But you just said earlier that a triangle is always three sided… Does that change? Does a triangle not exist because this never changes?
So we can gather that triangles come and go, maybe even no two alike, but they are still triangles, and that never changes.
So what you’re doing is idealizing the omnistates in this sense … No two omnistates are the same, but they are still omnistates.
This still refutes your argument, because this reduces to: no two everything that is, is the same, but they are still everything that is. Once you raise this discussion to that level, it contradicts itself immediately. So I would ask you to reconsider how you’re trying to argue this state, like I am with certainly real… Both of your arguments reduce to incoherency, and my argument that what pervades is necessarily not all pervading… You should understand this from your use of “affectance” to describe your conceptualization – if it was all pervading, there wouldn’t be anything outside of it, to discern that it actually was all pervading.
As I have explained many times; there are two realms of existence; Conceptual and Physical. The conceptual realm has things that AFFECT the other things in that realm, thus each exists … in that realm. A straight line affects what a triangle or square is or isn’t. But those non-changing concepts do NOT change anything in the Physical Realm and thus do not exist in the physical realm.
As pointed out in ancient Greece, there is the “mortal/physical realm” and the “divine/metaphysical realm”. They are separate and contain things that only exist within their own realm. Neither realm can affect the other.
No. As a whole, they are not changing me, nor am I changing the fact they they exist. I exist as a physical entity in one realm and a conceptual entity in the other. Thus everything within each realm potentially affects one or the other part of me (and everyone else). Me deducing the fact that they must exist doesn’t change anything but me changing me.
As impervious as such a separateness couldbe held, between the physical and conceptual, does not the
Positing of an ‘essence’ coincide the meaning of that essence with God? Now, since with God all things are possible, does not that possibility make a reduction to necessity a kind of jumping the gun? The possibility is only a possible necessity, within it’s own
Context and duration. Therefore such effort is reductive, and untimely. Therefore, Revelation, is only prophetic, within the realms of possibility. We are free, not to insist on it. The value of existenzphilosophy is precisely in this: To retrograde the phenomenological intent afforded to the God of Being, and uphold the naive, phenomenal access to
The godless existence of an alienated humanity. Therefore, in this sense, God becomes a phenomenal contingency , intransient, and probably, essentially reductive, in other realms , as a necessity. However He dwells neither in this or that other reality, but in both , this and that. It is only this essential quality which makes Him separate from himself.
Leibniz was famous for his belief not only in a single entity like this, but rationalized that it made the best possible existence, and that, that’s what we’re currently in. Voltaire made fun of him for the belief, and championed many of the freedoms we take for granted today.
But really… How could 1% of men getting almost all the sexual variety in the species even be remotely close to the best possible outcome … Especially since not only can we prove problems in stratification, but also problems with the traits of those men relative to the have nots.
This is so absurd, as to render such discussion necessarily disproven.
Whenever I got rejected, I’d rationalize it by saying that “hey” if I was in this love, I wouldn’t have did x, and it would have altered the timeline, or “hey” if I fell in love, I’d grow bored of them and nothing left to chase.
At this point I have no choice but to realise that all of the people who rejected me are fake, hollow people, and I would have degraded myself with their presence. Sure, my IQ might not be as high as them (this one bitch had a 185 iq) but there is something oddly strangely hollow about them, as if they are just incredibly simple minded, 2 dimensional, with no depth of spirit to hold my interest, like holograms.
Trixie basically stole my thread finishing on topic post, with something that didn’t even address the op so I’m going to repost it, and offer advice to Trixie and others to try to avoid white noise like this in a thread, when it counters the whole op, they get swallowed and unread.
And i thought I was a narcissist. We all read your post dude. We get that only 1 percent of males get all the sexual selection and sexual stratification, it’s been said 1000 times, like my DNA machine, or Satyr’s views against equality, it’s an ILP trope.
I mentioned the rejection thing to explain how god would allow it. If you were the 1 percent of males who get all the sexual stratification, you wouldn’t complain about it, would you? Unless you really are that charitable. So maybe god made us suffer so we could fix the world for him, because he is too weak to fix it himself. Or as I said earlier maybe we would grow bored of bitches and hos. You call them cardboard figurines, if I recall. if you view them as cardboard, why do you want selection so bad?
Trixie it’s not a matter of narcissism, certainly real doesn’t frequent the boards as much as you or I, because a new page was made ( my fault too ) my post got buried, and it’s not trope to everyone, and even assuming it is, not in this context and not everyone knows about Leibniz and Voltaire and that aspect of this topic and being on topic for this topic.
And now you’re trying to make it personal. I want the James’s and the certainly reals to actually respond to this… Not get turned off because they pushed the last post button and saw what you wrote.
In that case my understanding and application of coherent was different. Ok then, my logic would then be: anything that truly makes sense rationally (not just coherent) cannot be said to be absolutely non-existent. Only irrational things are absolutely non-existent. Therefore truly rational things are either necessarily existent, or the potential for them to exist is necessarily in existence.
I know, that’s why I used it as an example. Triangle is a concept that makes clear rational sense so by my logic it can’t be an irrational/absurd/non-existent thing. But Its physical existence in our universe is irrational. So the only conclusion left is that triangles exist in some aspect of existence excluding our universe. They can’t be said to be non-existent as that would be equivalent to saying the concept of triangle = absurd/irrational.
I agree that it will necessarily be an aspect or realm of existence that is different to our universe but I don’t understand why it has to be necessarily the case that “The two realms are related, but not capable of direct affect upon each other.”
Ok, I won’t use the word “all” or “total”. It’s not an assumption. It’s a rational necessity. Everything exists in existence. Only nothing/non-existence/absurdity exists outside of existence. The idea that existence is infinite is not absurd (no contradictions occur). The idea that existence is finite is absurd (contradictions occur). So that which is infinite is best qualified for the title of existence.
That which sustains the sustainer of everything is a non-existent thing. In other words the idea of “something sustaining the sustainer of everything” is irrational. Exactly like the idea of a square circle is irrational and so many other words or concepts that can be put together to generate irrationality. Whatever is irrational is not related to existence. So it is related to non-existence/nothing.
I can clearly distinguish existence from non-existence. I am aware of existence. Outside of existence there is non-existence and I cognize/distinguish existence from non-existence. Also your point on Leibniz is not relevant here. I am not here to argue that our Universe is the best possible one because whether it is or not makes no difference to the nature of existence. It makes no difference to it being infinite, omnipresent,omnipotent and omniscient.
Very simply, it is proces, process, process. If You were to adhere to conceptualists presupposition, then it is bound that a non theism is not conceivable before a theism.
It’s like saying, bad can be conceived before good, pain before pleasure, darkness before light,
unconsciousness before consciousness.
This is not the way it works. The concept evolved for reason, or, reasons why they did. It was not done in
order to develop a succeeding negation of it.
Intentionality did not come into existence matter of factly. There is that sign of denying conceptual development, the same way science’s limitations
demand detractors. It posits science, with powers
beyond it’s scope. After all, there may be an infinite number of sciences out there to accommodate as many star systems or universes. In a very basic
sense there is different gravitational systems out
there, demanding completely different analysis.
We are becoming humanly-ethno.
When Einstein said : God does not play dice with the universe, he meant the elegantly basic rules of mathematics underlying the hypotheticals of the physical sciences, meaning they define logical necessity inherently.
Einstein did not want an universe that is open and changes the dense of its matter. He wanted a closed universe in which the dense of the matter does not change.