What part of there is nothing more substantial in terms of proof than pure reason, do you not understand? The empirical observations science makes, adhere to the dictates of pure reason. That’s why science is at all good as opposed to completely useless. Where something contradicts pure reason, it is useless (if not harmful and evil).
Jesus would probably have known that pure reason is not susceptible doubt, whereas empirical observations are. If he didn’t, he would have acknowledged this when exposed to it. And no, Jesus is not God. God is God. Jesus is Jesus. There is no son of God. There are only servants of God. They serve God willingly or unwillingly. Jesus served willingly from what I gather of the Bible and the Quran (which again, is another empirical matter, and thus susceptible to doubt).
Can anyone, explain how dimensionality is expanded? You go from a one dimensional being, a mere insect’s vision of the world to two and beyond.
Both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of perceptions come into play, with an accompanied literal and figurative silmuntiaty.
This mode of conscious manifestation has always been described and noted in symbolic code, so lest if is forgotten (as if always is) it can always be re-created and re- cognized.
The phenomenal stretching can nerved be recognized within it’s own perimeters, and that is Cantor’s problem, and anyone who tried to tackle the wider and more ‘utalitarian’ problem of the difference e between the related problem of intefsubnecgive relation. on universal principles.
That was suggested by Heidegger himself in his analysis of the connection between the Dasein & Das ein., suggesting a prior, (a-priori) foundation to such difference.
The reason to include this here, is to try to examine the foundation , as present in existence’s
Being. The. nihilization of being, is developed into the existentially derived reduction.
This plays into the phenomenally reduced reality, of the ‘harmonic calculable’ (like a folding of a harmonica) - as in dimensional collapse into the one demensionable schema, a codex like signaling message system , which contains In It’s Self, the plethora of possible interpretations.
This is why reality is possibly rich with meaning, despite it’s reduced state.
This Being, this ground is what canonically be conceived as ’ God’ along weigh John’s mode of thinking. ( Where did he go?)
Okay, but I’m guessing that for the overwhelming preponderance of mere mortals interested in an omnipotent being – aka God – it’s the part where they can reconfigure their more or less blind faith into the absolute certainty that a God, the God, their God will there on Judgment Day to welcome them for all of eternity into Paradise that matters most.
Though, sure, go ahead, take your “pure reason” arguments and “proof” to them “here and now”. Stop folks at random on the street.
And then after you do come back here and note for us their reactions.
How people react to something, is irrelevant to the quality of what is being offered to them. The quality of what is being offered to them’s quality, is independent of their reactions to it. Their approval or disapproval neither adds nor takes away from this. If I stopped folks on the street and succeeded in convincing them all, and then what I proposed became mainstream, this should not be what convinces you of the dictates of pure reason. Pure reason should convince you of the dictates of pure reason, otherwise, you haven’t really understood what is being offered and so you haven’t really been convinced that what is being offered is good or not. You’ve just pretended to have understood just because everyone else is saying they acknowledge it. If it was mainstream for people to abandon/reject pure reason or to gouge out their own eyes, or to believe that someone will die to take away their sins without them taking any step towards reform and repentance, you should not accept it just because it’s mainstream.
A point of terminology usage in modal logic: “necessity” is incorrect to apply to the existence of humans.
They happen to exist right now, but they don’t have to - as is evidenced for the overwhelming majority of time and space.
It’s necessary for humans to exist in order for you to make this human argument, and the existence of a human argument necessitates the existence of humans, but all of these truths are contingent. Necessity can’t rely on contingency: relying on contingency is just possibility.
So only q is true for humans as well as unicorns. p is true for neither.
The distinction is that humans currently exist in reality and unicorns currently don’t, but at least they appear to not be too far fetched as a possibility for existence some other point in reality (or in another reality/possible universe).
At a stretch you could say that given current reality at the time of this discussion, the possibility of humans is necessarily exemplified in reality, but again this merely abbreviates to contingent necessity within possibility - placing our existence squarely in the realm of possibility and not necessity however you slice it.
There is an unappreciated jump here - from possible humans and unicorn to possible omnipotence (from which you go on to say it would therefore either exist or some into existence, which is critical to your argument).
We “understand” omnipotence to the same degree that we “understand” married bachelors or square circles. We understand all the terms involved and we understand the concept of extrapolation and tendency, and like with infinite series we can understand the beginning of some defined tendency yet understanding of the entire series is beyond our limited/finite human conception. The argument why God is an internal contradiction (like the previous examples I mentioned) is most recently laid out on this thread, with a couple of subsequent clarifications to close some questions that others asked about it in the next 4 short posts of mine on that same thread.
Additionally, due to my comment on the previous quote, the possibility and not necessity of humans and unicorns wouldn’t extend to any necessity of omnipotence anyway - as is suggested that it should in your above quoted 4th step. So due to this flaw as well, the rest of your argument doesn’t follow.
As a result of my above comments, indeed we cannot understand impossibilities, which includes not being able to understand omnipotence, so the rest of step 6 doesn’t follow.
As a whole, the argument reminds me of the various Ontological Arguments out there that also all failed to prove God.
In conclusion, unfortunately your proof of an omnipotent being is invalid.
I’ll refer again to my valid proof that God is necessarily invalid to all human conception in the link to the other thread on this forum. Given this, you don’t have to worry about proving any omnipotent being, because I show how it’s necessarily going to be impossible in my proof.
What on Earth can you offer them in the way of “pure reason”, compared to someone who is able to demonstrate empirically, materially, phenomenologically, the actual existence of a God, the God, their God able as an omnipotent being to grant them immortality and salvation?
Or this part:
Do you have any idea how many others over the years have provided us with their own “intellectual contraptions” covering much the same ground as you but coming to very different conclusions?
Let’s call it the James S. Saint Syndrome.
And that’s just at ILP! And on this planet!
There must be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of intellectual contraptions like yours “out there” on planet Earth. And if you do count the “metaphysical” accounts of God throughout the multiverse, millions and millions of them.
And, who knows, maybe one of them actually does come the closest to reconfiguring “pure reason” into demonstrable proof of the sort I’m looking for.
But, come on, get real, what are the odds that it’s you?
Still, I suspect you don’t really have the intellectual integrity even to own up to that. My guess is you have too much invested psychologically in sustaining the comfort and the consolation that your own world of words provides you.
Ok, I will not use necessity with regards to the existence of humans.
Can we imagine or understand impossibilities/absurdities? No, because by definition, that which is absurd, is meaningless. For example, whilst we can make sense of round and square, we cannot make sense of a round square because such a thing is absurd (and therefore meaningless). We must account for why some things are meaningless and why others are meaningful. Our solution is simple, that which is absurd, can never be truly real. Thus, that which is not absurd, can become as real as you and me, or, is at least as real as you and me. If it could not, then it would be a absurdity/hypothetical impossibility wouldn’t it?
We do not understand married bachelors at all. Omnipotence = being able to do all that is possible, or that which can bring about all hypothetical possibilities (clearly descriptive of Existence/God). This is meaningful and not paradoxical, whereas married bachelor is paradoxical and meaningless.
Since Omnipotence is meaningful, it is not an absurdity/hypothetical impossibility. Therefore, it is either a hypothetical possibility, or it is more than just a hypothetical possibility. For example, the concept of Existence, is more than just a hypothetical possibility. Existence doesn’t potentially/possibly exist, Existence necessarily exists such that it’s non-existence is absurd/paradoxical. Existence cannot go from a state of non-existence to Existence. Thus Existence is not a hypothetical possibility.
Similarly, for reasons laid out in the OP, nothing can become Omnipotent or Perfect from an imperfect or non-omnipotent state. Thus, Perfection and Omnipotence are not hypothetical possibilities. Therefore, either they are absurd concepts (and therefore hypothetical impossibilities), or they are meaningful concepts that are neither hypothetical impossibilities nor hypothetical possibilities. This just leaves one class of concepts. The necessary concepts. Existence was one such example (neither absurd/hypothetically impossible, nor a hypothetical possiblity, but a necessary truth) Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Infiniteness, and Perfection, are also necessary concepts. Therefore, just as Existence exists, an Omnipotent being also exists. To reject this is to say Omnipotence is absurd. Where Omnipotence is not absurd, rejecting the existence of an Omnipotent being is absurd (just as rejecting the existence of Existence is absurd, or the rejecting of triangles being three-sided is absurd).
Again, that which is demonstrated by way of pure reason, is superior in terms of knowledge, to that which is just observed empirically but not reconciled in line with pure reason. The empirical must be in line with pure reason, not the other way round. If I prove to you that rejecting x is paradoxical, you are rationally obliged to acknowledge that x is true, until you can find a way to reject x without being paradoxical. Where you cannot do this (and you will not be able to do this with what I have presented), you are rationally obliged to acknowledge x.
I have shown that rejecting an Omnipotent being results in a paradox (call this x). I have tired to convey to you that if rejecting x results in a paradox, you are rationally obliged to acknowledge x. I have tried to convey to you that the empirical must be non-paradoxical for it to make sense. None of this seems to register with you. How does one reject pure reason?! By being unreasonable, biased, or, prejudiced. Is it me who is seeking refuge in unknowns and absurdities to be comfortable with my beliefs, or you who don’t seem to recognise that empirical observations (as well as all other things) must be in line with pure reason and non-paradoxical?
You have failed to deal with what I have presented and have just resorted to calling it an ‘intellectual contraption’. You have not addressed the argument at all. If you haven’t understood x, then don’t act as though you have. By this I mean, do not call x an ‘intellectual contraption’ without understanding what x is. This is better for you overall (especially in light of intellectual integrity).
There is one condition for all possible beings to exist. Otherness.
God is not everything, it’s metaphysically impossible, thus, god cannot be omnipotent.
Another LOGICAL mistake you are making is that infinity is a thing, that infinity has a HIGHEST set! It doesn’t… there is no highest dimension, there are an infinite number of dimensions and those dimensions never become a THING (a supreme, Omni-being, at the top).
You don’t use the logic you claim to espouse, and it makes you a hypocrite.
Cool, so without step 3, what does that do to your argument?
Yep, all stuff we’ve both been saying.
Indeed we don’t understand a married bachelor - my point being that the same lack of understanding applies to something like God that is necessarily, at least in part, beyond our human understanding in order to qualify as divine. As you say yourself, we don’t understand anything beyond our human conception, so everything presents to us as within our human conception, and if God has to be at least in part beyond that in order to be God (lest He is just mundane just like anything else natural in the universal of which we can humanly conceive) then He necessarily can never present to us as God (only something less i.e. mundane). Trying to prove His existence presupposes we can conceive of what we’re trying to prove - that which by definition necessarily has to be beyond what necessarily can’t be proven.
I take it you didn’t check out the proof I linked to, but above is the gist. I’d recommend checking out the link if you wanna challenge it, because it contains counters to all the challenges you’d be able to think of - just to save you the trouble.
The offshoot is that omnipotence is not meaningful, which should be apparent anyway from all the well-known paradoxes out there that “omnipotence” falls to.
As such, it’s not even a hypothetical possibility. Thus nor is “God”.
I agree that existence necessarily exists by definition, tautologically. The alternative cannot exist by direct contradiction.
In light of the above, I’m not quibbling with things like omnipotence or perfection originating in imperfection or non-omnipotence etc.
Not even existence is omnipotent, it merely exempifies all possible powers and none of the impossible ones (e.g. presenting “God” as “God” to human conception - a necessary contradiction).
If a being exists perfectly - doing perfectly what it was perfectly made to do, how can it be “imperfect”?
The point is that you must define “good” and “evil” in objective factual terms. Else you are just saying that you don’t like it so it is “evil” (and weren’t you told to stay away from that tree?)
I guess what you mean by “deserves to be punished” means the same as “should be punished”. But should - for what purpose - gauged by what standard - who draws the line? And if God always gets what God wants then everything is already as it should be. Everything is already “getting what it deserves”.
Repeating it didn’t change it. The word still doesn’t come with it’s own standard. To be perfect something must compare exactly to a standard of some kind. If 100 is the goal then a perfect score is 100. If 1.5 meters is the desired height then 1.5 is perfect. If being ambiguous is the goal then you are doing perfectly.
I haven’t been convinced of that. I’m no expert on set theory but I can tell when words are being used in an ambiguous manner. And such usage leads to endless argument.
From what I can tell I have already explained the whole “no set of all cardinalities” bit.
How can one not be fascinated with how the human mind is actually able to think something like this up…and then to actually believe it. Again, the James S. Saint Syndrome. Or maybe the phenomenal_graffiti Syndrome. Or the Exuberant Teleportation Syndrome.
Think about it…
John has demonstrated beyond all doubt the existence of an actual omnipotent being. And this omnipotent being…let’s call Him God…confirms it. This God then makes it absolutely clear which behaviors that mere mortals choose will be judged as qualifying them for both immortality and salvation.
Then Certainly real interjects to offer up his own assessment of the omnipotent being. The intellectual contraption above.
Hmm, I wonder which omnipotent being most mere mortals will gravitate toward.
If god is omnipresent, then we’d all be god. We’d all have the exact same mind. CR is young about these things. Very young. So, I try to explain these things as if to a two year old.
It does nothing. Steps 2 and 4 cover what needs to be covered. 3 was meant to be an illustration of 2.
Something like a 20th sense, is an unknown to us. We can’t make sense of it and we don’t know if it’s absurd/hypothetically impossible or not. But something that is absurd (like a married bachelor) is not something that is unknown to us. It is something that we know is absurd. We know that no alien or god could ever make sense of a married bachelor, but they may make sense of a 20th sense. Thus 20th sense is an unknown to us (as opposed to an absurdity).
Now, if I said to you God has a 20th sense, I’d be doing nothing meaningful. Neither I nor you have any idea of what a 20th sense is. It is meaningless to us, thus it should be left out of rational discourse. How can we meaningfully talk about things that are meaningless to us? We cannot. But if I say to you God is Perfect, then something will click. For example, if I say to you that which is not Omnipotent is not Perfect, I expect this to be meaningful to you because both Perfection and Omnipotence are meaningful words that we can make sense of, just as Omnipresence and Existence are meaningful words we can make sense of (despite not knowing all there is to know about the Omnipresent or Existence). Omnipotence and Perfection are not unknown like a 20th sense. Nor are they absurd like a round square.
Suppose I said to you Existence has a 20th spatial dimension. It would make no sense to you. We don’t know if Existence is such that it consists of a 20th spatial dimension or not. We don’t know what it’s like to be Omnipresent. But this does not take anything away from the fact that we have clear a priori outlines regarding Existence. We know that It is Omnipresent. We know that It is Infinite (paradoxical to deny). We know that It exists. We also know that there are things about it that we don’t know. We also know that there are things about it that are beyond our comprehension. But this does not stop us from acknowledging that Existence exists, or that It is Omnipresent. Indeed, we’d be paradoxical to deny these things.
So if there are things about God or Perfection that we understand, such that their rejection is paradoxical, we must acknowledge them. We cannot say no, we will reject any understanding of God because there are things about God that are beyond our comprehension or are unknown to us. We don’t need to be Omnipotent or Infinite to know what Omnipotent and Infinite means. We don’t need to be Perfection to know what Perfect mean.
Omnipotent = that which can do all that is doable. This is meaningful and not contradictory. Nor is it unknown like a 20th sense. I am aware of the paradoxes and I believe I have addressed them all (not here, elsewhere. I’ll provide the link). My argument requires Omnipotence to be non-paradoxical. You are welcome to challenge the coherence of Omnipotence. if I fail to refute your challenge, then of course my argument falls. But until then, my argument stands and it is paradoxical to reject it. In case you want to have a look, here’s the link to why Omnipotence is not paradoxical:
By there being better beings than it. Evil exists perfectly because it is getting what it truly/perfectly deserves. It is better for evil beings to be good, because then, they would be better off in relation to themselves. This does not take anything away from the fact that evil beings (where there are any) are existing perfectly (despite being both imperfect and evil). God exists perfectly. I exist perfectly purely because God exists perfectly (not because I am perfect and certainly not independently of God). God ensures that I get what I truly/perfectly deserve. I do not ensure this. Because I get what I truly/perfectly deserve (amongst other things), objectively speaking, I am existing perfectly in Existence/in relation to God.
That tree you refer to, I interpret as being the tree of irrationality. Any instance of irrationality is an instance of evil. It is this tree that can lead to Hell.
Ok, I will attempt to tell you what the core of good and evil is. Good = that which willingly does in line with pure reason and a perfect existence (God). Evil = that which willingly does in opposition to pure reason and a perfect existence (God). The more sincere to reason x is, the morally better x is. The more insincere to reason y is, the more morally evil y is. Where a being has no capacity for reason, then the being is not blameworthy (therefore not evil). Where a being has the capacity for reason but chooses to go against it due to bias, prejudice, or any other reason, then the being is blameworthy/evil. These are not unknowns, nor can any rational creature say that being unreasonable is good as opposed to evil.
For what purpose? For the purpose of perfection. Again, it’s perfection for everyone to get what they truly/perfectly deserve. Omitting this would be imperfection. The standard is set by God. God/Existence is Omniscient, thus God fully knows how reasonable and unreasonable any given being truly is in relation to It. God knowing this and being Omnipotent means that God can give that being what it truly/perfectly deserves.
Yes. I am getting what I deserve, as are you. Free-will being determined is something that happens. Some beings become more evil/unreasonable, some beings become more reasonable/good. How they respond to that which they are exposed to, contributes to how good and evil their disposition is or is becoming.
You cannot define that which is perfect within imperfect boundaries. What is truly perfect? What is such that no greater than it can be conceived of all things considered? If you only focus on humans, then you have not considered all things conceivable. Perfection does not = that which no greater than can be conceived of as a human, or as a test score for me, or as an ideal thing that I can use now. Perfection does not = that which no greater than can be conceived of within imperfect boundaries. Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of as that which no greater than can be conceived of. Not as some imperfect or incomplete or limited thing.
Same from my end. But if it every does dawn on you why most mere mortals will be drawn to John and an actual existing omnipotent God rather than be attracted to your purely rational intellectual contraption omnipotent being, that might stimulate you to actually go out and find more substantive evidence. Your omnipotent being need be but deduced into existence from a recliner in the living room.
And, sure, if you ever do find it, please bring it to my attention.
You have already said that being perfect means there is nothing better. If a being was perfectly made and is doing what it was perfectly made to do, then, by your own words, nothing can be any better - merely equally as perfect.