For the sake of efficiency, I will address your points, and then ask you questions to pin point what has not been addressed. Please answer the questions directly as that way I can be certain that the points that I’m making in response to your points, are being directly addressed. I am happy to answer any question you ask of me, or address any point that you think I have not addressed.
I understand infinity, yet, I am not infinite. Given your argument, how do you account for this? Do you say that infinity has 0 meaning because I am not infinite (in the same way that you seem to imply Perfect/God has 0 meaning because I am not Perfect/God and Perfect/God is beyond my comprehension)? Should infinity not be beyond your comprehension by that same line of reasoning? Or is there another argument to be had here to account for why I understand the Infinite, but not God or that which is Perfect?
We are wholly in agreement on this. Our understanding/conception of God/Perfection, is imperfect and incomplete, just as our understanding of Existence is imperfect and incomplete. But as I’ve already highlighted, an incomplete or imperfect understanding of something does not equal to having no understanding of that thing. Even if there are things about a given thing that will always be beyond our conception, it does not follow from this, that all aspects of that thing will be beyond our conception. Why should it? I do not think you have addressed this point that I am making.
Again, even if there are things about a given thing that will always be beyond our conception, it does not follow from this, that all aspects of that thing will be beyond our conception. Why should it? Is an imperfect understanding of Existence still an understanding of Existence? It does not matter if there may, or, certainly will be aspects of Existence that will be always beyond our comprehension. So long as there are things about Existence that we understand such that its rejection is absurd, we must acknowledge these things as being necessary truths. The same applies for the Perfect. For example, Existence/the Perfect/the Inifnite is Omnipresent, Infinite, Perfect. Existence exists. Existence is at least 3D. We don’t have to be Omnipresent or Infinite to understand these concepts. Again, shouldn’t the infinite be beyond our comprehension given that we are not infinite? We don’t have to be Perfect to understand Perfect. These are undeniable truths even though we are not perfect/infinite and our understanding of Existence is imperfect and incomplete.
I’ve addressed this point in the above. To address my points, please respond to the questions directly so that I can clearly see your response to those points.
Again, see above and my point on Infinity.
If Perfection constitutes 0 meaning for you, what do you say of the following: There is nothing better than a perfect existence. Such an existence logically entails that everyone gets what they truly deserve. Can you really describe the last two sentences as being meaningless to you as a round square or sdjgsdjl? If yes, then we will have to agree to disagree. For me, those sentences (and many other attributes that are semantical components of Perfection) are clearly meaningful.
The way I typically debate is that I don’t backtrack, and I ignore lots of things that I can debate…
So here you are stating that god (or rather ‘perfection’) must be omnipresent. Slight problem with this: if god were omnipresent, we’d all exactly be god. That’s what presence is: it’s YOU being there.
If you were omnipresent, we’d all be you. If I were omnipresent, we’d all be me. Pure logic; pure reason.
I’ve meditated on infinity with a decent mind obsessively for decades … I’m actually clinically diagnosed as having obsessive personality disorder (it’s not in the DSM yet), normally, that would just make me a stalker, but I’m not, I devote my obsession to solving problems in existence; that’s what I do with it.
I wasn’t using a throw-away sentence when I stated that perfection evolves. Maybe you can step outside your world view for a moment and understand that the evolution of perfection is what makes perfection perfect.
Think about this for a moment… I’ve thought a lot about the god concept as well… how fucking boring would it be for infinity and perfection to be static?
It’d be the most boring shit ever, and FOREVER!!
If perfection exists in the manner that you’re trying to will it upon your hypothetical god (a static, done deal)…
I’m going to defend god against your retarded wish upon god … I’m going to say to god, “sorry about CR Dude”
No. Existence is everywhere, yet you and I are not Existence. Existence is Omnipresent, we are not. We’re made out of atoms. We are not atoms. Pure reason dictates that if you do not have one Omnipresent entity within which all things exist in, you have a paradox. Yes, it’s you being there, but it’s not you being there independently of Existence being there. Every atom in your body exists because Existence exists. No atom in your body is present separate to or independently of Existence. Try highlighting one place where Existence doesn’t exist. You can’t. Trying highlighting one place where you don’t exist. You can. I think this should suffice in highlighting to you the difference between that which is Omnipresent, and that which is not.
If I’m discussing triangles with you, I’m not gonna deny that we’re talking about that which is three-sided in the name of stepping outside my world view. The semantic of triangle is what it is. So is perfection. That which no greater than can be conceived of, is no longer perfect when it can be improved. Evolution of perfection, is as absurd as a four sided triangle. Why don’t you step outside your world view? Your world view is contradictory. We’re not talking about something that’s open to interpretation. We’re talking about pure reason. There’s right and there’s wrong. Why don’t you uphold pure reason?
What I’ve described of God and Existence and Perfection, are matters of pure reason. They are KNOWNS. As in denying Omnipresence or any of the other traits I have attributed to God/Existence, would be blatantly paradoxical. There are of course unknowns regarding God. Such as what it’s like to be Omnipresent, or what it’s like to be Omniscient. Or does Omnipresence logically imply being static, and so on. You do not embrace absurdities in the name of unknowns. Specifically here:
You should not decide God is not Perfect, Omnipresent or Infinite, when it’s absurd to do so. What it’s like to be Omniscient and Omnipresent, is an unknown. It is not an absurdity. Looking at yourself and concluding that you’re not omnipresent, and then conjecturing what it’s like to omnipresent (your point about it being boring to be omnipresent) and then suggesting that you can embrace absurdity (God/Existence is not Perfect), is a case of embracing absurdities in the name of unknowns. This is wrong.
You’re only responsible for yourself. Why don’t you try being purer in your exercise of pure reason? Given the Perfection of Existence, that would be better for you.
And there’s another misunderstanding that you have.
You think existence is omnipresent. That’s not possible. Otherness is required of existence. In order for things to be perceived, there must always be an “outside of”. This is true even for god. No “outside of” no ability to discern. Otherness is the law, not omnipresence.
I know quite a bit about blending spirits, I’ve done it for years. When a spirit enters you, they become you, when you enter a spirit, you become it. I factually know (because I’ve lived it) what omnipresence means when taken to its highest logical conclusion… everything is exactly the same, which means that there’s no otherness, which solves as non existence.
And then you talk about sub-omniscience; in the context of omnipresence… there’s a problem with omniscience as a whole. Knowing that you don’t know something is a type of knowledge. A knowledge that you claim is impossible for god. So how can god know exactly what it’s like to be me who is ignorant of an infinite amount of shit, unless god is ignorant of an infinite amount of shit to? God can’t know that. Every other being in existence knows something god doesn’t know.
I’ll get to the rest later… sorry in a current rush
I know it’s impossible for Existence to be non-omnipresent. What separates two non-omnipresent beings from each other? Non-existence? There must be one thing that connects and sustains all things. A non-omnipresent Existence is paradoxical.
Otherness is still present here. There is the Omnipresent, the Infinite. And there is the non-omnipresent the non-infinite. We are of the latter.
Regarding Omniscience, we have had this conversation before. In short, you are a part of Existence. Some existing thing or things give rise to the memories you have, the feelings you have and so on. This includes knowing what it’s like to be ignorant. All that’s needed, is appropriate and adequate reach and access to those existing things. Existence has reach and access to all existing things. So it fully knows all that is knowable (including knowing what it’s like to be ignorant, or what it’s like to be me or you). How can that which produced us and gave us our sentience, not fully know us? Also, keep in mind, what it’s like to be Omniscient, is an unknown to all non-God beings. What it’s like to be you or me, is known to at least you, me, and God. An imperfect existence, is an absurdity.
It’s logically impossible to know something and not know something at the same exact time… something that omniscience omnipresence requires of god.
For 2: you don’t understand existence very well. It’s not a thing that you put in a jar, existence is motion itself. To you, existence is an object; a totality. That’s why you’re so confused.
It is a logical contradiction that existence is a thing.
Existence is process and motion itself. Motion is by definition is never everywhere at once. It keeps moving. Existence is not everywhere at once.
Existence is not a piece of stale bread you grab… it’s motion itself.
It is always a direct contradiction to say that existence can exist without otherness.
You’re wrong. Knowing what it’s like to be ignorant, is either something that is knowable, or it is not something that is knowable. If x knows it, then it’s not a case of to not know x at the same time. If it is something knowable, then it does not constitute not knowing something. God needs to know what it’s like to be ignorant. If what it’s like to be ignorant is knowledge to be had, then God can have this knowledge in addition to all the other things that It knows.
It’s not something you put in anything.
I think you did not exercise attention to detail when reflecting on Existence. You say Existence is motion itself. This in itself is not nothing. In any case, the following cannot be contradicted:
Some existing Thing has to encompass and sustain all other existing things. This Thing, is a thing. It is not nothing. It is not non-existence/non-existent/nothingness. All things exist because of this Thing and within this Thing. If you want to highlight one thing that encompasses all things totally, it would be this Thing. Again, this Thing, is a thing. It is not something you put in a jar. It is not something you manipulate or change. It cannot change and It cannot be manipulated. It can change and manipulate all. It’s just the way It Is.
Check above. What you suggest logically implies that existence is not a thing. It implies that existence is nothing. It implies that existence is non-existent. You are not clear or focused on the semantic of Existence.
You are saying Existence does not exist everywhere. This is contradictory. Check above for more details on this.
There is no non-existence. Non-existence does not exist. Again, I am not Existence. I am a product of Existence. Me and Existence are not the same. Me and the Omnipresent are not the same. Bricks in a pyramid are bricks. A pyramid is a pyramid. I am I. God Is God. Existence Is Existence. That which is Perfect/Infinite/Omnipresent Is Perfect/Infinite/Omnipresent. Clearly, otherness is happening here. I am other than Existence and Existence is other than me. I exist, but I am not Existence. I am not that Thing. Existence exits and It Is Existence. It Is that Thing.
Let’s back up on the knowledge part. All your “x this and x that” stuff is very confused.
If god is eminent in all things but also additionally transcends all things, it is a necessary condition of this concept that god knows and doesn’t know the same exact thing at the same exact time. It’s just simple definitional logic.
I was also sloppy when I stated that existence is motion. What I meant to say is that existence is infinite and infinity is motion. If everything were finite, things wouldn’t ‘keep going’. Infinity by definition, never stops. That’s also why I said that it’s not a thing, it’s motion itself.
Now this ones going to tweak your brain a bit:
If something has never existed before, if it’s novel, even if it ‘came from other things’, it has to have come from nothing at all.
It’s interesting to me that you use the metaphor of existence needing to be ‘held’ by something. The only reason existence exists is because nothing by definition ‘isn’t there or anywhere’. That’s why existence exists… pure reason. No magical creator necessary. Just look at the logic, if it’s impossible (by definition for nothing to be here, there, anywhere or everywhere… then all you’re left with is something.
But you have a very curious habit of trying to define a transcendent being that ‘holds everything’ but is itself immovable. A thing. If I change all the bricks in a pyramid, it’s definitely not going to be a pyramid or that SAME pyramid.
So… I think your metaphors fall short.
I invented (my first disproof of god as people define it like you about 20 years ago). I’ll give it to you now…
If you know every reason why everything occurs and:
1.) all those reasons are outside of you, then you have no inside with which to be sentient, YOU literally cannot exist
2.) if all of those reasons are inside of you, then you have to outside with which to be sentient, YOU literally cannot exist
3.) if all of those reasons are inside and outside of you, the same applies because inside and outside at critical mass are indistinguishable from each other.
I know it really hard for you to wrap your head around what I’m about to restate…
Existence HAS to be fragmented to exist. If everything were exactly the same, it equals nothing at all. Otherness is existence. Presence in existence cannot be eminent. If it was, everything would be exactly the same. Existence is fractured and infinite. Part of the reason it’s fractured is because of infinity, it never stops. That’s what causes motion itself. Again, it’s not a thing.
This is a similar discussion I was having in another thread about what constitutes a thing and what constitutes this otherness, a second thing. I postulated that otherness is self contained in this thing we call existence, but I am getting blowback that you must have two different things to have one thing while I maintain that one thing can create more things that are different, such as animals that reproduce without another animal’s involvement. Thoughts?
It’s logically impossible for 1 thing to create two things. One thing is the same as everything being exactly the same. The only way that 1 thing can create two things without it coming from nothing at all is if two things already exist.
Your interesting procreation analogy unfortunately is already more than 1 thing. Say inseminating yourself with something within and without you.
No, parthenogenesis, EC. It’s possible to procreate without a second thing. One thing contains the potential to create other different things and then does so. Give me an example of a thing that doesn’t contain parts, differentness, aspects, dimensions, etc. within. What you are identifying as a thing does not exist because you are describing what amounts to nothing, no characteristics, no dimensions, etc.
Otherness is innate in every thing that exists represented as different aspects, traits, parts, characteristics, dimensions. If not describe some thing that lacks different aspects, traits, parts, characteristics, dimensions.
You say you understand infinity. My question is: “do you?”
I think the term “understand” needs exploration here.
Yes, we have (de)finite associations come to mind when we consider the term, and yes we can successfully isolate a de-finite meaning of the in-finite as a result that can be communicated.
Certainly nobody understands infinity “concretely” - we have limited conception that cannot contain the unlimited. “Abstract” understanding appears to be what you’re going for, which is our best shot, but it falls under my above line’s constraints.
Like a square circle, it has more than 0 meaning only insofar as we compromise on “what it is” so as to be able to understand it and communicate it meaningfully. One has to force it through a contradictory frame in order to speak of it.
Does this mean we understand these things? Obviously my contention is that no, we do not - on account of the above.
For you to claim you understand things like infinity/perfection/God, I think a good step would be to point out at which point you find objection in what I’ve just covered.
I do think I’ve fully addressed this point that you’re making - but that doesn’t guarantee that I’ve been successful in getting you to see the crucial points and distinctions.
I’ll try to use example to demonstrate the point and see if that helps:
Let’s say we have a square. We can know all sorts of things about the colours and shades within this square, and maybe even outside of it. Maybe it has a certain feel, smell, taste, maybe it even sounds a certain way, but for all these things we can know - the only things we need to know about the square is that it is a polygon a Euclidean plane with four sides of equal length and four right angles. That’s the essence of the square, and all the extraneous details about it can be many, but they do not inform us about squares.
But let’s say we know loads about all these extraneous things, as well as the fact that the polygon on a Euclidean plane has four sides and four right angles. We still don’t know it’s a square until we know the four sides are equal. Before knowing this one critical point, we can know everything that there is to know about rectangles, and still have zero proof that the polygon in question is a square. The essence of a square may encompass any number of attributes, but if there is one that we cannot access, it may not be a square after all. It might be something else.
Now let’s say that, for whatever reason, human conception necessarily cannot ascertain whether the four sides of this rectangle are equal. By definition, the square must have this final attribute in order to be confirmed as a square. In this case, the one thing we need to confirm that the thing we’re looking at is in fact a square is the one thing we cannot ever access. Is it a square? Let’s even say we know literally everything else about it. It’s still necessarily beyond us by this definition of our human conception.
Maybe everything we thought about squares was really important, if only we were able to access the one thing we needed to confirm about squares in order to conceive of them.
Maybe all this time we were merely worshipping a rectangle, Square forbid.
Maybe this rectangle, for all we knew about it, really was only a rectangle after all - and we were basing all this really important stuff on a conception that was beyond our conception.
It should long be obvious what I mean by Square here. I don’t think I can be clearer, but if you’re still objecting I’m sure I can figure out some other way around helping you to understand. In case it’s bothering you - yes it absolutely is a technicality, but it’s an absolutely critical one that makes all the difference.
So to help you understand the distinction, let’s turn to existence.
Existence is this rectangle. For all the different aspects that may be known about it, the thing that makes it existence is - let’s say - the fact that it’s a polygon. This essential quality is within our human conception, regardless of all its other aspects, and regardless of whether its four sides are equal are not. We know rectangles exist here, there are no issues with its essence. Squares however? Now there’s a problem.
I dunno, maybe if humans were rectangular, or specifically a square, then that would help? That’s not the point. The point is the equal sides (necessary essence) being necessarily beyond our human conception. That make sense now?
There is nothing better than the “most perfect” existence that can be humanly conceived, sure. That is clearly meaningful. Your version of that is that everyone gets what they “truly” deserve. That’s fine, it’s a humanly conceivable iteration of existence. As for “Perfection”, how do we know what that really is when our human conception is only “most perfect”? “Most perfect” might even be close to “Perfection”, but we only know insofar as our human conception allows us to imperfectly conceive of perfection. Anything more than “humanly conceivable” to a human is sdjgsdjl or a square circle.
I know you desperately want more than one to come from one.
All your analogies have NOTHING to do with one.
I don’t like to toot this specific horn very often, but I basically know everything. It’s my job as existences reality tester to know all the things I know.
Let me tell you a story about species in existence:
Some species reproduce only by imagining their offspring together
And then, more to your point … some species reproduce by imagining their offspring ALONE!!
The thing is Wendy, in none of these scenarios is there not an already pre-existing otherness.
You don’t know every reason for why everything occurs because you are not Omniscient. This is not a disproof of Omniscient. Not being Omniscient does not mean disprove Omniscience just as not being infinite does not disprove infinity.
So you don’t think there is one existing thing that encompasses all existing things?
You don’t have to have two different things to have one thing. I think it’s just the way Existence is now. It’s hypothetically possible for all things to be destroyed or to perish with the only thing remaining being Existence (that Thing which is Infinite and Omnipresent). For people to claim you have to have a second thing, they’d have to show how it is absurd to not have just one thing. They will not be able to do this.
It’s just the nature of the Infinite/Omnipresent that it can create finite and imperfect things. It’s just the way Existence is that triangles have three sides, most humans can have children, and that It (Existence) can bring about all hypothetical possibilities (of which include the production of unicorns, humans, planets, etc.). There are no contradictions here. To say it is impossible for humans and all all other non-infinite things to perish, is absurd, because we clearly can perish or be destroyed. All things can perish or be destroyed except the Infinite/Existence. This is because Existence perishing or being destroyed is absurd, whilst us being destroyed is not absurd. There has always been and will always necessarily be one thing (Existence). No other thing is necessary.
I think Wendy was right on that one. A thing can’t exist unless there is something that isn’t that thing, else your “thing” merely means “everything” - all existence.
Okay but now you are saying that everything could conceivably be only one thing - that existence could be a single uniform object. It is clearly provable (rationally) that existence itself is always an infinity of “things” else the only existence is a uniform “nothing”. If everything is exactly the same as everything else wth no separation - total uniformity - that is the state called “no-thing” - a blank state. There would be nothing affecting anything else so the very idea of existing would be null (physical existence is “affectance” - “affect upon affect” - I watched the video ).
God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient because God is the principle underlying or behind all physical existence - the very cause of it - the “first/primary cause of all that is” (as per James S Saint who seemed to have very good argument for that).
The proof that there is a God is simply that physical existence itself has a cause. And that cause is called “God”. James explained that cause in detail.
Call that which encompasses all existing things x. Do you think x is finite or infinite? Because if you describe x as non-infinite, we run into clear paradoxes. We run into a square circle. Now if we had 0 understanding of infinity, or, if there was 0 concreteness to our understanding of Infinity, would we be able to conclusively say a non-infinite x is absurd?
We must make a clear distinction between that which is absurd, that which is unknown, and that which is meaningful. If something is truly absurd (square circle) or truly unknown (20th sense) then we cannot use it in a meaningful way at all. If I say x is a square circle or a 20th sense, you cannot make any sense of x. But if I say x is Infinite, I am saying something that is clearly meaningful. You can differentiate between the finite and the Infinite. You can rationally tell that a finite x is absurd. You cannot differentiate between the sense of hearing and a 20th sense. You can only recognise hearing. But with infinity and finite, you recognise both. How else would one recognise that a non-infinite x is absurd if there was no concrete elements to our understanding of infinity?
Consider the above. Can you understand x to be anything other than infinite?
In your example, we don’t know if the object in question is a square or not and we can never conclusively know. But this is different to what I’m highlighting. I am saying it is clearly absurd for x to be anything other than infinite. So we conclusively know that x is infinite. To tie to your example, I am highlighting that it is clearly absurd for the thing in question to be anything other than a square. If it’s absurd for the thing in question to be anything other than a square, then the thing in question must be a square, or is necessarily a square.
I see your point here. We must not uphold or worship that which we have no knowledge of. However, the following IS knowledge: Existence Is Perfect. This = everyone getting what they truly/perfectly deserve. This very fact, is knowledge to be had. One should be in awe of this. One should rejoice at this. This fact is worthy of worship. Things that we don’t understand, such as a 20th sense (which may be an aspect of Existence) is irrelevant to our reverence and worship. You cannot worship that which makes no sense to you. You’d be fooling yourself. You’d be a liar to yourself. A perfect existence does make sense to you.
I believe I understand what you’re trying to do and what you have in mind. But it is not representative of Existence. I ask again, is x infinite or non-infinite? Bearing in mind that we must avoid paradoxes (square circles, things that exist that cannot exist, non-existence existing) all all times, what is your answer? In this, I may be able to convey to you that your square analogy (where square seems to depict the Infiniteness or Perfectness of Existence…whilst we can only make sense of Its polygon-ness) is not accurately representative of what I’ve presented here.
We don’t. I’d be surprised if that which is Perfect, is not better than what I conceived of It. We just know that that which is Perfect is at least as good as we can conceive of It. By this I mean, the outlines I’ve highlighted cannot be contradicted. This is no different than saying Existence is at least 3D, despite there being more dimensions to it than we can perceive. We cannot disregard the outlines that we know of as it would be contradictory for us to do so.
Agreed. And that which is conceivable (Existence having at least 3 dimensions, or Perfection at least encompassing everyone getting what they truly deserve) is conceivable.
It helps me to understand your position better. What further help is your understanding of whether x is finite or infinite.
That there is an infinite number of hypothetical possibilities or meaningful things (of which unicorns are included), is just the way Existence is. In this sense, you and Wendy are right. What I was trying to highlight was that it is hypothetically possible for nothing to be at least as real as you and me, other then the Infinite itself (which is arguable more real than we are).
Everything being one thing is absurd. If my post conveyed this, then my post was wrong. Everything is made up of the same thing. It is this thing that encompasses all things and connects (as well as separates) all other things from each other.
Additionally, God Is Perfect because it would be absurd for God to be imperfect.
I think you missed the point. Hypothetical possibilities are the result of not knowing - of ignorance of what is and what cannot be. If you know what a unicorn means, you can determine if it is possible. And that makes it not even hypothetically possible.
In the case of nothing being the reality - that is not even hypothetically possible. As long as there is a God, nothingness is impossible (although that isn’t the proof). I have to assume that you haven’t seen the proof so to you nothingness is a hypothetical possibility. It all depends on what you already know.
And when you say “the infinite itself” I have no idea what you are talking about.
Then your statement that there could hypothetically be only “one thing” must be absurd.
No argument there.
Worded improperly but okay - so - what?
You can say, “everything is made of energy” (or as James put it, “everything is made of affectance”) but how does that play into what you are getting at? The fact of it doesn’t mean that everything is one thing. It means that everything is made of one kind of thing. Within the variety of the make there are many variations called different “things”. What separates is what determines “things” from each other. And if there is no separation, there is no “thing” - “no-thing” - “nothing”.
Even the Buddhists when they talk about degrees of ineffability have a term for existence “dependent arising”. That’s it, that’s their term for it. They obviously figured out that 1 equals zero thousands of years ago. This is not a new idea.
James and I got into this a bit. I found James a bit absurd because he was keenly aware of the proof of 1 equals zero just like I did… he used it many times just like I did. But his conclusion about god was different than mine.
EDIT:
Actually, now that I think about it, the ancient Greeks considered the number three to be the first number (it’s a geometry thing)… 0,1,2 were ‘prototype numbers’ to them… not actual numbers.
Now James and I were smart enough to figure out the 1=0 proof just by thinking about it, like many people in the past have. Unless you know this proof, you’re always going to make absurd claims about existence or even a hypothetical supreme godhead.
).