Proof of an omnipotent being

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
341

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.

342

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…

343

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?

344

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.

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).

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?

345

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.”

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.

346

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

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.

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 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?

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?

347

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.

348

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.

349

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?)

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.

“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.

350

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. :smiley:

351

Glad we are contributing into what this powerful thing is, because otherwise you just cant control it.

352

Sure, Godwilling I’ll have a look tomorrow.

Silhouette, hopefully, I’ll reply to you tomorrow.

353

Ah, I was starting to wonder if I’d driven you away.

I get the feeling your reply will be to continue to try and convince me of the logic based on classical premises. I can assure you there’s no need - I need to stress that I get your argument, and the validity is fine, just not the soundness. It’s the premises that both logic and evidence show to need tweaking, and I can see you’re firmly convinced by the definitions you’re using. So I don’t see the infinity/nothing discussion going anywhere fast - but at least that leaves my actual argument open to discussion instead, which as I explained doesn’t rely on infinity or nothingness:

354

I am still unclear as to what your stance is on this issue. Does no mean yes? Or does it mean no and yes at the same time? You say: “It both was and wasn’t”. So x both is x and isn’t x. x both is a triangle and a square. x both is existence and non-existence. How is this not blatantly absurd? Why do you hold on to it?

If x is an absurd proposition, then it is an absurd proposition regardless of whether it is a part of ‘religion’ or ‘theoretical physics’.

All xs have y, therefore, that could be an x because it has y. This is a valid argument. What semantics get attached to x and y, will determine if the argument is sound or not. For example if x = triangle and y = sides, the argument is sound. If x = triangle and y = four sides, then the argument is not sound because it is paradoxical. There is never an instance of x being both x and not x at the same time. If an argument is invalid (as is the case with x is both x and not x), then it is definitively not sound.

I am all in favour of not being dogmatic and stagnant. I am not in favour of being paradoxical by embracing or believing in paradoxes. Believing in paradoxes is the root of all problems/wars/conflict/disease/evil/loss of good.

I was trying to accommodate and respond to your line of reasoning. Whether x is qualitatively or quantitatively greater than us (in the sense of finite to infinite and imperfect to perfect…not in the sense of there are more John’s than me in this room, or, John is taller (a quantitative measurement) and better looking than me (finite to finite, imperfect to imperfect) makes no difference. The core of your argument is that we cannot understand greater than us. If I prove to you that it is impossible for us to reject that we understand the Infinite, your argument regarding an imperfect being being able to understand that which is greater than itself (a perfect being) falls.

But you are not accepting these semantics that you are surely aware of and have access to. This seems to be the closest you’ve come to considering them so it warrants that I reiterate the following:

Our understanding of Existence/Perfection is incomplete and will always be imperfect and incomplete…because we are imperfect and incomplete. Existence/Perfection will have additional layers or aspects to it such that if we were exposed to them, we would be in utter awe of them (like a blind man being able to see for the first time). If we then conclude “this is truly divine/perfect”, we would be doing wrong. No matter how in awe of Existence/God we may be at any given point in time, the truth is that only God Knows what it’s like to be God. Knowing what it’s like to be God is Truly/Perfectly/Completely Divine. Despite us knowing that God Knows what it’s like to be God, we know that we don’t know what it’s like to be God and that we will never know this. This does not rule us out of being aware of the fact that an Infinite and Perfect Existence/Being exists. Yes, certain aspects of it will always be beyond our understanding, but not all aspects of it. For example, the fact that it is at least as real as us, or that it encompasses at least three spatial dimensions, are absolute truths in relation to Existence/God such that rejecting them is blatantly paradoxical.

And if you say to me that we can understand Existence because it is not greater than us, but we cannot understand God because it is greater than us, then I say to you the following: Is Existence Infinite or not? Can you non-paradoxically describe Existence as non-infinite? See all the above, you cannot.

355

All humans have toes, therefore, Bowser is a human because it has toes. Dogs everywhere should be proud. O:)

I’m sure you aren’t going to win your argument with Sil either. :smiley:

356

You’re right. My mistake. Thank you for pointing it out. I’ll go correct it now.

357

CR:

I’m going to repeat this…

Your concept of god is what you’d want to be if you were god. It shows more about you than god.

Look up and seriously study strange loops and holograms.

There is a way to make everyone god, not only that, there’s a way to make everyone god for loving each individual being for who they are without hurting another person.

Edit: the best life you can have is to be loved for who you are by everyone. Everyone wants that for themselves. Stop thinking in terms of the supreme beloved over all. Everyone wants that!

Your psychology is currently repugnant. Your ignorance to this regard … astounding.

358

Me saying “it both was and wasn’t” is saying x both is y and isn’t y, not “x both is x and isn’t x”. Clearly many things are both one thing and something else, so there really isn’t any logical issue on that account. But if y and not y are absolutely mutually exclusive and exhaustive of all options, as you conceive of something and nothing due to your classical definitions, then of course there’s going to appear to you to be a logical issue on that account. That’s why I’m saying your logical validity isn’t your problem, it’s your logical soundness. Unfortunately it’s not as simple and clearcut at the quantum scale, as it is in your mental conception. Therefore I suggest adjusting your mental conception of “something” vs “nothing” in order to accept that the quantum scale messes with your everyday human intuitions. Quantum physics is infamous for this - there’s really strange stuff going on down there, like “superpositions” where states really can be both one way and their opposite simultaneously. It should be easy to see how this applies to the something/nothing debate that we seem to be inescapably sidetracked on. If a state is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from nothing, yet there are quantum fluctuations that you might also want to think of as something, then which is it? Does it really have to be either one or the other according to the simplistic clearcut classical intuition? I’m not even trying to argue against your repeated rewordings of your validity - just the soundness. And I’m doing it because of what really happens at the quantum level, not just to “hold on” to some “blatant absurdity” as it would be on the normal everyday human level.

If you can’t see what I’m getting at here, then unfortunately you’re going to have to remain unclear with regard to my stance. That’s why I keep referring you to quantum physics, because we’re not going to be able to move past this impasse if you keep protesting your validity based on your classical framework.

Then it’s fortunate that it only seems absurd according to classical intuitions about the normal human experience above the quantum level.
It probably wouldn’t be unwarranted to call the quantum level “absurd” in a colloquial sense, because it seems so crazy, but technically it isn’t actually absurd because it’s what’s literally happening according to repeatable experiment. So the only thing we can do in this case is to accept that the real world isn’t absurd (because it’s existent) and it’s out definitions that are absurd. The definitions become what we need to revaluate in light of the evidence. It’s “dogmatic and stagnant” to insist on the classical intuitions and reject the evidence - that certainly is a root of many “problems/wars/conflicts/diseases/evil/loss of good”. Adaptability is what humans are forced to do to survive, forcing us to evaluate our traditional intuitions in light of new evidence. How many conflicts have historically risen between traditionalists and progressives? It doesn’t make you wrong to “prefer” the simplicity and clarity of classical intuitions, and you don’t have to completely throw them out just to acknowledge that empircal experiment shows them to not always apply. So don’t feel like you’ve “lost” this argument just by acknowledging “quantum weirdness”, which you already have done when you commented on the double slit experiment. This is something you already know, and I agree that it’s regretable that it muddies the waters. That’s the hazard of new ground - it always seems to mess with what you always took for granted before - surely you agree?

You’re not doing yourself any favours by phrasing “the core of my argument” as “we cannot understand greater than us”.
“Greater” could mean anything, like “infinity”, which I keep saying has nothing to do with my argument - so more specificity is needed than “greater”.
I’m saying we cannot even conceive of that which has to be by definition beyond our finite conception of “somethings”. If it were just size or scale that were a problem then infinity would be an appropriate avenue for you to go down - but that doesn’t get to the core of my argument: it’s extraneous as I keep trying to explain for you. There’s nothing specifically divine about how big something is, because size and scale are just normal human measures of the mundane natural universe. In fact any kind of evaluation that applies to the mundane natural universe isn’t really appropriate to get at the core of what constitutes divinity, because to get at the essence of divinity has to go sufficiently beyond normal mundane natural measures. There has to be some “x-factor” involved to take something from mundane to divine - which at the very least gets us beyond how big something is. This x-factor has to be something beyond our human conception, and might even include “infinitude” as a side - that’s extraneous - but ultimately it has to be something beyond our human conception to qualify as divine to us. Given “God”, He could be as perfect and awesome as you like, but what (beyond infinitude and perfection) is it that really shifts the balance from mundane to divine here? Surely something beyond our human measures of which we mundanely conceive and mundanely apply to the mundane natural universe routinely? You see the critical difference here that “the core my argument” is actually getting at? The whole problem that I’m highlighting is that all we can do is think in terms of how finite or otherwise something is, or how relatively “perfect” it is - when what’s required of us to be conceiving of divinity is something that has to be by definition beyond our human conception in order to qualify as godly. So we have no chance when it comes to “God” - we just invariably end up with something conceived in mundane terms that we mundanely conceive, as conceivable by us only through the fact that they can apply to the mundane world. So God doesn’t and cannot exist to our merely human conception - it’s something else, “lesser” and mundane that exists to us that we only mistakenly think of as divine and “God”, and it has to be this way by definition.

I’ve been considering everything you’ve been you’ve been saying - I’ve not come any “closer” to considering you in this respect because I already fully understand your argument, but I guess it’s promising that you think I’m getting closer.

I’m glad that we agree that “Our understanding of Existence/Perfection is incomplete and will always be imperfect and incomplete…because we are imperfect and incomplete”.
I’m glad that we agree that “If we then conclude “this is truly divine/perfect”, we would be doing wrong” - you’re actually agreeing with my argument here, whether you realise/admit it or not.
Indeed “we know that we don’t know what it’s like to be God and that we will never know this”, but we also know that we don’t know what “godly” even is, because it has to be something beyond our mundane conceptions of mundane concepts in order to qualify as “divine”. All we can come up with is mundane conceptions of mundane concepts, which surely don’t present as “God” to us, but something “lesser” and mundane that exists, which we only mistakenly think of as divine and “God”, and it has to be this way by definition.
So if we can’t do any of this satisfactorily, how can we possibly still be aware of something divine? Even if there were tons of aspects of some supposed divinity that were mundane such that we could conceive of them, our conception would still solely be of mundanity. And our conception would still be of nothing divine - even if we could even conceive of divinity existing such as to say that one existed and we only see a bit of it (the wholly mundane bit). But the reality is that by definition we can’t even conceive of being able to state the existence of such a thing. We can’t even conceive of it to say it exists and we only see a bit. So how can we even begin to say “there’s more” than our human conception at work here? How can we even conceive of divinity to say that that’s what it is that is “more”? None of this is within our merely human capabilities. Three dimensions is humanly conceivable, more than three is conceivable - the list of mundane conceptions can go on as long as you like and it would still never touch what makes God “God” - the only thing we’d need to know such that anything at all could be “divine” to us. It’s “blatantly paradoxical” to think we can do any of what we need to be able to do to even conceive of God with any consistency.

359

If you are conceiving of consistency, you are conceiving of God.

“God is the fundamental Principle that causes the universe to be what it is - Consistency” - James S Saint

Quantum physics promotes belief in inconsistency - “a thing can be what it is and what it isn’t at the same time” - anti-logic (anti- “A is A”) - Godlessness.

360

Obsrvr,

You have no nuance and neither does James …

“A” as an equality to its own symbol cannot work with another symbol spatially distant from it: Say this “A”

So now you have to understand more about existence than James did. (Quantum and perceptual acuity equalities) I’m not even close to the same being James used to debate years ago. It’d be really be nice to talk with him here again with his username …

But here we are.