## Proof of an omnipotent being

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

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

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

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?

I just explained that. Each one of your folders is smaller than the one it resides in because there are two more folders inside with it. And each one of your folders is larger than every folder inside it because there are multiple folders within. The problem is that one of the folders inside each folder is supposedly that exact same folder plus more.

So each upper folder is larger than each lower folder - yet each is supposed to be the exact same size.
A{} = A{A{}, b{}, c{}...} -- so A{} must be larger than A{}

It is like saying that I have a box with 3 boxes inside - one exactly like it and two smaller boxes sitting beside that one. It cannot be done.

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

There is no one thing that contains all things.

There is a "thing" that contains all things except another copy of itself.

Certainly real wrote:Which means there is no existing thing that contains all existing things [inclusively]. This logically implies that there is at least one existing thing that does not exist.

No - It implies that the thing you are talking about DOESN'T exist - that is why it isn't included - there is no thing that can inclusively contain itself. That item is NOT in your "all existing things" container. It is a proposed set that oxymoronaclly doesn't exist - a square-circle.

If I said that I had a shape that contained within ALL shapes - would it contain a square-circle? Your "inclusive set of all sets" can't contain itself because it can't exist so wouldn't be included in a set of all existing sets - because it doesn't exist. It is a married-bachelor.

Certainly real wrote: This is literally a case of a square being a circle. A case of an existing thing not being an existing thing.

It is NOT an existing thing.

Certainly real wrote:One thing cannot be two different things at the same time.

That was my point. If the set contains itself along with all other sets, then it is NOT the same set inside. The one inside is different - smaller.

If the inclusive set of all sets existed then it would be inside itself. But science it doesn't exist it is NOT inside itself.

Certainly real wrote:
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.

I knew one of you were going to say that. But your wrong. In what way did I envision a "universe" since a universe is all "things" and what I envisioned had no things at all?
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

obsrvr524 wrote:I just explained that. Each one of your folders is smaller than the one it resides in because there are two more folders inside with it.

Yes, but this is the point I'm disputing. A contains (1, 2, 3, A). I'm in A. I click 1, and I get what 1 contains. I click A, and I get what A contains (1, 2, 3, A). So here, how are there two more folders inside it? If I go up a folder in an attempt to get to the root folder, I get to A. Again, I see (1, 2, 3, A). So again, there are no two additional folders inside this A are there? There is (1, 2, 3, A). Where are you getting these additional folders from?
And each one of your folders is larger than every folder inside it because there are multiple folders within. The problem is that one of the folders inside each folder is supposedly that exact same folder plus more.

No it isn't. The A in A contains (1, 2, 3, A) and the A encompassing A contains (1, 2, 3, A). Where is there necessarily an additional folder? Is it in the A in A, or the A encompassing A? If it's in neither, then where are you getting your additional folders from?
So each upper folder is larger than each lower folder - yet each is supposed to be the exact same size.
A{} = A{A{}, b{}, c{}...} -- so A{} must be larger than A{}

It is like saying that I have a box with 3 boxes inside - one exactly like it and two smaller boxes sitting beside that one. It cannot be done.

Your example is clearly indicative of finite folders, boxes, and sets. It is not indicative of infinity. Again, see above and tell me why what I propose is necessarily impossible.
There is a "thing" that contains all things except another copy of itself.

It is itself a thing is it not? If it contains all things, this logically entails that it contains itself does it not? If it does not contain itself this logically implies there is no thing that contains all things does it not? Most importantly: If x is not included in that which contains all things, then x is not a thing is it? If it's not a thing, then it's not a thing is it? It's no thing. It's nothing. See the paradox/absurdity?
:lol: No - It implies that the thing you are talking about DOESN'T exist - that is why it isn't included - there is no thing that can inclusively contain itself. That item is NOT in your "all existing things" container. It is a proposed set that oxymoronaclly doesn't exist - a square-circle.

See above. In particular, note the contradiction in your words. You call it a thing, you claim it contains all things, yet you say it does not contain itself (which is a thing). You are literally saying all minus 1 = all.
If I said that I had a shape that contained within ALL shapes - would it contain a square-circle? Your "inclusive set of all sets" can't contain itself because it can't exist so wouldn't be included in a set of all existing sets - because it doesn't exist. It is a married-bachelor.

Yes but that's because the set of all shapes, is not a shape. It is a set, a member of the set of all sets. The set of all sets however, is a set. It is a member of itself. All existing things exist. They are members of Existence. Existence Itself Exists. It Is a member of Itself.
I knew one of you were going to say that. But your wrong. In what way did I envision a "universe" since a universe is all "things" and what I envisioned had no things at all?

Consider the following: You cannot conceive of the non-existence of existence. True or false?
You have called some thing a universe without time and anything else within it. What you have defined is absurd/impossible. You cannot conceive of absurdities/impossibilities. Either what you described was absurd (because it logically implies existence contains non-existence within it...which is the same as saying non-existence can exist), or you described some existing thing that is not nothing, but is as maximally devoid of things as hypothetically possible. This maximally devoid of things as hypothetically possible, cannot be ALL things.
Certainly real

Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Certainly real wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:I just explained that. Each one of your folders is smaller than the one it resides in because there are two more folders inside with it.

Yes, but this is the point I'm disputing. A contains (1, 2, 3, A). I'm in A. I click 1, and I get what 1 contains. I click A, and I get what A contains (1, 2, 3, A). So here, how are there two more folders inside it? If I go up a folder in an attempt to get to the root folder, I get to A. Again, I see (1, 2, 3, A). So again, there are no two additional folders inside this A are there? There is (1, 2, 3, A). Where are you getting these additional folders from?

From this -
A{} = {A{},1, 2, 3}
_∞_ = {_∞_+1+1+1} --- ?

Regardless of which infinite size ∞ represents it is a different size than ∞ + 3.

Every single A{} will have more than A{} inside regardless of how big A{} is.

Certainly real wrote:
And each one of your folders is larger than every folder inside it because there are multiple folders within. The problem is that one of the folders inside each folder is supposedly that exact same folder plus more.

No it isn't. The A in A contains (1, 2, 3, A) and the A encompassing A contains (1, 2, 3, A). Where is there necessarily an additional folder?

Look closer - you just said that A contains A plus 3 more items -- "A = A+3"

Certainly real wrote:
There is a "thing" that contains all things except another copy of itself.

It is itself a thing is it not?

That thing is not a self-inclusive set. That set is a universal set. That is what I have been explaining. Your "inclusive set of all sets" is itself NOT A SET - not a "thing" - it can't exist so it isn't included.

IF an inclusive set of all sets could exist then it would contain itself.
But since it cannot exist it would not be included in a set of all sets.

You are being gaslighted with a strawman proposal that such a set could exist in the first place.

Certainly real wrote:Existence Itself Exists. It Is a member of Itself.

Existence IS itself. It is not a member of itself. You are you. You are not a member of you.

Certainly real wrote:Consider the following: You cannot conceive of the non-existence of existence. True or false?

I have already explained why that is false - I have already done it. It wasn't hard.

Certainly real wrote:You have called some thing a universe without time and anything else within it.

No I did not - YOU called it a "universe". I called it "absolutely nothing". And I also explained why it is NOT a universe. A universe is a collection of all things. If there are no things there is no universe.
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

obsrvr524 wrote:Look closer - you just said that A contains A plus 3 more items -- "A = A+3"

This is a good point in that it clearly highlights your position. But I don't see how my suggestion amounts to saying A = A+3. Consider:

(A, 1, 2, 3) is the case. You don't yet know if A, or 1, or 2, or 3 contain themselves or not.
You click 1 you get pictures of cats. You go up a root folder from cats you get (A, 1, 2, 3). Clearly, 1 does not contain itself. You click A you get (A, 1, 2, 3). You go up one folder trying to get to the root folder you get (A, 1, 2, 3). Whether you click A or go up from (A, 1, 2, 3), you always get (A, 1, 2, 3) You start off in a place of all folders. You click A you are in a place of all folders. You go up a folder, you are in a place of all folders. You click 1, you are no longer in a place of all folders. Do you agree with the part underlined and in bold? A is the place/folder of all folders is it not? It is the folder you click that gets you to all folders is it not? It is the folder that contains all folders is it not?

You have it in your head that A cannot = A because A contains (A, 1, 2, 3) this means that on the one hand you have A, and on the other hand you have A, 1, 2, 3. This is not the case. On the one hand you have A, 1, 2, 3, and on the other hand you have A, 1, 2, 3. Click A you get A, 1, 2, 3. Go up A and you get A, 1, 2, 3. A contains itself plus others. 0 contradictions. You are saying A is itself plus others. This is contradictory. A is not itself plus others because A is A and others are others. See??

Clearly A = A. Clearly A (which contains A, 1, 2, 3) actually contains A, 1, 2, 3. It contains itself as well as others. So what if it contains all other folders on the computer in addition to itself? This does not mean that A = A+3. It means that A contains A, 1, 2, 3. A = A.

I've not addressed the other points in your reply. We'll discuss them after. The above is the priority at the moment. I don't want anything to distract from the above.
Certainly real

Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Certainly real wrote: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???

I think I see what you're trying to get at by saying that "nothing has always existed" on the premise that if somethingness is all finite, it must have been preceded by infinite nothingness. Right?
NOT if spacetime curves, as it does. "Always existed" is a function of time, so if time had a beginning, there wasn't "nothing" before it because there was no "before it". To think of "nothingness before spacetime" is a contradiction in the same way as "time before time". You'd have to be using the outdated Newtonian conception of time, to extrapolate "absolute linear time" back "before" a zero point along the standard first dimension of time, in order to make this mistake. Time still goes back along the humanly intuited time dimension, but the closer to the big bang the more it dilates. This means time itself is tending to being, in a sense "infinitely long", but not infinite because it curves back along another dimension to yield a starting point along the "regular human" dimension. I guess if curvature is still relatively new to you, this might be difficult to conceive, but this is what the evidence indicates through repeatable experiment. And it ties up any erroneous notion of "time before time" that would be implied by only finitude along one time dimension, yet also allowing for there being no "absolute nothingness" before time once you factor in higher dimensions.

That's my understanding of it anyway - but honestly, just go to the theoretical physicists for this. There only appears to be contradictions here according to your unquestioned paradigm (that you need to question in order to realise why there's no absurdity). They will be able to explain it better than I can, I'm sure.

It's not at all the same as going to expert priests, because they're going by some book put together when we didn't know about relativity. Expert scientists now do, and they've realised that the book was wrong in a far more interesting way than anyone would have ever thought at the time of that book. You too could be an expert and find it out yourself - I'm not saying to simply trust some other guy, I'm saying to consult their knowledge so you only need to trust your improved understanding of what the evidence and math all points to. That's the beauty of science - you can do it all yourself if you only educate yourself. With a priest, it's just credulity and that's it. With science you can reveal it to yourself just by looking at the world and reasoning based on it in a particularly smart way. It's still all just existence, and it also ties up any contradictions about non-existence and infinity.

But I can't emphasise this enough - as I keep repeating for you: this is all just a tangent to the actual topic.
The only relevant discussion here boils down to divinity having to be beyond human conception in order to qualify (else it's just mandane like anything else entirely within our human conception). So within our human conception, God cannot exist by definition.
That's it. Simple as.
None of this "nothingness" and "infinity" paradox stuff changes the above - because the above has to be true by pure reason.
So yes, let's call that tangent concluded and get back to the topic at hand. If you want. I've already shown it to you every which way, but I'm willing to clarify anything further that's actually on the topic and not a tangent.

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Certainly real wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:Look closer - you just said that A contains A plus 3 more items -- "A = A+3"

This is a good point in that it clearly highlights your position. But I don't see how my suggestion amounts to saying A = A+3.
Certainly real wrote:A contains (1, 2, 3, A).
THAT is how it suggests it. You flat out stated it, mate.

What is inside the upper A is irrelevant. Look at where you are at any one time. Each statement must stand as truth all by itself.

You had just made a clear statement ("A contains (1, 2, 3, A).") but then -
Certainly real wrote:You don't yet know if A, or 1, or 2, or 3 contain themselves or not.
But then you just contradicted yourself with a false statement. You DO know what is inside EVERY A. You just said it in the prior statement -
Certainly real wrote:[ A =] (A, 1, 2, 3) is the case.

You state it again -
Certainly real wrote:You go up a root folder from cats you get [A=] (A, 1, 2, 3).

You say it again -
Certainly real wrote:You click A you get (A, 1, 2, 3).

And again -
Certainly real wrote:You go up one folder trying to get to the root folder you get [A=] (A, 1, 2, 3).

Then again -
Certainly real wrote: you always get [A=] (A, 1, 2, 3).

And then you reveal your mind -
Certainly real wrote: You start off in a place of all folders.

No! You can NEVER be at that place. That place can't exist. No matter where to "start" you ALWAYS have another above you. You cannot start at the top. There is no top (and that is exactly what Cantor was saying). Yet you keep thinking that you are there when you start. You cannot ever be there.

Certainly real wrote:You click A you are in a place of all folders. You go up a folder,

If you are in that place of ALL folders already - how can you "go up"?

Certainly real wrote:You have it in your head that A cannot = A because A contains (A, 1, 2, 3) this means that on the one hand you have A, and on the other hand you have A, 1, 2, 3.

That is true. And that is exactly what you have stated over and over. Again and again you state "A = (A,1,2,3)". And that statement upon which your argument depends directly denies that A=A - the very foundation of logic.

My last suggestion on this -
Try temporarily imagining that you have been wrong and that the "inclusive set of all sets" really does not exist. And then if it does not exist try to say to yourself - "A = (A,1,2,3)" - A (that doesn't exist) = (A that doesn't exist, 1, 2, and 3) - "I am going to open a non-existent folder that contains 3 other folders plus itself - a non-existent folder." In reality that is what you are already doing. You just don't seem to recognize it.

The false assumption of the paradox (that is causing it to be a paradox) is that the proposed "inclusive set of all sets" is a set that must be included. It is not a set. So it certainly is not included - paradox resolved.
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

The third issue that I earlier said I wanted to address with you - "Defining God as Existence" should really be broken up into 2 issues -
• How God is defined
• What it means that God is incomprehensible

Get those two cleared up and you will have your legitimate proof of an omnipotent being. There is no need for Cantor or paradoxes.
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

Silhouette wrote:I think I see what you're trying to get at by saying that "nothing has always existed" on the premise that if somethingness is all finite, it must have been preceded by infinite nothingness. Right?

I'm saying either nothing has always existed and will always be the case (which is an absurd sentence. Seemingly less absurd is to say either there is non-existence or existence. But this is also absurd because it's not either x or y, it's certainly y. It's as absurd as saying either a triangle is a triangle, or a triangle is a square.), or something has always existed and will always be the case. It cannot be that nothing once existed and then something began existing. It is clearly absurd to say nothing/non-existence has always existed and will always be the case, therefore, existence has always existed and will always be the case.
NOT if spacetime curves, as it does. "Always existed" is a function of time

Ok, let's go with this for the sake of argument. I wholly agree that always existed is a temporal reference.
so if time had a beginning, there wasn't "nothing" before it because there was no "before it".

You have just said there was no "before it" with it being time. And I agree.

If there was no before time (which is the same as saying there was nothing before time...if you say there is a difference between 'no before time' and 'nothing before time', what's the difference?), this either literally means there is non-existence/nothing before the existence of time, or time has always been existent. Does it not? So you tell me which is true: Was there nothing before time in the sense that time was non-existent before time? Or was there nothing before time in the sense that time has always existed? There is no alternative is there? Space-time curvature doesn't change it does it?
But I can't emphasise this enough - as I keep repeating for you: this is all just a tangent to the actual topic.
The only relevant discussion here boils down to divinity having to be beyond human conception in order to qualify (else it's just mandane like anything else entirely within our human conception). So within our human conception, God cannot exist by definition.
That's it. Simple as.
None of this "nothingness" and "infinity" paradox stuff changes the above - because the above has to be true by pure reason.
So yes, let's call that tangent concluded and get back to the topic at hand. If you want. I've already shown it to you every which way, but I'm willing to clarify anything further that's actually on the topic and not a tangent

You argue that infinity is meaningless to us because we are finite beings. My goal is to show you that it is absurd/paradoxical/contradictory/irrational for us to reject the meaningfulness of infinity. Can you tell me if time has always existed or not? And if you say it has not, does that not then mean that there was no time, and then there was time?
Last edited by Certainly real on Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:29 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Certainly real

Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

obsrvr524 wrote:THAT is how it suggests it. You flat out stated it, mate.

But then you just contradicted yourself with a false statement. You DO know what is inside EVERY A. You just said it in the prior statement -

Fair enough. What I should have done was replace A with unknown. A folder with no name. Such that when you open it and see 1, 2, 3, nameless folder, and go up one folder and see 1, 2, 3, nameless folder, you either conclude: 1) this nameless folder contains itself. Or 2) this nameless folder has a copy of itself inside itself and is itself a copy of itself that it is in. I think you agree with 2 (otherwise you reject the possibility of something being copied and endless number of times). Call this nameless folder A. Do you agree that A contains a copy of A inside itself and that it is itself a copy of an A that it is in?

Which brings me to the question: Do you agree that A = an exact copy of A (as opposed to A = an exact copy of A + 1, 2 + 3). Do you see the distinction between 'being contained in' and 'being an exact copy of'?
Certainly real

Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Certainly real wrote:What I should have done was replace A with unknown. A folder with no name. Such that when you open it and see 1, 2, 3, nameless folder, and go up one folder and see 1, 2, 3, nameless folder, you either conclude: 1) this nameless folder contains itself. Or 2) this nameless folder has a copy of itself inside itself and is itself a copy of itself that it is in. I think you agree with 2 (otherwise you reject the possibility of something being copied and endless number of times). Call this nameless folder A.

Calling A "unknown" changes nothing other than to imply that you accept that the proposed "inclusive set of all sets" is not know to exist. I guess that is an improvement over saying that it "must exist".

Certainly real wrote: Do you agree that A contains a copy of A inside itself and that it is itself a copy of an A that it is in?

That is the problem - "a copy". The inside is not the outside. The outer A is NOT the inner A. So you are violating the A=A requirement in dialectics. And that is what leads to paradoxes and confusions.

I agree that what you present is that A is "copied" inside A --- A1 = {A2,1,2,3}

But all of your arguments have been that the A inside IS the A outside exactly "in every way" - not a copy. When something is copied, no matter how exactly, it occupies a different space than the original. Given the original in question, where is any space for an exact copy of the exact same size and nature - plus 3 more items?

Certainly real wrote:Which brings me to the question: Do you agree that A = an exact copy of A (as opposed to A = an exact copy of A + 1, 2 + 3). Do you see the distinction between 'being contained in' and 'being an exact copy of'?

The red portion is absurd as explained many times before.

But I accept that you are not going to see the logic. - you are not going to "comprehend God". That is the state of the majority of people just as written in ancient times. To You God is incomprehensible.

NEXT ISSUE -
What is YOUR very precise and exact definition of God? What is it that makes God a god at all? And what excludes everything that isn't a god"
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

obsrvr524 wrote:I agree that what you present is that A is "copied" inside A --- A1 = {A2,1,2,3}

Good. But how is 'A is copied inside A' any different to me saying A is a copy of A for you to emphasise 'copied' like that?
But all of your arguments have been that the A inside IS the A outside exactly "in every way" - not a copy. When something is copied, no matter how exactly, it occupies a different space than the original. Given the original in question, where is any space for an exact copy of the exact same size and nature - plus 3 more items

Yes, but it's not what I was arguing in my last post was I? I made a clear distinction between A being a copy of A and contained in A, and, A being A and contained in A. I numbered them 1 and 2 and then focused on the copy example alone with intent to discuss the A being A example after making a particular point clear to you with regards to A being a copy of A inside A example. That point being that since the A in A is a copy of A, this means A = a copy of A. It does not mean A = a copy of A + 1, 2, 3 does it??? This was me trying to show you the error in your reasoning when you implied that if A is in A and A contains A, 1, 2, ,3, then it must be the case that A = A + 1, 2, 3. Do you see how you misunderstood my last reply to you? Do you also see how A containing A (whether A be a copy of A or A actually be A itself) does not amount to A = A + 1+ 2 + 3?
Given the original in question, where is any space for an exact copy of the exact same size and nature - plus 3 more items?

Bearing in mind that you agreed with the copy example, consider the following: I make a folder called A. I put folders 1, 2, 3 inside it. I then copy A, and paste it in A. If my computer was infinite, it would give me an infinite number of As would it not???? If my computer was not infinite, it would say it cannot copy A in A. What's to stop an infinite computer from copying A in A? Or more importantly, whats to stop me from manually making a folder in A, and then calling that A, and then opening that new A and then making a new folder in the new A and then calling that A. I do this endlessly.

My hope is that with this discussion, if you focus in an unbiased and unprejudiced and unclosed-minded manner, you will see why I distinguished between the infinite and the semi-infinite. Between that which has no beginning and no end, and that which goes on forever. But you show signs of someone who is closed minded regarding this topic. I have tried to understand you so that either I correct myself, or that I am able to be in a better position to effectively correct you. I do not feel that you have had the same attitude towards my posts to you. The very fact that you think that you can conceive of absolute nothingness or absolutely nothing, AND, say that you can do this with passion and conviction, clearly implies you have low standards regarding certainty. It also implies you are closed minded given the fact that you did not see the absurdity in this belief when clear objections were made against it.
The red portion is absurd as explained many times before.

Yes, and that was my whole point. If you paid attention to what I was trying to convey to you, you would have understood what I was trying to convey to you.
But I accept that you are not going to see the logic. - you are not going to "comprehend God". That is the state of the majority of people just as written in ancient times. To You God is incomprehensible.

To me, you show signs of self-righteousness. Look again at how you handled criticisms of your attitude towards absolute nothingness. Will you now use some analogy such as glass houses in a childish manner instead of directly saying don't criticise if you can't handle criticism? Or will you talk about how you are often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color? There's a time for using analogies, and a time for not using analogies.
NEXT ISSUE -
What is YOUR very precise and exact definition of God? What is it that makes God a god at all? And what excludes everything that isn't a god"

The Perfect, Infinite, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Merciful, Generous, Gracious, Just, Vengeful, etc.
Certainly real

Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

I am only "self-righteous" in that I know when logic is logic and that those who cannot see logic will not see logic. And from that know that they will know little of God.
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

https://youtu.be/mIYOC6RQ_LY

Skip to 3:22 if you're impatient. If you're not, watch both parts 1 and 2.
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 4039
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

obsrvr524 wrote:I am only "self-righteous" in that I know when logic is logic and that those who cannot see logic will not see logic. And from that know that they will know little of God.

That's what 'self-righteous' is to you? To me, it's when one has a belief that is not rooted in reason and logic (examples include believing God can create something from nothing, believing nothingness/nothing/non-existence of All things is conceivable, or that meaninglessness is conceivable), but acts as though it is despite recognising signs that it isn't. The self-righteous/illogical person just ignores these warning signs and opts to think they're right without any actual right. In any case, I did not call you self-righteous. I said to me you showed signs of it. Whether you are or not, or to what degree you are, is unknown to me. Perhaps how you use the words 'nothing' or 'absolute nothing' is different to how I use those words.
Certainly real

Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

A summary of our discussion to the best of my understanding of what points were made:

CR's position: If we say Existence/Existing does not encompass all existing things, then we are saying not all existing things exist. This is clearly absurd. If we say Existence/Existing is itself not an existing thing, then again, we are clearly saying something absurd. Existence is that one thing that is Omnipresent. That one thing that sustains all things (which of course includes Itself). Every existing thing, is a member of Existence. Including Existence Itself. Existence is the set of all sets. Obsrvr rejects the set of all sets, so:

CR's attempt to understand Obsrvr's rejection: Is there not a set of all existing things?

Obsrvr's position: There is a "thing" that contains all things except another copy of itself.

CR's understanding of Obsrvr: Obsrvr clearly suggests that this "thing" contains all things except another copy of itself. This means it must contain its own actual self (as opposed to a copy of itself) if it is indeed a "thing" as Obsrvr calls it. If it is not a thing, then it is nothing. If it is nothing, then it contains nothing. If it is not a thing, then there is not a thing that contains all things. Either Obsrvr believes in a set of all sets (that set being Existence), or Obsrvr has contradicted himself by saying there is a "thing" that contains all things.

Conclusion. Obsrvr suggests that there is no set of all existing things. I suggest that this is paradoxical as it logically implies not all existing things exist. If all existing things exist, then there is a set of all existing things.

Obsrvr: Existence is not a set. As implied by:

The false assumption of the paradox (that is causing it to be a paradox) is that the proposed "inclusive set of all sets" is a set that must be included. It is not a set. So it certainly is not included - paradox resolved.

CR: So is there not a set of all existing things? Which then takes us back to the loop of:

Obsrvr: There is a "thing" that contains all things except another copy of itself.

Additional points made by Obsrvr: I have already said that the universe is a collection of ALL things - but NOT a set of identically replicated items - nothing in that collection is an exact duplicate in every way of anything else in that collection. And that the universe does not "contain" things. The universe IS those things. There is no container.

CR's confusion over this: So if the universe is a collection of ALL things, how is it not a set of ALL thing? Also, is the universe a thing? If it is not, then is it not a thing (nothing). If the universe IS those things, am I the universe? Is it not paradoxical to say CR = the universe? And if there is no container, am I not contained in Existence or the universe?

Despite the above, I was not comfortable with saying the following to Obsrvr:

But I accept that you are not going to see the logic. - you are not going to "comprehend God". That is the state of the majority of people just as written in ancient times. To You God is incomprehensible.

I'm still not comfortable. I don't know Obsrvr's future. I am not God. I have no right to make such a claim. If I did make such a claim, I'd feel obliged to apologise. I'd like to think I would not ignore this feeling. Even if I did not feel I have to apologise, I'd certainly rationally recognise that I was wrong. To not admit this, is to be insincere to the Truth. To not admit this, is to be insincere to God. It is to be morally less valuable.
Last edited by Certainly real on Sat Jan 09, 2021 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Certainly real

Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

A summary of our discussion to the best of my understanding of what points were made continued:

Obsrvr: ...you either have a redundant declaration where you say that A contains itself and you mean that A has in it whatever A has in it. The only thing wrong with that is that it is tautological or redundant or just pointless to say...The other option in saying that A contains itself meaning that an identical but separate instance of A is contained as a member within the boundary of the first mentioned A as a subset member. That is what leads to absurdities...Given the original in question, where is any space for an exact copy of the exact same size and nature - plus 3 more items?

CR: I'm saying A is in A. You're saying this is either redundant, or contradictory, without accounting for the paradox I pointed out to you....I cannot say my computer does not have a folder that contains all folders on the computer when the premises I have are folder A is in folder A ad infinitum. If not ad infinitum, then yes, folder A definitely does not truly/fully contain folder A within itself. I know you said "It is going to tell you when you first try to move it into itself that it cannot do that." And I wholly agree with this. This is in line with not being able to count to infinity. But if I came across a computer that claimed to have all folders on it in one folder with that folder being called A, and it was truly the case that A was in A ad infinitum, then what? Of course I can never empirically verify this because I can never count to infinity (even if I was immortal). But rationally speaking, given the premises at hand, does A contain A?

Obsrvr: You can see that A cannot contain A because that would mean that A has a lesser hierarchy than A...A set that contains itself as merely one of its own members would obviously be greater than itself. Can there be a square that has a larger square inside it?

CR: I agree that a universal set cannot have any duplication (copies of itself), just as I agree that there cannot be more than one set of all sets...I can clearly see that A cannot have a lesser hierarchy than A. A cannot be any different to A otherwise A does not truly contain A. But I don’t see how A containing A necessarily amounts to A having a lesser hierarchy than A. If A was finite, then yes, I clearly see your point.

Obsrvr: What you seem to be saying is that the following two things are identical in every way -
A{}
A{A{A{A{A{A{A{A...}}}}}}}
I added the colors only so we could reference which we are talking about (having no intent to distinguish otherwise).

The red ones are INSIDE the blue ones. That makes them a "subset" of the "superior" blue set. And that makes them SEPARATE instances of the same thing and increases the number of items explosively.

CR: there is only A containing/encompassing itself whilst being equal to itself and not separate from itself. The reference point used is separated, but A itself is not separate from A in any way shape or form...You say there can be no set of all sets because no set can truly contain itself.
I say Infinity/Existence is such that the set of all sets exists. It contains/encompasses Itself fully in the sense that the Infinitesimal is Infinite, which means that the Infinite and the Infinitesimal are the same. We call Existence which is internal to us Existence/Infinitesimal (as opposed to nothing/non-existence) and Existence which is external to us Infinite/Existence (as opposed to nothing). Again, we are in Existence and Existence is in us. So Existence is in Existence as well as outside of Existence. This is because nothingness/non-existence does not exist. There is no beyond Existence.

Obsrvr: 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".

CR: 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 the A you just went up from. 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?

Obsrvr: Each one of your folders is smaller than the one it resides in because there are two more folders inside with it. And each one of your folders is larger than every folder inside it because there are multiple folders within. The problem is that one of the folders inside each folder is supposedly that exact same folder plus more.

CR: A contains (1, 2, 3, A). I'm in A. I click 1, and I get what 1 contains. I click A, and I get what A contains (1, 2, 3, A). So here, how are there two more folders inside it? How are there two more folders than (1, 2, 3, A)? If I go up a folder in an attempt to get to the root folder, I get to A. Again, I see (1, 2, 3, A). So again, there are no two additional folders inside this A are there? There is (1, 2, 3, A). Where are you getting these additional folders from?...The A in A contains (1, 2, 3, A) and the A encompassing A contains (1, 2, 3, A). Where is there necessarily an additional folder? Is it in the A in A, or the A encompassing A? If it's in neither, then where are you getting your additional folders from?

Obsrvr: Regardless of which infinite size ∞ represents it is a different size than ∞ + 3. Every single A{} will have more than A{} inside regardless of how big A{} is...Look closer - you just said that A contains A plus 3 more items -- "A = A+3"

CR: (A, 1, 2, 3) is the case...You click 1 you get pictures of cats. You go up a root folder from cats you get (A, 1, 2, 3). Clearly, 1 does not contain itself. You click A you get (A, 1, 2, 3). You go up one folder trying to get to the root folder you get (A, 1, 2, 3). Whether you click A or go up from (A, 1, 2, 3), you always get (A, 1, 2, 3)

You are saying A is itself plus others. This is contradictory. A is not itself plus others because A is A and others are others. See??...Clearly A (which contains A, 1, 2, 3) actually contains A, 1, 2, 3. It contains itself as well as others. So what if it contains all other folders on the computer in addition to itself? This does not mean that A = A+3. It means that A contains A, 1, 2, 3. A = A.

Obsrvr: No! You can NEVER be at that place. That place can't exist. No matter where to "start" you ALWAYS have another above you. You cannot start at the top. There is no top (and that is exactly what Cantor was saying). Yet you keep thinking that you are there when you start. You cannot ever be there...If you are in that place of ALL folders already - how can you "go up"?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My additional reply to Obsrvr's last point: If that place can't exist, then that's like saying Existence (the place where all existing things exist) can't exist. The idea that no matter where I start I always have A above me, or A in me, is literally descriptive of the truly Infinite. The Infinite encompasses me, and the Infinitesimal is in me. The Infinitesimal Is Infinite. Infinitesimal = Infinite. A = A. You do not go up from Existence. You go up in Existence via Existence as opposed to non-existence. I agree that my folder example can look as though you exit A and go into another separate A. BUT this is not what I'm implying at all. I'm saying you can never exit A because A encompasses A...which means A is in A. Again, this does not mean A is separate to A or that A is a copy of A. A encompassing A without being a copy of A or separate to A, is just the way A is. A is in me and I am in A. If A is in me and I am in A, then clearly we cannot avoid saying that A is in A. Existence is in me and I am in Existence. I am not in non-existence and there is no non-existence in me.
Last edited by Certainly real on Fri Jan 08, 2021 6:49 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Certainly real

Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

CR,

A universal can have infinite copies of itself:

It’s called strange loops.

God can make everyone god with no contradiction.

The problem with your psychology is that your concept of god is of the ultimate master of all. That’s because that’s what you’d be if you were god. I don’t like you.

You’re a psychopath. I have to figure out what to do with you though...
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11458
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Certainly real wrote:I'm saying either nothing has always existed and will always be the case (which is an absurd sentence. Seemingly less absurd is to say either there is non-existence or existence. But this is also absurd because it's not either x or y, it's certainly y. It's as absurd as saying either a triangle is a triangle, or a triangle is a square.), or something has always existed and will always be the case. It cannot be that nothing once existed and then something began existing. It is

Ok, let's go with this for the sake of argument. I wholly agree that always existed is a temporal reference.

You have just said there was no "before it" with it being time. And I agree.

If there was no before time (which is the same as saying there was nothing before time...if you say there is a difference between 'no before time' and 'nothing before time', what's the difference?), this either literally means there is non-existence/nothing before the existence of time, or time has always been existent. Does it not? So you tell me which is true: Was there nothing before time in the sense that time was non-existent before time? Or was there nothing before time in the sense that time has always existed? There is no alternative is there? Space-time curvature doesn't change it does it?

You argue that infinity is meaningless to us because we are finite beings. My goal is to show you that it is absurd/paradoxical/contradictory/irrational for us to reject the meaningfulness of infinity. Can you tell me if time has always existed or not? And if you say it has not, does that not then mean that there was no time, and then there was time?

Just to confirm, is this now a thread about something and nothing?

For the sake of the topic, I'm willing to provisionally ignore modern scientific knowledge and accept the something/nothing dichotomy that necessitates rejecting one contradiction for another. So with that put aside, maybe we can get back to the following?

Silhouette wrote:The only relevant discussion here boils down to divinity having to be beyond human conception in order to qualify (else it's just mandane like anything else entirely within our human conception). So within our human conception, God cannot exist by definition.
That's it. Simple as.
None of this "nothingness" and "infinity" paradox stuff changes the above - because the above has to be true by pure reason.
So yes, let's call that tangent concluded and get back to the topic at hand. If you want. I've already shown it to you every which way, but I'm willing to clarify anything further that's actually on the topic and not a tangent.

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Silhouette wrote:Just to confirm, is this now a thread about something and nothing?

The focus is still on how God (the necessarily Perfect...otherwise it's not God), necessarily exists such that its rejection is absurd/irrational/paradoxical/false of Existence.
For the sake of the topic, I'm willing to provisionally ignore modern scientific knowledge

Good science does not ignore pure reason. Good any thing/subject/theory/person does not ignore pure reason. You are only ignoring bad scientists. Good science will never claim there was nothing and then from nothing (no things...not even space and time) there was something, because good science will not claim to have understood that which is not understandable (and therefore unobservable). You are of this belief, that that which cannot be understood, cannot be understood. It's your argument against God/Perfection.

Nothing came from non-existence is right (which is essentially like saying non-existence = non-existence = falsehood). Something came from something is right (which is essentially saying Existence = Existence = Truth). That which is true, is true of Existence. That which is false, is that which is not true of Existence (non-existence).
So with that put aside, maybe we can get back to the following?

The reason we got into a discussion about something coming from nothing, was so that I could show you that we necessarily either understand infinity, or, given your line of reasoning, we necessarily don't understand existence at all. This is because if we don't understand infinity, we cannot say existence is infinite. If we cannot say existence is infinite, we have to say existence came from non-existence. Again, you have yet to show me one single point as to why it is absurd for Existence to have always existed and to always exist, whereas I've clearly shown you how rejection of this is blatantly absurd/paradoxical/false in that it leads to something coming from absolutely nothing. You yourself agree that absolute nothingness is absurd. Yet somehow you have this view that it is hypothetically possible or meaningful to say that a thing can be nothing without being absolutely nothing. If that thing is not absolutely nothing, then somethingness is accurate in describing it. Something distinguishes it from absolute nothingness does it not? Long story short, you cannot negate the existence of existence without being paradoxical. Therefore, Existence has always existed and will always exist.

With it being clearly the case that we understand infinity, your argument that we cannot conceive of the Infinite/Perfect/God because we are finite, falls apart.

What do you think? Do we understand something having always existed? Or do we understand nothing having always existed and something coming from nothing? Do we understand infinity or not? Do you have a horse in this race?
Certainly real

Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Certainly real wrote:you have yet to show me one single point as to why it is absurd for Existence to have always existed and to always exist

I've only pointed out that even if existence "was infinite", it wouldn't be. To us.
That's been my only point really, and this one single point is more than apt to show the absurdity of accepting existence having always existed.
The fact that you don't accept this doesn't mean I've not shown you this point many times by now, so don't tell me I've yet to show you this point.

Instead of accepting this irrefutable logic, you're saying "no look over here instead: existence coming from existence is the only way to leave nothingness out of the equation, so it has to have always been and we are forced to accept that of which we cannot conceive", which I'm guessing you're taking to mean that your finite human conception can mentally contain conception of infinity.

Then we go around in circles because I remind you that this is impossible. Then you remind me that it has to be possible because anything other than it is impossible.

Is it fair to say that we are in a deadlock between what we regard to be the more critical contradiction?
I don't need to hear you restate your reasoning, I already get what you're trying to get at - and I think you get my reasoning. But somehow we cannot settle this vortex of "no this contradiction, no this other contradiction, no this contradiction, no.... etc."

Certainly real wrote:With it being clearly the case that we understand infinity, your argument that we cannot conceive of the Infinite/Perfect/God because we are finite, falls apart.

Except that's not my argument.
My argument has nothing to do with infinity.
This is why I'm questioning why we're bothering with this impasse at all.

I've said that I could even grant you that our finite conceptions could conceive of the infinite, and it wouldn't affect my argument one bit.
God has to be "divine" in order to be "God". This is just another way of saying God has to have properties of being God, which is tautologically true, but in pointing out this necessarily true fact, we see the whole problem more clearly.
The problem is not whether God has to be specifically infinite or whatever, it's only that He has to be at least in part beyond our human conception by having this "special" divine element that places godliness above the mundanity of human conception of the natural universe. Else God would just be entirely within our human conception just like anything else in and of the universe - and not particularly godly.
This "x-factor" isn't infinitude, it's just "that which sets apart the natural universe from the supernatural criteria that God presumably has to have in order to qualify as God".
Do you see the distinction here?
Even if you could prove infinity to our finite conception without the inherent contradiction (regardless of you necessarily being mistaken if you thought you could do so, according to pure reason), this wouldn't mean we can conceive of that Godly essence that is solely what makes God "God". Because if we could, He'd just be entirely of the natural universe and as mundane as anything else of which we can conceive. No "x-factor". And nothing to do with infinitude.

So nothing of mine falls apart no matter how long we drag out this dispute about "something and nothing". You see?

And given all of what we see and conceive, even when we do our best to conceive of that Godly essence that makes God "God", we come up with less than what is required, and we are only seeing something entirely of the natural universe and as mundane as anything else of which we can conceive. No "x-factor". And nothing to do with infinitude, as I repeat once again. So it's not God that we see/conceive, it's just normality with nothing divine to it. So even if God could be God, to us He wouldn't be, and to us we'd be seeing non-God.

I remind you that this is not a problem for existence, because even if we could finitely conceive of it being infinite, the "infinitude" or otherwise wouldn't negate that existence was still existence, because we'd still be seeing it and conceiving of it existing to our finite human extent. Existence doesn't need to be beyond our human conception in order to be existence to us. Any finitude or infinitude is extraneous to this requirement that there is nonetheless something existing to us. Whether there's more or not, and whether that "more" could be infinite to our finite human conception or not doesn't make a difference to that. But it does make a difference that divinity has to be beyond our human conception in order to be divinity.
So again, it's specifically a problem for divinity and nothing to do with "infinitude".

And with that out the way, we can more on from our impasse if you want, because indeed I have no horse in that race. My horse is in the race of whether God can exist to us or not, because He cannot. And this is a problem that tangents do not solve.

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Silhouette wrote:That's been my only point really, and this one single point is more than apt to show the absurdity of accepting existence having always existed.

I think I need to show you what I mean by contradictory: When you claim that you understand existence having always existed as being absurd, you are in effect saying that existence having not always existed is the truth. This implies there was/existed non-existence (which is a contradictory/absurd sentence) and then there was existence. See the clear contradiction in non-existence existing? In not existing existing? In triangle being not triangle????? I restate it because you persist in rejecting what is blatantly and obviously true. What's the alternative? That I subscribe to your 'understanding' that between existence and non-existence there is a thing that is nothing but not absolutely nothing????? I meant no offence with 'understand'. I meant only to highlight how such a thing does not and cannot qualify as understanding.

If I said to you the finite is the infinite, that is a clear contradiction. If I said to you the human is the triangle, that is a clear contradiction. If I said to you the human does not understand triangle because it does not know what it is to be triangular, or because it is not triangular, I'd be saying something clearly false...because I clearly understand triangle. It has meaning. It is not gibberish. Nor is it absurd. The same holds for infinity. We cannot escape describing Existence as being Infinite without being absurd/unreasonable and insincere to semantics, without committing to x = not x. Existence = not existence/non-existence/absurdity/contradiction/falsehood/false of Existence

The fact that you don't accept this doesn't mean I've not shown you this point many times by now, so don't tell me I've yet to show you this point.

I think you need to distinguish between the finite containing/encompassing/sustaining the infinite (which is absurd) and the finite understanding the infinite (which is not absurd). I've shown you a clear contradiction in what you say, such that it amounts to x = not x. You have shown me no contradiction. A non-Infinite being understanding the Infinite is not the same as saying the Infinite = not Infinite. You have not shown me x = not x. I have shown you that x = not x.
Is it fair to say that we are in a deadlock between what we regard to be the more critical contradiction?

No because x = not x is clearly a contradiction. Whilst I acknowledge that it is absurd for something finite to contain something infinite (precisely because our understanding of both finite and infinity dictates that the finite cannot contain the infinite), I reject that it is impossible for the non-Infinite to understand the Infinite. If there was no such thing as the Infinite or the Perfect, then yes, I accept that it would be impossible for us to conceive of that which there is no such thing of. I clearly understand Infinity and Perfection. It is not the case that there is no such thing as Infinity and Perfection. A finite computer with a finite amount of memory, cannot have access to an infinite number of files. But if it had access to the cloud, and the cloud was infinite, then it would have access to an infinite number of files (provided that the computer seeks access and the cloud grants it access). Do you not see??? Is this a better route? Or the one where we reject the meaningfulness of infinity, and instead accept x = not x?

Consider this: Do you not have to understand what infinity is to be able to say that the finite cannot contain the infinite????

I've said that I could even grant you that our finite conceptions could conceive of the infinite, and it wouldn't affect my argument one bit.

I don't think you granted me this. I'd have thought I'd have made the following point to you if you had: The Infinite and the Perfect are attributes that are beyond/greater than the finite and imperfect. If the finite can conceive of the infinite, then the imperfect can conceive of the perfect. The imperfect (not divine) can conceive of the Perfect (Divine). The fact that you would say 'it wouldn't affect my argument one bit' warrants the following question: Are you sure you don't have a horse in this race?
My horse is in the race of whether God can exist to us or not, because He cannot. And this is a problem that tangents do not solve.

So you would sacrifice the semantics of Infinity and Perfection, saying they have no semantical value to you, and instead seek refuge in x = not x as a 'coherent/rational/understandable/sensible/intelligible/wise' belief system about the way Existence is?
Certainly real

Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Certainly real wrote:So you would sacrifice the semantics of Infinity and Perfection, saying they have no semantical value to you, and instead seek refuge in x = not x as a 'coherent/rational/understandable/sensible/intelligible/wise' belief system about the way Existence is?

Haven't I already covered how this is not a sacrifice that I'm making?
I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned how people can be mistaken in their usage of terms.
In a recent reply to obsrvr on this thread I remember explaining how all sorts of finite associations come to mind when any word is communicated - whether it's internally valid or not. When somebody says "square circle" my mind doesn't draw a blank - I think of both squares and circles and their relative similarities and differences, my mind tries to force them into being compatible somehow, and naturally it fails. It's this process that ends up giving the term "square circle" semantic value - the only semantic value that it can have as a term (to represent the failure to instantiate a contradiction), yet without lending any semblence of existence to what is intended by the term. Do you see what's going on here?

So when somebody says "infinity" or "nothing" the mind goes through this same kind of process, recalling multiple existent associations of finite somethingness, and trying to mentally manipulate them into something that works as a final result. The semantic value of each term remains, just not as intended. You can try and force "square circles" into existent finite somethingness within one's conception, and you agree that it's futile. You can try and force "nothing" to result from one's conception of finite somethings, and you agree that it's impossible. You can try and force "infinity" to result from one's conceptions of finite somethings, and somehow you don't accept that it's impossible in just this one particular case. And I have to say it's just a little convenient, because proof of an omnipotent being relies on it. Rhetorical question here: why not acknowledge the contradiction of infinity to human conception, and then conclude that the other contradiction of "nothing" has to be the case, instead of doing the reverse? I'm just pointing out that you should be consistent and reject both contradictions, and not "be forced through pure reason" to accept the contradiction you prefer because you're otherwise out of options (so long as you remain constrained by your premises and definitions).

But I think we've established this isn't something you're going to accept, so as I keep saying: it makes no difference to the argument I'm actually making categorically disproving God. We really can just let this infinity thing slide on that account, I won't judge you.

Just to sum up though - no semantics were sacrificed in the making of my posts.
The imperfect can only attempt to conceive of the perfect. The finite can only attempt to conceive of the infinite. The semantics of the terms remain, but upon examination: not as intended. In the case of the perfect, conception ends up being of its opposite: imperfect. In the case of the infinite, conception ends up being of its opposite: finite. In the case of "God", conception ends up being of its opposite: the mundane and natural just like anything else ungodly. None of these cases relies on the others being true, they just follow the same logic. Infinity and perfection could both be completely conceivable and God still couldn't be conceivable and therefore doesn't exist to us necessarily by definition. So again - feel free to argue about infinity ad nauseum, and it won't undo the logic that means God does not and cannot exist to humans. Honestly, I get your arguments and the sense you're trying to make - you don't need to keep restating them.

As a side note - it's interesting that you bring up the example of a computer. You can program things like dividing by zero to return the value "infinity", but obviously it's not returning an infinitely long string of numbers. It's just programmed to return a finite value like an error catch. A condition can be set up, such that if something returns a specific type of error, what your screen says is that "infinity" is being returned - but in actual fact it's just a certain type of finitude. The exact same sort of process goes on in the human mind, which the computer is merely emulating. The human brain is neurons either firing or not, and likewise computer circuits are either conducting electricity or not. The only real difference is what the hardware is made of and how it's set up - which "neural nets" are now copying in AI research etc. The cloud isn't infinite either - it's all constrained by server sizes just the same as any data storage system.

And just to confirm: I'm not accepting "x = not x". That's just the only sense you're able to make of my arguments so far. But what you're doing is saying there's 2 options, one of them is "x = not x" so the other has to be true. I'm pointing out that both the options that you're limiting yourself to are "x = not x", so you should revise your definitions and premises. You don't like the idea of trying to do that, and it just so happens to be problematic for your beliefs for you to want to try. It seems to be enough for you to reject a third way out of hand, simply because you're already satisfied with the premises and definitions that you already have, because you don't think infinity being mentally encompassed by finitude is a problem. You clearly think you understand infinity and perfection, I don't dispute that. I can explain what I explained above, but can't force you to see what has to be actually going on to prevent you from actually being able. You can keep restating all the reasoning, but I already get what you're trying to say, it's just not what's happening.

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Silhouette wrote:Haven't I already covered how this is not a sacrifice that I'm making?

I don't believe you have. I will summarise our discussion regarding this very point. Feel free to add to it or correct it if it is lacking or wrong.

C: Can something come from nothing?
S: Yes, but there is a difference between nothing and 'absolute nothing'.
C: Either x is a thing or it is not a thing.
S: I agree that 'absolute nothing' is absurd. But there is a third option between absolutely nothing and something. Nothing is not absurd.
C: Has existence always existed?
S: No
C: If existence has not always existed, then that means non-existence (not existence) once existed. Not-existence existing, or, not existing existing is an absurdity because it amounts to literally saying x = not x. Between choosing existence has always existed (which means we acknowledge that we understand infinity) and x = not x (not existing existing) which should we choose? Should we sacrifice Perfection and Infinity for x = not x, all in the name of 'we are finite human beings'? Again, I acknowledge that it is absurd for the finite to be Infinite. I also acknowledge that it is absurd for the finite to sustain/encompass/contain the Infinite. But there is no contradiction in a non-infinite being understanding the Infinite, just as there is no contradiction in understanding what a triangle or duck or omnipresent thing is without us having to be any of those things.
S: I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned how people can be mistaken in their usage of terms.

Am I mistaken about the usage of the term 'existence'? Am I mistaken in saying existence has always existed? Is there something between existing and not existing? Is there something between existence and non-existence? If the answer is not yes to any of these questions, then why do you reject that you understand the following: Existence has always existed and will always exist. Or do you prefer to say that you have an 'understanding' of existence that neither claims existence has always existed, nor that existence came from non-existence? Again, either x has always existed, or x has not always existed. There is no other option for x is there???

Again, this is relevant to this topic because if a we can understand infinity, then an imperfect non-divine being can understand a perfect divine being. This is because both the infinite and the perfect are beyond us. As in we are neither Infinite nor Perfect. Just as we are not God/Existence.
Certainly real

Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Certainly real wrote:I will summarise our discussion regarding this very point. Feel free to add to it or correct it if it is lacking or wrong.

C: Can something come from nothing?
S: Yes, but there is a difference between nothing and 'absolute nothing'. The "most" nothing that is physically possible is as "absolutely" nothing as you can conceive, except it physically cannot have removed from it a potential that results from the uncertainty principle. For all intents and purposes it is "absolute" nothing in between these fluctuations, which empirically occur all the time at the quantum level. That's just what happens. The human everyday intuitions of "something" or "nothing" both apply and don't apply at this level. Complain all you like that the quantum level doesn't comply to the normal human experience that we're used to, but that doesn't change the facts. Its your definitions and premises that need tweaking to fit the world, not the world to fit your preconceptions and biases. That's the kind of error that people like JSS are being made infamous for.
C: Either x is a thing or it is not a thing.
S: I agree that 'absolute nothing' is absurd. But there is a third option between absolutely nothing and something. Nothing is not absurd. "Absolute" nothingness, as if it could occur without quantum fluctuations, which it physically cannot, is absurd. The third option isn't "between nothing and something" as if it's neither. These respective states both apply and don't apply at all times at the quantum level, they're more just like bad terms that don't actually describe things well at a precise level, like we used to think they did in the days of classical physics where measurements were so much less advanced.
C: Has existence always existed?
S: No Quantum fluctuations appear to have always occurred, even though for all intents and purposes there was "nothing" existing in the classical sense. But including the existence of the kind of "potential" of the uncertainty principle, it wasn't exactly "absolute" nothing. It both was and wasn't - the classical definitions, preconceptions and biases had to be revised after we gained a glimpse into quantum mechanics.
C: If existence has not always existed, then that means non-existence (not existence) once existed. Not-existence existing, or, not existing existing is an absurdity because it amounts to literally saying x = not x. Between choosing existence has always existed (which means we acknowledge that we understand infinity) and x = not x (not existing existing) which should we choose? Should we sacrifice Perfection and Infinity for x = not x, all in the name of 'we are finite human beings'? Again, I acknowledge that it is absurd for the finite to be Infinite. I also acknowledge that it is absurd for the finite to sustain/encompass/contain the Infinite. But there is no contradiction in a non-infinite being understanding the Infinite, just as there is no contradiction in understanding what a triangle or duck or omnipresent thing is without us having to be any of those things.
S: I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned how people can be mistaken in their usage of terms. Sticking with classical definitions is all that makes this difficult for you.

But I mean, these blue additions are theoretical physics. I haven't made professional efforts to get into this, I just have an interested overview. You can do the experiments and study yourself, but the sense you will be able to make of it will depend on your intellectual stubbornness. If you insist on digging your heels in at the classical level, it will forever remain a mystery to you, but it doesn't have to be that way. And there may even be additional layers to the onion that emerge once philosophers like us actually get our heads around it. You're not even a bad philosopher: your weakness is not your ascertaining of logical validity - that seems fine to me this far. It's the evaluation of logical soundness that is holding you back. And believe me when I say that puts you at a far higher standard than most here (as I think you've been realising from others on this thread?)

Certainly real wrote:Am I mistaken about the usage of the term 'existence'? Am I mistaken in saying existence has always existed? Is there something between existing and not existing? Is there something between existence and non-existence? If the answer is not yes to any of these questions, then why do you reject that you understand the following: Existence has always existed and will always exist. Or do you prefer to say that you have an 'understanding' of existence that neither claims existence has always existed, nor that existence came from non-existence? Again, either x has always existed, or x has not always existed. There is no other option for x is there???

To repeat yet again, I'm not saying theoretical physics is absolutely true - I'm saying an advanced level of intellectual agility allows you to gain better insight into what's actually going on at the smallest of scales, which can free you from the shackles of classical thinking that had to go through a theological phase before it really got to a sufficient level of physical understanding. My proof bypasses the whole thing - not even needing to answer the whole infinity/nothingness (supposed) dilemma at all just to disprove God.

Certainly real wrote:Again, this is relevant to this topic because if a we can understand infinity, then an imperfect non-divine being can understand a perfect divine being. This is because both the infinite and the perfect are beyond us. As in we are neither Infinite nor Perfect. Just as we are not God/Existence.

"If we can understanding infinity, then a finite being can understand infinite being", you mean? It's quite the step to add the qualitative (perfect) to the quantitative (infinite). And even if we could, perfection and infinity would be within human conception just like anything else within a mundane universe, so what then would divine be? Beyond perfection? Beyond infinity? What would be special about the divine? Would we then be able to entirely conceive of God? What then would be particularly godly about just another thing of which humans could entirely conceive? See, I could even grant you infinity AND perfection, and still we couldn't get to "God". Infinity is just the first hurdle that, for you, quantum physics is getting in the way of. Only after that "perfection", and only after even that: "God". Good luck - you have all the best thinkers in history to get beyond before you can even begin with proving an "omnipotent being". If even quantum mechanics is getting in your way, even the most valid of logic won't be able to help you - you need sound logic (based on true premises), yet you remain anchored to classical definitions, conceptions, biases and preconceptions.

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: Proof of an omnipotent being

Certainly Real, if you have the time, I would appreciate your view on this subject concerning logic, semantics, infinity, and infinitesimals - but on that thread, not this one.
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

PreviousNext