Philosophy Discussion Forums

(1) There is existence/x exists

(2) Everything that exists, does so only in existence

(3) We are fully dependent on existence

(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows

(5) Given 4, anything that is either rational/comprehensible/understandable, necessarily belongs to existence (existence accommodates it; as in either it is necessarily existent, or existence has the potential to create it or produce it. This why our minds classify it or recognise it as a hypothetical possibility and this is why it has meaning. So a unicorn is a potential thing that Existence can produce) On the other hand, anything that is either irrational or incomprehensible is necessarily non-existent (existence does not accommodate it. The potential for it to exist has never been there and will never be there. For example, no square-circles or married bachelors can ever exist. Such phrases iare absurd and makes no sense)

(6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational concepts that we have an understanding of. So Existence must accommodate these concepts. As highlighted by 5, to deny this is to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing. Therefore, either:

6a) The potential is there for something to become omnipotent and omniscient, or 6b) Something is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

(7) Only Existence/that which is all-existing/omnipresent can be almighty/omnipotent and all-knowing/omniscient because the semantics of omnipotence are not satisfied if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence. Similarly, you can't be all-knowing if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence.

(8) Given 7, 6a must be false as nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state as nothing can substitute Existence. So the potential for something to become omnipresent is not there which entails that the potential for something to become omnipotent or omniscient is also not there.

(9) Given that 6a is false and that the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are not absurd, it follows that 6b is true.

(10) Only Existence/that which is all-existing/omnipresent can be almighty and all knowing.

(11) Given 5-10, Existence is necessary omnipotent and omniscient.

1- 5 Says nothing.
6-6a,b you confuse and idea with reality
7 no
8 the foregoing "gives you" nothing, since what you 1-7 is just a collection of rubbish.
9 Duh no Ideas are just ideas.
10-11 Same old, same old. Circular rubbish.

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 7:32 pm 1- 5 Says nothing.
6-6a,b you confuse and idea with reality
7 no
8 the foregoing "gives you" nothing, since what you 1-7 is just a collection of rubbish.
9 Duh no Ideas are just ideas.
10-11 Same old, same old. Circular rubbish.

1-5 says plenty, it's what makes 6-10 work. If you see a problem with it rationally, then be specific. I can't address "nothing".

philosopher19 wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2018, 2:45 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 7:32 pm 1- 5 Says nothing.
6-6a,b you confuse and idea with reality
7 no
8 the foregoing "gives you" nothing, since what you 1-7 is just a collection of rubbish.
9 Duh no Ideas are just ideas.
10-11 Same old, same old. Circular rubbish.

1-5 says plenty, it's what makes 6-10 work. If you see a problem with it rationally, then be specific. I can't address "nothing".

Okay lets look at 1 - 4 first.
These are tautological. like water is wet, what is wet water is wet.
They are redundant.

Except that the phrase "existence allows" is meaningless, since "existence" is a description of a passive state of affairs, yet the word "allows" might imply disallowed. So that too is redundant.

So let's look at 5.
"(5) Given 4, anything that is either rational/comprehensible/understandable, necessarily belongs to existence (existence accommodates it; as in either it is necessarily existent, or existence has the potential to create it or produce it. This why our minds classify it or recognise it as a hypothetical possibility and this is why it has meaning. So a unicorn is a potential thing that Existence can produce) On the other hand, anything that is either irrational or incomprehensible is necessarily non-existent (existence does not accommodate it. The potential for it to exist has never been there and will never be there. For example, no square-circles or married bachelors can ever exist. Such phrases iare absurd and makes no sense)(5) Given 4, anything that is either rational/comprehensible/understandable, necessarily belongs to existence (existence accommodates it; as in either it is necessarily existent, or existence has the potential to create it or produce it. This why our minds classify it or recognise it as a hypothetical possibility and this is why it has meaning. So a unicorn is a potential thing that Existence can produce) On the other hand, anything that is either irrational or incomprehensible is necessarily non-existent (existence does not accommodate it. The potential for it to exist has never been there and will never be there. For example, no square-circles or married bachelors can ever exist. Such phrases iare absurd and makes no sense)"

This is where you try to say something, yet in doing so you make a fundamental error.
You are implying that a thing that is imaginable is possible; this is simply rubbish.
I can imagine standing on the sun, but I know I would be vaporised immediately.
Things that are imaginable and simply not necessarily possible.
You laughingly use the most nutty example of a unicorn; a mythical beast which has never existed.
So because 1-3 is empty words, 4 is dubious, 5 is rubbish. There seems little point in going further.

Then you go to 6 with omnipotence and omniscience. Reality or existence does not have to accommodate these concepts at all.
In fact they are inherently incoherent.
They are just ideas.

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2018, 1:35 pm

philosopher19 wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2018, 2:45 pm

1-5 says plenty, it's what makes 6-10 work. If you see a problem with it rationally, then be specific. I can't address "nothing".

Okay lets look at 1 - 4 first.
These are tautological. like water is wet, what is wet water is wet.
They are redundant.

1-4 states the blatantly obvious. They are important because either they're not acknowledged or some people seem to have no problem with paradoxes haunting their beliefs. The paradox of something coming from nothing is not something that reason allows. Reason does not allow for any paradoxes/contradictions.

You are implying that a thing that is imaginable is possible; this is simply rubbish.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

I can imagine standing on the sun, but I know I would be vaporised immediately.

My point exactly! Visual images are not contradictory, but when you fully flesh them out, if they become paradoxical, you cannot imagine them with the same premises in place. I'll demonstrate for you.

Consider the sentence: Superman lifts a 25,000 pound bus. Now picture it. We can all imagine superman lifting something as heavy as a bus. Our imagination can produce the images and Hollywood can also produce a scene that visually shows superman doing this. There is nothing absurd about this because our definition of superman, or the semantical gap that we have labelled/called superman, entails that he is sufficiently powerful enough to lift something that weighs more than 25,000 pounds. The maths and the science add up fine so this sentence goes in the potential category as something that is hypothetically possible. It is something that Existence has the potential to bring about.

Now consider the sentence: Nelson Mandela lifts a 25,000 pound bus. Now picture it. Again we can all picture Nelson Mandela doing this and Hollywood can produce a video clip where Nelson Mandela is lifting a 25,000 pound bus. However, given the traits we associate with Nelson Mandela, given the definition of Nelson Mandela, and given the semantical gap that is Nelson Mandela, we cannot coherently imagine Nelson Mandela doing this. If we saw an advert that shows this, we automatically assume special effects or some other kind of mechanism wherein which the images of Nelson Mandela doing this have been produced. As in we change the semantics of the sentence somehow. For example we could alter the semantics of the bus in question. So we think something like maybe it was a picture of a bus that Nelson Mandela actually lifted. Nelson Mandela cannot lift a 25,000 bus, the math and science don’t add up, so it goes in the absurd category and you cannot imagine it coherently unless you alter semantics appropriately and adequately in some way.

So because 1-3 is empty words, 4 is dubious, 5 is rubbish. There seems little point in going further.

Reflect on the example I gave you, then let me know if 1-5 still amounts to nothing/absurdity and how it does so.

With that in mind, now consider the following:

Except that the phrase "existence allows" is meaningless, since "existence" is a description of a passive state of affairs, yet the word "allows" might imply disallowed. So that too is redundant.

1) Existence is that that which is all-existing/omnipresent. Agreed?

2) Rationally, it has no limits because to say that it does, is to commit to paradoxes/absurdities such as the paradox of something coming from nothing or the paradox of non-existence existing. Any limit that you try to put on Existence, I guarantee I can rationally prove to you as being paradoxical. Try it.

3) If something is hypothetically possible, then it's not absurd/paradoxical/irrational. Agreed?

4) If something is hypothetically possible, then the potential for it to exist is there. Bearing in mind the Superman/Nelson Mandela example, can you think of something that is meaningful (not rationally absurd) but can never exist?

5) All minds are limited by what Existence allows. Minds cannot think outside of existence as that would be absurd as there is non-existence/nothing outside of Existence. Agreed?

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2018, 1:44 pm Then you go to 6 with omnipotence and omniscience. Reality or existence does not have to accommodate these concepts at all.
In fact they are inherently incoherent.
They are just ideas.

How are they incoherent?

Omnipresent = that which is all-existing/Existence
Omnipotent = that which is almighty (that which is able to do all that is doable)
Omniscient = That which is all-knowing (that which knows all that there is to know)

Where is the paradox or contradiction in the definitions?

philosopher19 wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2018, 3:59 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2018, 1:44 pm Then you go to 6 with omnipotence and omniscience. Reality or existence does not have to accommodate these concepts at all.
In fact they are inherently incoherent.
They are just ideas.

How are they incoherent?

Omnipresent = that which is all-existing/Existence
Omnipotent = that which is almighty (that which is able to do all that is doable)
Omniscient = That which is all-knowing (that which knows all that there is to know)

Where is the paradox or contradiction in the definitions?

You do not get to validate impossible ideas just be defining them.
Since a rock is part of existence, and a rock cannot know all, have complete power nor can it be all existence then the mere existence of a pebble invalidates the possibility of your ideas.

Either omnipresent is existence, or existing. It cannot be both. Chose. If you chose the first then why call it omnipresent, since it is nothing more than you have already defined.
And it cannot simply exist without reference to that which does not.
The universe just is.
The universe have no volition to act so cannot be potent is any sense. It certainly cannot be omnipresent since it is easy to think of an impossible thing. It is impossible for the universe to enable me to drink a glass of water whilst sitting on the surface of the sun; neither can I drink the blood of a unicorn; or have my cake and eat it too; neither can a square be a circle.
You cannot know everything. You cannot know what you do not know.
All three ideas are incoherent of themselves. Together they make less sense.

I would not use 3. We are not dependent on existence, instead, we determine what exists and in which manner. Your examples of Superman and Nelson Mandela lifting a bus are enough proof of this, especially the tweaking of semantics to our liking. Maybe Nelson Mandela is a mutant(X-Men)?

I would also change 4. Existence is limited to what the mind allows, of course, the mind becomes what is omnipresent and omniscient but I see no problem with that.

2. Is interesting as you can draw different conclusions. On the one hand it's straightforward as by definition to exist you must be in existence.
My conclusion may be different from yours though. I conclude that something may be in a category where it isn't bound by our existence and therefore it wouldn't be logical to say it exists but here is where words and my ability to conceive fail me the best I can come up with is it has an alternative existence.
I'm not sure you allow for this possibility?

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2018, 5:30 pm You do not get to validate impossible ideas just be defining them.
Since a rock is part of existence, and a rock cannot know all, have complete power nor can it be all existence then the mere existence of a pebble invalidates the possibility of your ideas.

A rock is a part of Existence but that has no effect on Existence being omnipresent. Similarly it has no effect on Existence being omnipotent. If you think it does, show me where it results in a paradox or contradiction.

Either omnipresent is existence, or existing. It cannot be both.

It is necessarily both. I'll demonstrate: Existence is existing (any problems here?) Existence is existing in an all-existing/omnipresent manner (any problems here?) Existence is omnipresent/all-existing (any problems here?) To say that it is not both is paradoxical. In trying to answer the following, you might see the paradox: How can that which is omnipresent/all-existing be anything other than Existence? How can Existence be defined as anything other that which is all-existing?

We're existing in Existence but we are not existence. We're not omnipresent and we never will be because nothing can take the place of Existence/that which is omnipresent.

The universe just is.

The universe exists in Existence, but it's not Existence. It would be paradoxical to say that it is. The universe can never be omnipresent therefore the universe can never be omnipotent.

since it is easy to think of an impossible thing. It is impossible for the universe to enable me to drink a glass of water whilst sitting on the surface of the sun; neither can I drink the blood of a unicorn; or have my cake and eat it too; neither can a square be a circle.

I can picture shapes with straight lines. Given gravity (which makes straight lines impossible in our universe), can you imagine a a shape with straight lines in our universe? Doesn't this just amount to the bendy straight line? Can you imagine a bendy straight line? Can you imagine any paradox?

With all due respect, I don't think you read my example with Superman and Nelson Mandela. It is crucial to what I'm proposing here. Anything that is absurd/contradictory/paradoxical in any way, (whether that be mathematically, scientifically or philosophically), has no meaning and makes no sense and can never ever exist. Which part of the following example, are you in disagreement with?

Consider the sentence: Nelson Mandela lifts a 25,000 pound bus. Now picture it. We can all picture Nelson Mandela doing this and Hollywood can produce a video clip where Nelson Mandela is lifting a 25,000 pound bus. However, given the traits we associate with Nelson Mandela, given the definition of Nelson Mandela, and given the semantical gap that is Nelson Mandela, we cannot coherently imagine Nelson Mandela doing this. If we saw an advert that shows this, we automatically assume special effects or some other kind of mechanism wherein which the images of Nelson Mandela doing this have been produced. As in we change the semantics of the sentence somehow. For example we could alter the semantics of the bus in question. So we think something like maybe it was a picture of a bus that Nelson Mandela actually lifted. Nelson Mandela cannot lift a 25,000 bus, the math and science don’t add up, so it goes in the absurd category and you cannot imagine it coherently unless you alter semantics appropriately and adequately in some way.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

All three ideas are incoherent of themselves. Together they make less sense.

Then show that they are incoherent.

No one gets to validate impossible ideas just by defining them because no one can define impossible ideas I can't define a square-circle or a bendy straight line or a married bachelor. But I have defined omnipotence and omniscience.

Maxcady10001 wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2018, 7:48 pm I would not use 3. We are not dependent on existence, instead, we determine what exists and in which manner. Your examples of Superman and Nelson Mandela lifting a bus are enough proof of this, especially the tweaking of semantics to our liking. Maybe Nelson Mandela is a mutant(X-Men)?

I would also change 4. Existence is limited to what the mind allows, of course, the mind becomes what is omnipresent and omniscient but I see no problem with that.

Reason doesn't allow us to reject three because it would be paradoxical to do so. I'll demonstrate: You say we determine what exists and that we are not dependent on Existence. So if we cease to exist, would Existence also cease to exist? Is this not paradoxical? If we're existence, then did we come from nothing? And when we cease to exist, does existence become non-existence?

You cannot have something come from nothing and you cannot have something go into nothing. Therefore, Existence is necessarily infinite and eternal. We're in Existence, we are not Existence because of the aforementioned paradox.

My Superman and Nelson Mandela example shows that we're not tweaking the semantics to our liking, we're tweaking to adhere to what reason dictates. Yeah, a super mutant Nelson Mandela with super strength, can lift the 25,000kg bus. The math and the science would add up in this case and we would have adhered to reason. It's not to our liking, it's what reason dictates, how we make it adhere to reason, is what we get to choose. But adhere to reason it must.

Eduk wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 3:29 am 2. Is interesting as you can draw different conclusions. On the one hand it's straightforward as by definition to exist you must be in existence.
My conclusion may be different from yours though. I conclude that something may be in a category where it isn't bound by our existence and therefore it wouldn't be logical to say it exists but here is where words and my ability to conceive fail me the best I can come up with is it has an alternative existence.
I'm not sure you allow for this possibility?

You can have alternate realities. You can have multiple realities but you can't have more than one Existence. I'll demonstrate:

When we talk about alternate realities, we can say that they are separated by Existence. We cannot say non-existence separates alternate realities as that would imply that Existence can border non-existence. But the phrase "existence bordering non-existence" is paradoxical just as "something coming from nothing is paradoxical". For this reason, we cannot have more than one Existence.

philosopher19 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 1:36 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2018, 5:30 pm You do not get to validate impossible ideas just be defining them.
Since a rock is part of existence, and a rock cannot know all, have complete power nor can it be all existence then the mere existence of a pebble invalidates the possibility of your ideas.

A rock is a part of Existence but that has no effect on Existence being omnipresent. Similarly it has no effect on Existence being omnipotent. If you think it does, show me where it results in a paradox or contradiction.

THis is where you make your mistake since you have decided to exclude ONE ROCK. Putting one rock outside omni-presence means you have shot yourself in the foot. Omni is either omni or nothing.

Either omnipresent is existence, or existing. It cannot be both.

It is necessarily both. I'll demonstrate: Existence is existing (any problems here?) Existence is existing in an all-existing/omnipresent manner (any problems here?) Existence is omnipresent/all-existing (any problems here?) To say that it is not both is paradoxical. In trying to answer the following, you might see the paradox: How can that which is omnipresent/all-existing be anything other than Existence? How can Existence be defined as anything other that which is all-existing?

no arguments except you are just in a sad circle of definition, saying nothing about reality.

We're existing in Existence but we are not existence. We're not omnipresent and we never will be because nothing can take the place of Existence/that which is omnipresent.

The universe just is.

The universe exists in Existence, but it's not Existence.

gibberish. You now say there is something outside existence. You are confused.

It would be paradoxical to say that it is. The universe can never be omnipresent therefore the universe can never be omnipotent.

since it is easy to think of an impossible thing. It is impossible for the universe to enable me to drink a glass of water whilst sitting on the surface of the sun; neither can I drink the blood of a unicorn; or have my cake and eat it too; neither can a square be a circle.

I can picture shapes with straight lines. Given gravity (which makes straight lines impossible in our universe), can you imagine a a shape with straight lines in our universe? Doesn't this just amount to the bendy straight line? Can you imagine a bendy straight line? Can you imagine any paradox?

With all due respect, I don't think you read my example with Superman and Nelson Mandela. It is crucial to what I'm proposing here. Anything that is absurd/contradictory/paradoxical in any way, (whether that be mathematically, scientifically or philosophically), has no meaning and makes no sense and can never ever exist. Which part of the following example, are you in disagreement with?

Consider the sentence: Nelson Mandela lifts a 25,000 pound bus. Now picture it. We can all picture Nelson Mandela doing this and Hollywood can produce a video clip where Nelson Mandela is lifting a 25,000 pound bus. However, given the traits we associate with Nelson Mandela, given the definition of Nelson Mandela, and given the semantical gap that is Nelson Mandela, we cannot coherently imagine Nelson Mandela doing this. If we saw an advert that shows this, we automatically assume special effects or some other kind of mechanism wherein which the images of Nelson Mandela doing this have been produced. As in we change the semantics of the sentence somehow. For example we could alter the semantics of the bus in question. So we think something like maybe it was a picture of a bus that Nelson Mandela actually lifted. Nelson Mandela cannot lift a 25,000 bus, the math and science don’t add up, so it goes in the absurd category and you cannot imagine it coherently unless you alter semantics appropriately and adequately in some way.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

All three ideas are incoherent of themselves. Together they make less sense.

Then show that they are incoherent.

No one gets to validate impossible ideas just by defining them because no one can define impossible ideas I can't define a square-circle or a bendy straight line or a married bachelor. But I have defined omnipotence and omniscience.

Existence is made of parts in chaos. It is not a whole and cannot be omnipotent.

But let's say I accept everything you say. So what?