection not a logical one. I'm not committing that fallacy.

I do not dispute that there is envisioning going on in your conception. Only that you identify the result as literally nothing, which should have no existence to identify in order to qualify as absolutely nothing. The problem here is just so clear to me. It seems improper to call your conception "nothing", it's not improper for you to try, or to settle on something, but to legitimately call that something "nothing"? I can understand the steps of "okay now I remove stars from my conception of the universe, now the Earth, now all things, then all light, then all space and time..." - these are all finite things to remove from your set of all the finite things in a universe. I just see a direct logical contradiction between being left with "nothing" and the act of envisioning. I mean envisioning - that's vision right? But in your "mind's eye" so to speak? Are you seeing black? That's still something. As soon as you remove spacetime, either you're still envisioning the rest of your "mind's eye" or your mind would have to utterly shut down to literally take away even that from the set of things... to allow the result to properly be "nothing". But then you wouldn't be "envisioning" anymore. There would be no human conception...

Surely you see what I'm getting at here?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users