What, you just wanted to leave it at that? Show us you understand omnipotence (almightiness)!
Show us you understand true Perfection (God).
That which can do all that is doable. That which can bring about all hypothetical possibilities. This is a semantical component of God/Existence/Omnipotence
Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of. There is nothing better than a perfect existence. Your ‘perfect’ life is made better by existing in a perfect existence as opposed to an imperfect existence. Thus perfection is only true of a perfect existence and there is nothing better or greater than a perfect existence.
If an existence is such that not everyone gets what they truly/perfectly deserve, then that existence is imperfect. Only an Infinite, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent towards good, and Omnimalevolent towards evil Existence/God can guarantee that everyone gets what they truly/perfectly deserve (including Itself). Thus, Perfection is impossible without God/Existence.
Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of = a perfect existence = God existing
Perfection = a perfect existence = God existing
Perfection = God existing
God exists is a semantical component of Perfection just as being three sided is a semantical component of triangle.
A perfect existence is not perfect if it’s not existing. Thus existing is a semantical component of Perfection.
What you demonstrate here is not understanding, just knowledge.
https://hermetic.com/crowley/little-essays-towards-truth/knowledge
https://hermetic.com/crowley/little-essays-towards-truth/understanding
And who says anyone deserves anything, by the way?
The semantics of Existence, Perfection, good, and evil. All semantics are the way they are because Existence is the way It is. We are in Existence and we have access to these semantics. Thus, Existence says good deserves good and evil deserves evil.
That doesn’t follow. Also, what do “good” and “evil” mean? Is there more to them than just empty semantics?
It follows because semantics are infallible. If you want a more comprehensive answer, then I recommend that you read the first post here:
philosophyneedsgod.wordpress.com
Let’s say evil = that which is unfair/absurd and that that which is unfair/absurd treats x differently to how x ought to be treated. For example, if you treat a triangle like a square, then you are absurd because pure reason dictates triangles have three sides and squares have fours sides. You going against reason is you being unfair to Existence or absurd in relation to Existence.
So, if pure reason dictates Existence is Perfect (which it does) then it is absurd to treat or view Existence as anything other than Perfect. If you think x is a good person, you would not degrade x or treat as anything other than a good person (unless of course you are evil). So when pure reason (pure reason is higher in authority than empirical observations) dictates that Existence is Perfect, it takes evil/absurdity/unfairness to view It or treat It as other than that.
I am concerned by your belief that existence is paradoxical. How can you reason in a paradoxical existence? To say that you can reason in a paradoxical existence is to be absurd. I cannot reason with that which is absurd/paradoxical/irrational. None can do this. Not even you.
You know Certainly Real,
Some of this is salvageable. Unfortunately zero sum realities (with winners and losers) are by definition imperfect. (Since you think semantics are perfect).
It’s possible (and I know this for a fact) for existence to be constructed so that everyone can manifest their desires without harming anyone in any way shape or form.
Win/Lose realities are our current system. I’m on the project of a better system. I’ve pointed out abysmal flaws in win/lose realities elsewhere on this board, and to be perfectly honest, I’ve barely scratched the surface of it here.
For example (per your argument): if god is the only being who knows what’s good or bad, and can be the ONLY being who knows this, then everyone else (by definition) is ignorant relative to God. If they knew what your hypothetical god knew, none of them would ever do stupid shut - EVER!
How exactly do you punish mentally regarded people… talk about ABSURD! (Which you just defined as evil) - therefor (by your own words) you just contradicted yourself
What matters is that everyone gets what they truly deserve. It doesn’t matter if this is joy or misery. So long as it’s truly deserved, then that existence is perfect. So long as good people are the winners and evil people are the losers, then it’s all good.
Also consider this:
It’s perfection for everyone to get what they truly deserve. It’s perfection for good to be good. It’s perfection for evil to be evil.
In a perfect existence, it’s evil for evil people to be evil because evil people end up being on the receiving end of evil (misery, suffering, etc. all of which are evil for evil people because it harms them against their will and against their best interest).
In a perfect existence, it’s good for good people to be good because good people end up being on the receiving end of good (joy, happiness etc. all of which are good for good people)
In an imperfect existence, it’s not necessarily evil for evil people to be evil because evil people may end up being better off by being evil (which implies it was good to be evil…which is like saying it was round to be square). This literally suggests that there may be nothing evil about being evil and that it may be good to be evil. The semantics of good and evil, clearly only hold true in a perfect existence. In no other existence can they hold true.
When x rapes a woman and steals from her, if he knows he is harming the woman against her will and against her best interest, then he knows he is consenting to being evil. He knows he is committing evil. God knows he is committing evil too. The rapist doesn’t need to know what God knows. He just needs to know what it is to be evil. If he consents to being evil, then he consents to being put on the receiving end of that which is against his will and against his best interest all things considered.
You don’t. If a being is not aware that it is unjustly harming another being against its will and against its best interest, then that being is by definition, not evil. A robot that attacks people, is not evil. A person that knows what evil is and still commits to being it, is evil. You only punish evil. You try and punish a robot, then you’re either a child, mentally handicapped, or an actual idiot.
I’m going to repeat just this one line to you because it makes your whole premise absurd:
Ecmandu stated: “ If they knew what your hypothetical god knew, none of them would ever do stupid shit - EVER!”
What on earth makes you think that ANY BEING IN ALL OF EXISTENCE would EVER do stupid shit if they knew the consequences of their behavior?!?!
Anyone?!?! Everyone?!?!
Just out of curiosity, if there ever is any actual substantial proof that an omnipotent being does in fact exist, I would appreciate someone bringing it to my attention.
In other words, something considerably more substantive than an omnipotent being being defined or deduced into existence in a world of words.
That’s like saying if they were God, they would not do imperfectly or be imperfect. Or if they were omniscient, they would not do stupid things. I’m not denying that. But what’s that got to do with it being perfection for evil to suffer? Evil knows that it’s choosing to be evil. It’s not unknowingly evil. It doesn’t need to be omniscient to know that it is being evil. It’s not a robot. It consents to being evil whilst being aware of the semantics of justice and perfection. Evil can’t blame anyone other than itself for being evil because it chose to be evil knowingly. Freewill is a necessary semantical component to good and evil beings. An efficient robot is good in the sense that it is efficient. It is not morally good because it does not know what it is to choose to be good.
If you read all the posts in the link I provide without bias and prejudice, and with enough passion and sincerity for truth, I think you’ll have your proof.
Actually, there are 2 problems with your reply here:
1.) most people think they’re good people, even the most heinous people
2.) tons of people have obsessions and compulsions that cause them to be out of control… the phinneus (sp?) gage example is classic.
I’m actually quite frightened by your mind that you think punishment for or from an omnipotent being is reasonable, or “perfectly correct”.
Omnipotent beings have WAY more at their disposal than your ‘perfect justice mentality’.
Besides, it can’t be perfect justice if people aren’t informed. And then you conveniently say, circularly, that it’s impossible for them to be informed, because there’s only ONE possible being who has consent in all of existence (your ‘proofs’), but even though you ‘prove’ that only one being has informed consent forever, that punishment is always perfect.
You know what I say to that bullshit. Do some real work with justice instead of assuming that someone’s doing all the work for you (and it’s always perfect), this is spiritually lazy. It’s a fantasy of yours to comfort and console you in a fierce existence, and, quite frankly, it’s quitting.
The problem with the OP first off is around the idea of possibility. There is an equivocation between
‘what seems possible to us’ and ‘what could exist’. Those two are not the same. IOW for all we know there are reasons there cannot possibly be a unicorn. You cannot attribute potential to the universe (it can and might produce unicorns) based on our
Not being able to rule something out.
The second problem is to say ‘we understand humans and unicorns.’ I don’t think that sentence is true or even makes sense. We know some stuff about humans. We have qualities we attribute to unicorns. None of this is complete NOR does it count as ‘we understand’ these creatures. Every month, for example, we find out more about the human brain and body and human behavior. To say we understand humans is to make a binary (and hallucinated) distinction. One understands or does not understand humans and unicorns. On or off.
Nope.
WE have built up knowledge of one – humans – but our understanding is more than incredibly likely incomplete and any single one of us, even any multi-disciplinary teams of experts, will have incomplete understanding of humans. This is even more true for unicorns, since we haven’t dissected, tested, interviewed, experienced, training or lived near, observed……and many other verbs….unicorns. At least most of us.
So the whole OP rests on equivocation between two meaning of possibility and an use of ‘understanding’ that is 1) incorrect since it presents understanding as binary and 2) is actually not even the correct word, certainly in relation to unicorns. We have drawn (radically incomplete) images of unicorns. We have a very simple definition of unicorns with variations. Neither of these an understanding of unicorns. First off we can compare even the most detailed painting of a unicorn with ALL the physiological, psychological, anatomical, behavior, cross-sectional representational investigations of humans and it is simply ludicrous to say we ‘understand unicorns’ especially since, as I argue above, such a flat binary description of our knowledge is false in relation to humans, where we know vastly more things and vastly more experience. But then also because it is simply the wrong word for whatever it is we [very] in relation to unicorns.
I do not understand omnipotence, for reasons give above and they are several and I am not alone in this. No one understands omnipotence. We know what the word means, but again compare our no doubt utterly incomplete understanding of humans (whom we are) with what we know about omnipotence, something none of us has experienced, none of us knows how it plays out in a universe or even if it is possible.
Again conflating ‘I can’t rule it out’ with it could exist.
Conflating my lack of knowledge that something can be ruled out with it being possible. A complete conflation or two quite different things. All one has to do to see the difference is to look at things that people in the middle ages could not rule out as possible and we can. It wasn’t possible that the world was flat and water ran off the edges. They couldn’t rule this out, but it was not possible. It was not possible to have a planet like that here.
Perfection falls to the same confusions, equivocations and wrongheaded binary thinking.
Very noteable explanation.
The identification of an archytipical -anthropomorphic god with man, has been the source of the memetic , progression of the intentively impliciideness of the idea behind perfection.
The question of how this simultainty occurs between the basic duality and the progressive monotheism, appears formidably and futuristically - as a futuristic progression from the get go.
That said, oscillations between the nominal and phenomenal apprehension are shadowed by differing contexts of experience, both on the pre enlightenment and the post modern levels of apprehension.
As we march toward an uncharted , uncertain goal, such variations recur with variable frequency.
The remarkable Nietzsche signaled this major premise with his- ‘staring into the depth accounts for it to stare back’ ; whereby creating the uncertain knowledge that exist in optical allusions.
My position is simple. If someone knowingly harms someone that they don’t believe to be evil against their will and against their best interest, then they are knowingly being evil. If they view this attitude as being good and thus think themselves as being good, then they will have no problems with God harming them against their will and against their best interest. If they do have problems with that, then that’s their problem.
You don’t just call someone evil whimsically. You take all factors into account with regards to that person. If something is outside of a person’s will or control, then you take that into account.
Would you rather that we treat evil people like we treat good people? Would you rather we don’t punish evil, thereby effectively act as though there is nothing evil about being evil. If evil doesn’t get punished for being evil, then there’s nothing wrong, bad, or evil, about being evil. x can think to himself, I’ll just be evil/irrational. What have I got to lose. He has much to lose if he exercised reason appropriately and adequately. His decision not to do so, will cost him.
If people are informed that they are harming someone whom they don’t believe to be evil against their will and against their best interest, then they are informed. They don’t need to be omniscient. It’s like you did not read what I wrote.
Per the dictates of pure reason, Existence/God is Perfect. You treat it as anything other than that, you are committing injustice. Again, this is a matter of pure reason. Not some childish self-righteous emotion that I want to embrace just to make myself feel good. Authenticity and truth are more valuable then pretentiousness and delusions.
We need to rationally account for what makes something absurd and makes something meaningful.
What makes something absurd? If it can never exist, then it is a hypothetical impossibility. An absurdity. For example a married bachelor is absurd/hypothetically impossible.
What makes something possible? If it can (but not necessarily will) attain reality, then it is a hypothetical possibility. If it can’t, then it is not a hypothetical possibility. If unicorns or humans can’t attain reality, then they are hypothetical impossibilities. But clearly, humans and unicorns are not absurd, therefore, they are not hypothetical impossibilities. If they are not hypothetical impossibilities, then either they are real, or they have the potential to be real, or both.
If Existence (that which encompasses all existing things) is not infinite, then not all hypothetical possibilities can be described as being truly hypothetically possible. If Existence is infinite, then all hypothetical possibilities truly are hypothetically possible, because there is infinite time, space, and potential for all hypothetical possibilities to attain reality. If we say existence is not infinite, we commit to absurdity because we would then be saying that not all hypothetical possibilities truly are hypothetical possibilities. We’d be saying there is no difference between a round square (an absurdity) and a unicorn (not an absurdity). We cannot do this as it is absurd to do this.
If you can meaningfully and non-absurdly talk about something, then you understand it to some degree. You may not fully understand it, but you still have some understanding of it. You understand that a triangle has three sides. You later understand that the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees.
You don’t need to be infinite to understand or be aware of the semantics of infinity. The same holds true of omnipresence and omnipotence.
Triangles have three sides. To reject this is to be absurd.
For any Q, so long as we recognise that rejecting Q is absurd, then we are certain of Q’s Qness. We may not be certain that we know everything about Q, or, we may be certain that there are things about Q that we are not certain about, but, we are certain of Q’s Qness. Thus, we have a perfect/complete/true understanding of Q’s Qness, but, an imperfect/incomplete understanding of Q. We semi-truly understand Q as opposed to truly understand it. Where we attribute p to Q, and p is false of Q, we have an imperfect/incomplete and false understanding of Q. This does not take away from our complete/true/perfect understanding of Q’s Qness so long as p does not contradict Q’s Qness. It is impossible for us to genuinely understand something as being indubitable, and then later find out that we were wrong.
Whether the land one inhabits is round or flat, is not a matter of pure reason. It is an empirical matter. Empirical matters are susceptible to doubt. Pure reason is not dubitable. You cannot doubt the three-sidedness of triangles. Similarly, you cannot doubt that Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived = a perfect existence = an existence where everyone gets what they truly/perfectly deserve.
We are a part of existence we have an a priori outline of perfection (a perfect existence) suppose our universe or existence was sentient. How can an imperfect existence have any idea of a what a perfect existence is independently of a perfect existence? It cannot. How can x conceive of better than itself when there is no such thing as better than itself? We are imperfect. If our Existence is also imperfect, then we it is hypothetically impossible for us to have any of idea of what a perfect existence is. We objectively know what a perfect existence is (one wherein which everyone gets what they deserve…which requires God/Existence to be Omnipotent and Omniscient as well as morally perfect) This clearly indicates that Existence is Perfect.
Semantics do not come from nothing or non-existence. We must account for them. Existence exist. It is the way it is. This is pure fact. Semantics exist. This is because Existence exist. An imperfect existence cannot include the semantic of perfection because perfection is hypothetically impossible or absurd of an imperfect existence. Yet we as members of Existence recognise that Perfection is meaningful. It is not an absurdity like round squares. This is not magical. This is not due to nothing. This is due to Existence being perfect. No other explanation accounts for the semantic of Perfection.
This link?
philosophyneedsgod.wordpress.com/
Which then provides us with a bunch of other links.
[b][i]How about this…
Given all of these links [or any other links on any other site on the internet] what constitutes the most profound, least problematic evidence for the existence of an omnipotent being. [/i][/b]
There was, in my opinion, nothing like that in the OP.
Actually, what intrigues me far more here is how those who do believe in an omnipotent being came to that conclusion given the experiences in their life that led up to it. The part of the “self” I root in dasein here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529
Next, I tend to focus on why, psychologically, one might be inclined to believe in an omnipotent being.
And the conclusion I have come to, given my experience with those that do believe this over the years – and which most call God – is that to the extent that they can think themselves into believing it, is the extent that both immortality and salvation can be believed in in turn
Are you willing to go there?
Certainly Real,
I noticed that you skipped this quote:
Ecmandu wrote: “Omnipotent beings have WAY more at their disposal than your ‘perfect justice mentality’.”
Is it really impossible for you to conceive that an omnipotent being can create philosophic zombie worlds for everyone, or hyperdimensional mirror realities for everyone?!
Making it impossible to hurt any possible being (say, a microbe when you take a sip of coffee or a swig of alcohol)
You know what I know about you for a fact?
You’re not an empathic person. You are extremely naive (not much exposure to the vastness of all of this)
That’s fine… annoying at times, but fine.
But, and this is always dangerous, you think WAY inside the box.
What about an atheist who believes after all this that we’re dead forever? How does your hypothetical god judge such a person? We haven’t even started yet man, it gets harder for you from here.
How people interpret their empirical experiences varies. Some people look at an event and then think divine intervention occurred, some interpret it differently. Here, I am not interested in that which is open to interpretation. Pure reason is not a matter of interpretation. Pure reason is pure fact. It cannot be denied unless one chooses to be absurd/paradoxical/irrational/unreasonable. If you do not believe that something can come from nothing, and you do not believe that semantics came from nothing, then you account for them and you explain them in terms of existence. Existence being infinite accounts for almost every semantic, item of thought, or hypothetical possibility conceivable. It does not account for Perfection. Only a perfect existence can accommodate the semantic of Perfection.
How can an imperfect existence have any idea of what a perfect existence is independently of a perfect existence? From where has this imperfect existence, gotten its idea of a perfect existence from? Surely not nothing/non-existence. The mind is not independent of Existence. The mind is fully dependent on Existence. Any potential the mind has, it got from Existence. It did not get them from non-existence. The mind is aware of Perfection. It did not gain this awareness from nothing. It got it from existence. If existence is imperfect, then existence has no idea what perfection is. If existence has no idea what perfection is, and all our potential comes from existence, then we also should not have any idea of what perfection is. We have a clear idea of perfection, therefore existence must be perfect. How else have we come to be aware of perfection?