The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight

Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by Eduk » September 24th, 2018, 6:05 pm

Out of interest phil19 I'm going to slightly echo TH's question. What does it mean, to you, that existence is omnipotent and omniscient?
Unknown means unknown.

philosopher19
Posts: 35
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by philosopher19 » September 24th, 2018, 7:23 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
September 24th, 2018, 5:14 pm
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.
I never decided to exclude a rock from omnipresence. Can show me where you got that idea from?

A rock exists in Existence/the all-existing. Do you see some kind of rational problem with this sentence?
no arguments except you are just in a sad circle of definition, saying nothing about reality.
A sad circle of definition...In order to use reason effectively, avoiding paradoxes is necessary. Is it not? Again, I'll try and demonstrate:

Reason is always right when used correctly because anything other than this is paradoxical. Is this correct, false, circular but correct, circular but false, or none of what I've just mentioned? Whatever you choose, please demonstrate with the use of reason. I'll give you my demonstration in advance. It is as follows: If you choose false, or circular but false, then you've committed to a paradox and committing to a paradox means that you've not used reason correctly. What's the alternative? That you successfully doubt reason using reason? Is that not paradoxical?

I gave you a definition of omnipresence, asserted that any other definition is paradoxical, and then demonstrated the various paths that any other definition would lead to the paradox that is non-existence. You're reply is to say: no arguments except you are just in a sad circle of definition, saying nothing about reality.

Bearing in mind what reason dictates with regards to the avoidance of paradoxes, I ask you: Is my definition of omnipresence as that which is all-existing/Existence correct, false, circular but correct, circular but false or none of what I've just mentioned? Whatever you choose, please demonstrate with the use of reason.
gibberish. You now say there is something outside existence. You are confused.
I said: The universe exists in Existence, but it's not Existence. How is this the same as saying there is something outside of Existence?

The universe exists in Existence. If you think that the universe is Existence, then what's the universe expanding into? Non-existence? Is that not absurd? Does that even make sense?
Existence is made of parts in chaos. It is not a whole and cannot be omnipotent.
Existence is not a whole? So it's in parts is it? What separates the parts, non-existence? Is that not paradoxical?

All rational beings can either choose to be rational or irrational/paradoxical/contradictory. When someone thinks that it's possible or at all meaningful to have something come from nothing, or have existence border non-existence, they are choosing an irrational/paradoxical/contradictory position.
But let's say I accept everything you say. So what?
It's the same as if I said, 1 add 1 equals 2 and you accepted it. Nothing in particular happens. You just accept it. That's it.

philosopher19
Posts: 35
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by philosopher19 » September 24th, 2018, 7:36 pm

Eduk wrote:
September 24th, 2018, 6:05 pm
Out of interest phil19 I'm going to slightly echo TH's question. What does it mean, to you, that existence is omnipotent and omniscient?
Existence being omnipotent and omniscient is what I've concluded per the dictates of reason. When you say what does it mean to you, do you mean in terms of religion? If that's the case, religion is a separate matter, as is divine intervention. Divine intervention is a matter of experience and empiricism but that's not what I'm here to discuss. I just wanna give a rational definition of Existence. A rational definition of Existence requires that it be paradox/contradiction/irrationality free.

Maxcady10001
Posts: 445
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by Maxcady10001 » September 24th, 2018, 11:46 pm

philosopher19 wrote: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?
First we have to decide whether we can cease to exist. It would be a hard thing to refute observation as what determined your first point, that x exists. How could you determine the existence of what cannot be sensed? And a thought is a kind of sensation, it is an image or a voice, or both, so no way out there. Observation is what decided the first point. If existence hinges on observation necessarily if we cease to exist, so does existence, as existence is only a series of sensations. But back to whether or not we can cease to exist.

The importance of observance is always overlooked. Think of any historical event. Now did this event take place whether or not you heard of it? Only when you hear of it does it exist, otherwise what does not exist exists. Or, phrased in another paradoxical way, what exists for another, does not exist to you. Something would exist and not exist. How could something be something and nothing? This is why observance determines what exists, and not some ridiculous "objectivism" that also relies on observance.
If observance determines existence, then ceasing to exist is impossible since there would need to be the observation of nothing, or the observation of no observation. Do any paradoxes result from observation as what determines existence?

You brought up something from nothing as the paradoxical result of ourselves as existence. An example of what you probably meant was learning of a historical event and believing as I would that the event's existence was determined by my learning it, it seems to you that the event "popped" into existence without an objective world or a world not contingent on my observation.

Now this may seem an odd question, but think of a language you do not understand and ask what a sentence of that language means to you? If you do not understand the language, it should mean no more than a particular configuration of lines, although maybe one is similar to a smiley face or a house. But, the point is that what you do not know, does not exist as knowledge (what has been experienced). Now back to the historical event you've learned of. Before you learn of this event, you've learned the language the event is communicated to you in, and the words only needed to be put in a certain order to convey this new meaning. And the learning of words before fluency worked in a similar way. A certain organization of letters gave you new words, and learning to make new sounds gave you letters. The point is past experience determines the way we experience the future, and there isn't any "popping" into existence. Of course you will say "what about before my existence," but there was no time before your existence. Consider what time is, it is the observation of the positioning and relations of certain objects. What observations were there before you were born? To answer, you'd have to observe non existence or your own inability to observe (non existence because observation determines existence). Can non existence be observed? No? Then we must conclude there were no observations before birth.

Is existence infinite and eternal? If existence is eternal, that would negate time and change. And if we are in existence, and temporal, and all parts of existence we observe are temporal, how is the entirety of existence eternal? And if existence is infinite you must adhere to some kind of monism, since the infinite cannot have beginnings and endings (parts). The infinite cannot begin or end at any particular point, and it cannot be divided by anything but itself. So are you a monist? Also, it is obvious that existence changes in each observation so how can you claim it's timelessness? I could say existence changes with every blink of my eye. But anyway it is obvious that if we are in existence (parts of) existence cannot be infinite and eternal.

Just to make sure, you do mean we are parts of existence right? Otherwise you would have been fine with my saying we are existence.

Also, what is your definition of reason? To me, it is only what is likely according to past experience. That is the reasonable, and you would probably be hard pressed to find a better definition, or one that doesn't mention past experience (science and logic are based entirely on observations). So why are you separating my liking and reason in the Nelson Mandela example? My liking of Mandela as a mutant was reasonable because of what I know of superhumans.

Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by Eduk » September 25th, 2018, 3:04 am

I never asked if you were religious phil19. Can I ask if you think there is any chance, at all, that your religious beliefs trump your logical abilities? Or to put it another way you declare yourself to be rational but is it possible that you are misleading yourself?
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 25th, 2018, 11:15 am

philosopher19 wrote:
September 24th, 2018, 7:36 pm
Eduk wrote:
September 24th, 2018, 6:05 pm
Out of interest phil19 I'm going to slightly echo TH's question. What does it mean, to you, that existence is omnipotent and omniscient?
Existence being omnipotent and omniscient
Rubbish.
You have been avoiding omniscience, preferring to go on about omnipresence and omnipotence; meaning nothing.
The claim that the universe is omniscient requires consciousness, and since a rock does not know a pebble, nor the trees know the stars, you have all your work to do.
Were you thinking hard enough you would see that the attribution of a singular quality to every think is also problematic for the same reason.

Maxcady10001
Posts: 445
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by Maxcady10001 » September 25th, 2018, 11:55 am

Thomas Hobbes

Though an existence not contingent on my observation cannot be attributed with omniscience or omnipotence, the mind can, as it is what determines existence, which is why I said the op should just change 3 and 4.

Maxcady10001
Posts: 445
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by Maxcady10001 » September 25th, 2018, 11:59 am

Changing 3 and 4 does change the rest, but there is still omnipotence and omniscience attributed to existence, since existence is admitted to be a reality formed by the mind (if the op changes 3 and 4 at least ).

philosopher19
Posts: 35
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by philosopher19 » September 25th, 2018, 4:28 pm

Maxcady10001 wrote:
September 24th, 2018, 11:46 pm
Also, what is your definition of reason?
Reason is the tool that organises all things accurately/truthfully by way of distinguishing truth from falsehood (paradox/absurdity/contradiction/non-existence) I'll demonstrate what I mean.
How could you determine the existence of what cannot be sensed? And a thought is a kind of sensation, it is an image or a voice, or both, so no way out there. Observation is what decided the first point. If existence hinges on observation necessarily if we cease to exist, so does existence, as existence is only a series of sensations. But back to whether or not we can cease to exist.
Our experience is such that we find ourselves in possession of language and reason (hence why it's possible for us to be communicating here)
We find reason authoritatively dictating things. Am I right? First, it authoritatively dictates the following:
Reason is always right when used correctly because anything other than this is paradoxical. Is this correct, false, circular but correct, circular but false, or none of what I've just mentioned? We clearly recognise that reason dictates paradoxes are unacceptable. Agreed? With that in mind, consider the following:

Observation is what decided our first point but not Existence's first point. Right? Now let's turn to reason (the only thing that we use to distinguish truth from falsehood in any field, including scientific observations)

Reason clearly states the following:

You cannot have something come from nothing(paradox) and you cannot have something go into non-existence (paradox). So reason clearly dictates that Existence has always existed and will always exist. So we cannot be existence as we clearly recognise a first point for ourselves. This is not to say that we came from nothing, (evolution is one theory that talks about from what we came from), nor can we say that we will become nothing (we'll change to something else, like ashes or dust)) as that too would be paradoxical and therefore meaningless language/rational discourse.

Reason gives us an understanding of both what cannot be sensed and what can be sensed. In any case, If we classify reason as a sensation, then that sensation gives us an accurate and authoritative understanding of concepts like Existence. Either way, it makes no difference, reason dictates what is true and what is not. What can be and what cannot be. Everything we do hinges on reason, this includes all our observations/experiences.
Can non existence be observed? No? Then we must conclude there were no observations before birth.
It cannot be observed let alone understood as it is a paradoxical concept. Whenever we encounter a paradox, reason is telling us we've not used it right somewhere. Your conclusion doesn't follow: We made no observation before our birth. This is not the same as there we no observations before our birth. It would be paradoxical to say there were 0 observations before our birth.
Is existence infinite and eternal? If existence is eternal, that would negate time and change
How? By viewing time as a dimension (any alternative is paradoxical) we are rationally obliged to consider that dimension as infinite. If you see a paradox, can you show me how you get to it?
And if we are in existence, and temporal, and all parts of existence we observe are temporal, how is the entirety of existence eternal?
Time is a dimension. An accurate description of me is as follows. I am N in location xyz in reality p at time t. Spatial dimensions and time are infinite. The place that we occupy can have a measure. So we measure time and space in relation to our world/reality/universe. This does not cause contradiction with regards to Existence being eternal and infinite. On the other hand, the contrary would.
Is existence infinite and eternal? If existence is eternal, that would negate time and change. And if we are in existence, and temporal, and all parts of existence we observe are temporal, how is the entirety of existence eternal? And if existence is infinite you must adhere to some kind of monism, since the infinite cannot have beginnings and endings (parts). The infinite cannot begin or end at any particular point, and it cannot be divided by anything but itself.
True. Existence itself cannot have a beginning or an end. It's necessarily eternal and infinite. Things within Existence are a different matter. I am not Existence, yet at the same time, I exist in Existence. I am not infinite, but I am in/part of the infinite. Do you see anything paradoxical here? Again, the alternative to this would yield paradoxes (something coming from nothing)
Also, it is obvious that existence changes in each observation so how can you claim it's timelessness?
Existence never changes. That which is within existence changes. Things evolve into different things, universes obtain reality, expand and so on. Some substance has to be omnipresent that sustains/is present in all other substances that necessarily originated from it. So long as the definition of Existence (that which is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite and eternal) is there, then no paradoxes occur.

You can have various changing shapes within a triangle. So long as the traits of the triangle don't change, the triangle is still a triangle regardless of what changes within it.
Just to make sure, you do mean we are parts of existence right? Otherwise you would have been fine with my saying we are existence.
Yes. We are sustained by that which is omnipresent but we are not that which is omnipresent. So if substance x is omnipresent, then substance x sustains us by virtue of it being substance x. So perhaps, if and only if energy is that which is omnipresent (I don't think it is, but I don't know), then we are a manifestation/creation of energy. But this does not amount to energy changing into some different substance. Energy always remains energy, that never changes. How it manifests itself is a different matter.

Essentially, we are a manifestation/creation of substance x which is the same as saying we are existing/existent. But this is not the same as saying we are Existence.
Also, what is your definition of reason? To me, it is only what is likely according to past experience. That is the reasonable, and you would probably be hard pressed to find a better definition, or one that doesn't mention past experience (science and logic are based entirely on observations). So why are you separating my liking and reason in the Nelson Mandela example? My liking of Mandela as a mutant was reasonable because of what I know of superhumans.
Your reason and your language and my reason and my language are the exact same thing. How we use them or whether we use them correctly or not is a different matter. Reason and language do not allow for paradoxes/absurdities in a similar way to how Existence does not allow for non-existence. There is nothing wrong with a super mutant Nelson Mandela as that is something that can be potentially brought about by that which is omnipresent/omnipotent. What can't be brought about is a weak force lifting a force heavier than it can lift (A paradox. Which is what the non-super Nelson Mandela example amounted to) Reason dictates that you have to change the word/sentence/story/theory for it to be not absurd/impossible/always non-existent.

philosopher19
Posts: 35
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by philosopher19 » September 25th, 2018, 4:35 pm

Eduk wrote:
September 25th, 2018, 3:04 am
I never asked if you were religious phil19. Can I ask if you think there is any chance, at all, that your religious beliefs trump your logical abilities? Or to put it another way you declare yourself to be rational but is it possible that you are misleading yourself?
My friend, the only thing I uphold religiously, is reason. If any religion/belief system was at odds with reason, I would avoid it like I'd try to avoid any disease. The use/exercise of reason is key to any rational creature. That's how it would exist well/effectively, and rationally speaking, our goal is to exist well (which rationally brings morality and other matters into focus, but that is a different topic)

philosopher19
Posts: 35
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by philosopher19 » September 25th, 2018, 4:40 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
September 25th, 2018, 11:15 am
philosopher19 wrote:
September 24th, 2018, 7:36 pm


Existence being omnipotent and omniscient
Rubbish.
You have been avoiding omniscience, preferring to go on about omnipresence and omnipotence; meaning nothing.
The claim that the universe is omniscient requires consciousness, and since a rock does not know a pebble, nor the trees know the stars, you have all your work to do.
Were you thinking hard enough you would see that the attribution of a singular quality to every think is also problematic for the same reason.
With all due respect, if don't have the ability or the will power to address what I've said and actually read what I wrote, then this conversation will bear no fruit. I'll say it again. I never claimed, nor will I ever claim that the universe is omniscient. It is not. It cannot be and it never will be.

Maxcady10001
Posts: 445
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by Maxcady10001 » September 26th, 2018, 6:50 am

Reason is the tool that organises all things accurately/truthfully by way of distinguishing truth from falsehood (paradox/absurdity/contradiction/non-existence)
Another way of saying what is in accordance with past experience is reasonable. Key words are "way of distinguishing." Obviously the distinctions between things , between what is true or false, are made by past experiences. Reason is not a thing separate experience.
We find reason authoritatively dictating things. Am I right?
If you mean past experience there is a good argument to be made for yes.
Observation is what decided our first point but not Existence's first point. Right?
Our observation certainly was existence's first point, as our idea of existence does not go beyond the senses. Did you read the paradoxes involved with this kind of objectivism? That something would exist and not exist, that an entire metaphysical world becomes available now because existence is beyond the sensible. If our observation did not determine existence, then we do not know what is real. What is real is what is sensed, and since reality is comprised only of what is real, reality is only what we have sensed, but if you say existence is beyond what's been sensed then what we call reality is a farce. Is that what you're saying? Reality is a farce?
Reason gives us an understanding of both what cannot be sensed and what can be sensed. In any case, If we classify reason as a sensation, then that sensation gives us an accurate and authoritative understanding of concepts like Existence
Reason does not give us an understanding of what cannot be sensed. What cannot be sensed is unknown. If you are to speak of anything, it has been because you've had experience with it. And If you admit reason is a sensation, and these sensations are authoritative, then of course observation determines existence! Why have you been saying otherwise?
We made no observation before our birth. This is not the same as there we no observations before our birth. It would be paradoxical to say there were 0 observations before our birth.
If reason (sensations) determine existence, as you've pretty much admitted to or can't deny, then what sensations were there before birth? What reason existed? What existed at all before my observation? How would it be paradoxical to say there were 0 observations before birth? So far there are only your own observation, and obviously the existence of another person's feelings and sensations are determined by my own, and if existence of sensations is determined in such a way (by me) then what existed before me? That would be a time before time, an observation before there were observations, and that does not adhere to reason (experience). Of course, it is natural for you to say existence has always been and will always be, because you have only ever existed.
How? By viewing time as a dimension (any alternative is paradoxical) we are rationally obliged to consider that dimension as infinite. If you see a paradox, can you show me how you get to it?
Time is a dimension. An accurate description of me is as follows. I am N in location xyz in reality p at time t. Spatial dimensions and time are infinite. The place that we occupy can have a measure. So we measure time and space in relation to our world/reality/universe. This does not cause contradiction with regards to Existence being eternal and infinite. On the other hand, the contrary would.
What kind of description is that? Reality p? There are other realities? There's more than what's real (reality is necessarily only what is real)? Time t? So there are other times? If time t is an infinite dimension how can there be other times (infinite dimensions)? Since the infinite does not have limits, it cannot begin or end, how would time change? Are we changing dimensions each minute? Of course, you will probably say time in its entirety is a dimension, but that means it cannot be infinite.

Consider the other dimensions, length or width. What are these but borders or limits. Now by saying time is infinite, time necessarily is in relation with these other dimensions, is similar to saying time is not also a dimension, a limiter. You are denying the nature if time by saying it is infinite. It is akin to saying time is timeless, since time is the limiter of positioning and the observed relations between things, or what you might call motion.
A dimension/border/limit cannot be infinite otherwise it would not act as it does or should, as a dimension/border/limiter.
True. Existence itself cannot have a beginning or an end. It's necessarily eternal and infinite. Things within Existence are a different matter. I am not Existence, yet at the same time, I exist in Existence. I am not infinite, but I am in/part of the infinite. Do you see anything paradoxical here? Again, the alternative to this would yield paradoxes (something coming from nothing)
Yes, there is plenty of paradox here and you obviously did not read or skimmed what I said. How can the infinite have parts? That would mean the infinite could be divided by a number other than itself! Can the infinite be divided by a number other than itself? No. Based on what you've said it should now be obvious that we are existence. And i've already explained why it would be ridiculous to assume a time before time, or that we simply "popped" into existence. Please consider what time is and that it must be observed, as all things, in order for it to exist.
Existence never changes. That which is within existence changes. Things evolve into different things, universes obtain reality, expand and so on. Some substance has to be omnipresent that sustains/is present in all other substances that necessarily originated from it. So long as the definition of Existence (that which is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite and eternal) is there, then no paradoxes occur.
Again, what is existence? Oh right, it's what's observed. I don't think you realize the metaphysical implications of an underlying substance of existence. I would advise you to ignore the ridiculousness of Aristotle, whose entire metaphysical system is garbage. Though even he did not attribute substance with all the omni's.
Yes. We are sustained by that which is omnipresent but we are not that which is omnipresent. So if substance x is omnipresent, then substance x sustains us by virtue of it being substance x.
What are all the places that exist? I am 99% sure you can get ahold of a map of the universe. Then you will have observed all the places that exist. What exists is what has been observed. Even without that map, the universe only consists of what you can say it does, since you cannot utter the names of places you do not know. And since all that exists resides in past experiences, the mind must take that attribute of omnipresence. Obviously it takes on the other omni's as well.

Also, there are too many arguments against substance, you should take a look at them.

philosopher19
Posts: 35
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by philosopher19 » September 26th, 2018, 10:21 pm

Maxcady10001 wrote:
September 26th, 2018, 6:50 am
What kind of description is that? Reality p? There are other realities? There's more than what's real (reality is necessarily only what is real)?
Do you consider our dream experience as having the same kind or potency of reality as our waking experiences. Would you not define/classify them as different realities?
Time t? So there are other times? If time t is an infinite dimension how can there be other times (infinite dimensions)? Since the infinite does not have limits, it cannot begin or end, how would time change? Are we changing dimensions each minute? Of course, you will probably say time in its entirety is a dimension, but that means it cannot be infinite.
Yes, time is in its entirety a dimension because reason does not allow for anything other than that. Time changes for finite things within it.
That which is infinite (Existence) has no beginning or end. That which is within it (us) has a beginning and an end/is finite. Again reason doesn't allow for anything else as anything else would be paradoxical.
Consider the other dimensions, length or width. What are these but borders or limits. Now by saying time is infinite, time necessarily is in relation with these other dimensions, is similar to saying time is not also a dimension, a limiter.
Length, width, depth and time are not limits. Fully finite things within them have finite length, width, depth, and time. When things are finite they have borders. Where is the paradox?
You are denying the nature if time by saying it is infinite. It is akin to saying time is timeless, since time is the limiter of positioning and the observed relations between things, or what you might call motion.
A dimension/border/limit cannot be infinite otherwise it would not act as it does or should, as a dimension/border/limiter.
All fully finite things have limits in relation to all dimensions. This includes the dimension of time. The dimensions themselves are not limited. Things within them are limited in some way. Where is the paradox? A finite sized room that's eternal is possible. An infinitely long noodle is possible. Where is the paradox/meaninglessness?
Yes, there is plenty of paradox here and you obviously did not read or skimmed what I said. How can the infinite have parts? That would mean the infinite could be divided by a number other than itself! Can the infinite be divided by a number other than itself? No. Based on what you've said it should now be obvious that we are existence. And i've already explained why it would be ridiculous to assume a time before time, or that we simply "popped" into existence. Please consider what time is and that it must be observed, as all things, in order for it to exist.
My reply is largely dependent on whether or not you make a distinction between being in something and being a part of something. I will assume that you do.

Finite things being within the infinite does not amount to, nor is it the same as: the infinite being divisible. You can't cut infinity in half, but you can have it contain within it finite things that can be cut in half. You can have a triangle and you can have things within the triangle that can be cut in half without ever altering the triangle itself in any way. Where is the paradox?
Key words are "way of distinguishing." Obviously the distinctions between things , between what is true or false, are made by past experiences. Reason is not a thing separate experience.
Distinguishing between what is true or false is not limited to past experiences, if that's what you're implying. To say that it is, is paradoxical because reason clearly dictates that there is more to Existence than just our past and present experiences. My above replies to you also demonstrate this.

Reason dictates with authority that Existence being finite is absurd. It dictates this with the same authority as when it says you cannot have something go in and out of Existence. So if we make a scientific observation that to some may appear as a particle going in and out of Existence, reason corrects them by saying, it's going to a location/dimension/reality that we can't observe and then coming back, or that it's doing something that we can't sense/observe and then stopping that action. These are both examples of unknowns, not paradoxes. We can never say it exists, goes into non-existence, then comes back. That is paradoxical.

We can never have paradoxes in any of our systems, whether that be science, math, law, psychology etc. It would be absurd. Existence is necessarily infinite but we will never make this observation empirically but we don't need to because reason clearly dictates that the only possible alternative (Existence being finite) is paradoxical. So any observation that hints at this, we reject by default, just as we reject a particle going in and out of existence by default.
Our observation certainly was existence's first point, as our idea of existence does not go beyond the senses
Reason clearly demonstrates how our idea of existence goes beyond the senses. It clearly demonstrates how it would be paradoxical to limit Existence to just our senses. If the goal is to uphold reason, then we cannot have any paradoxes in our system.

I agree that our observation was certainly our existence's first point. Reason clearly dictates this and allows for no other alternative. Yet at the same time, it clearly dictates that our first point of observation in Existence is not Existence's first point. Our existence, is not the same as Existence's existence. Both reason and language are clear: We are in existence/we are existing, but we are not Existence/we are not existing omnipresently.

Again, we can observe when we first came into existence. But we can never accept Existence itself as having a first point as that amounts to something coming from nothing. Just as we cannot have particles going in and out of existence (as some mistakenly say), we cannot have something come from nothing. We cannot have paradoxes. This isn't a matter of it being unknown, like for example a 100th sense. This is clearly absurd, like a married-bachelor.
Did you read the paradoxes involved with this kind of objectivism? That something would exist and not exist, that an entire metaphysical world becomes available now because existence is beyond the sensible. If our observation did not determine existence, then we do not know what is real.
What is real is what is sensed, and since reality is comprised only of what is real, reality is only what we have sensed, but if you say existence is beyond what's been sensed then what we call reality is a farce. Is that what you're saying? Reality is a farce?
Existence and reality are not the same thing. That would be paradoxical. Different realities/potentials exist in Existence/the necessary. We can empirically observe that which is in our reality (the stuff we sense) we can theorise and describe these observations so long as they never ever amount to paradoxes like a particle going in an out of Existence. Going into another dimension or reality is fine, but certainly cannot say going into non-existence (absurd). Reason and language clearly dictate 4 categories: The necessary, the potential, the absurd and the unknown.

I think the mistake you make is that you treat Existence and reality as having the same semantics. Existence being infinite, has the potential to generate all hypothetical possibilities (see how this is paradox free?) Now if you consider any alternative to this, I guarantee you absurdity.

Reason dictates that Existence is not beyond what can be sensed. It is beyond/more than what we can sense but reason dictates that sensing something and understanding something are two different things. We understand that Existence may have aspects that we are unaware of (this is not paradoxical). 1) Reason tells us that we don't know if Existence has the potential to generate/sustain a being with a 100 senses, but we know it can generate/sustain a unicorn. 1 is not something that we sense, it is something that we understand.

We understand that there is Existence, because non-existence is absurd. We understand that Existence is infinite, because Existence being finite/us is absurd. So reason clearly dictates and demonstrates that we understand Existence is infinite (therefore, beyond/greater than our senses, as we are not infinite/Existence) Do you see the circle of truth?

With that in mind, when you say
Did you read the paradoxes involved with this kind of objectivism?
what kind of paradox do you see regarding my kind of objectivism?
Again, what is existence? Oh right, it's what's observed. I don't think you realize the metaphysical implications of an underlying substance of existence. I would advise you to ignore the ridiculousness of Aristotle, whose entire metaphysical system is garbage. Though even he did not attribute substance with all the omni's.
I'm not bothered about what Aristotle said. I'm simply upholding reason adhering to what it dictates without compromise.

To sum up: I've shown you clear paradoxes in your understanding of Existence and you have attempted to counter by showing paradoxes in mine. Right?

I've addressed what you claim to be paradoxical (infinitely long noodle example, reason not being applicable to that which is beyond our senses, dimensions being infinite, infinity not being able to accommodate finite thing) by showing you that they were not paradoxical. In doing so, I demonstrated that what you consider as rational (we are Existence/Existence is finite) is in fact paradoxical. To my understanding, that is where were are with this debate.

Also, it doesn't make any difference if we say reasoning is just an aspect of experience because that aspect of experience clearly dictates things with authority such as we are existing/experiencing in Existence but we are not Existence/that which is omnipresent.

Also, forget substance x. Simply call it x. Whether it's a substance or a consciousness of sorts I don't know. I just know that it's omnipresent, infinite, eternal, omnipotent and omniscient. I know this because reason dictates it.

Maxcady10001
Posts: 445
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by Maxcady10001 » September 26th, 2018, 11:42 pm

A finite sized room that's eternal is possible.
?

Maxcady10001
Posts: 445
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by Maxcady10001 » September 27th, 2018, 5:57 am

Do you consider our dream experience as having the same kind or potency of reality as our waking experiences. Would you not define/classify them as different realities?
No I would not define them as different realities, as they are both made real by the same senses, in order for them them to be separate realities, they have to be made real by other means then our reality.
That which is infinite (Existence) has no beginning or end. That which is within it (us) has a beginning and an end/is finite. Again reason doesn't allow for anything else as anything else would be paradoxical
How is it that the infinite can have parts? Can the infinite be divided? If we are a part of existence, that means we are part of the infinite. That is what you are saying, that the infinite has parts, and that all of its parts are finite. Do you understand that all parts of a thing make up it's entirety? If all parts of existence are finite, then how can existence considered in it's entirety be infinite?
We can never have paradoxes in any of our systems, whether that be science, math, law, psychology etc. It would be absurd.
In what system aren't there paradoxes?
Length, width, depth and time are not limits. Fully finite things within them have finite length, width, depth, and time. When things are finite they have borders. Where is the paradox?
You are saying the infinite can have parts (be divided), and that length is not length. It is and is not itself. Two paradoxes for you. You clearly are saying length is absolute and relative (it is and is not itself), but length can only be spoken about in relative terms, as a border or a limit. What is this length that is not a length you are talking about?

You are trying to separate existence from existence. Length isn't length, time isn't time? Then what are you talking about? All you know is what you've sensed, and you can only infer about what you've sensed.
The dimensions themselves are not limited. Things within them are limited in some way. Where is the paradox?
Once again, the infinite apparently has finite parts. Another paradox, or the same one over.
Finite things being within the infinite does not amount to, nor is it the same as: the infinite being divisible. You can't cut infinity in half, but you can have it contain within it finite things that can be cut in half. You can have a triangle and you can have things within the triangle that can be cut in half without ever altering the triangle itself in any way.
You are using a finite thing (triangle) to represent the infinite. Do you understand that a triangle has clear drawn borders and is not infinite?

"You can't cut infinity in half but you can have finite things within it," you just admitted to thinking of infinity as a container. Do you know a container has borders, e.g, your triangle example. I'll leave it here for now, there is no chance you can address any of what i've said coherently.

Post Reply