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

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by philosopher19 » September 27th, 2018, 7:00 pm

Maxcady10001 wrote:
September 26th, 2018, 11:42 pm
A finite sized room that's eternal is possible.
?
Having a space or reality that is eternal but finite in terms of size and depth. I consider this as possible. However, even if I'm wrong, say like a paradox is conclusively proven, then I adhere to reason and acknowledge that such a thing is impossible. But whether an infinitely long noodle or an eternal room is possible or not (and I've not seen any counter arguments to it) it has no bearing on the argument that I'm proposing here: Existence is necessarily existing and it is necessarily all-existing, almighty, all-knowing, infinite and eternal.

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

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by philosopher19 » September 27th, 2018, 9:18 pm

Maxcady10001 wrote:
September 27th, 2018, 5:57 am
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.
But our reason coupled with our senses, still clearly differentiates between them in terms of something like location. In our dreams we are not within the waking world. In the waking world, we're sleeping. So how can they be the same reality?
How is it that the infinite can have parts?

There is a clear difference between:

Being a part of the infinite and the infinite being divisible. I'll demonstrate:
Can the infinite be divided?

No
If we are a part of existence, that means we are part of the infinite.
Yes
That is what you are saying, that the infinite has parts, and that all of its parts are finite.
No
Do you understand that all parts of a thing make up it's entirety?
Yes
If all parts of existence are finite, then how can existence considered in it's entirety be infinite?
This is where you misunderstood me. Not all parts of Existence are finite. Why do you make that assumption?

You can count infinitely, but you cannot count to infinity.

1) Counting to infinity (paradoxical, you'll never reach infinity)
2) Counting infinitely (not paradoxical)

In both cases, true infinity is not achieved in any dimension. In number 2, you have a start point but not an end point in time. So this is not truly eternal. Which means, we have a semantic gap here. Something that has a start point but no end point in any dimension. Lets call this semi-infinite.

This demonstrates the following:

The nature of Existence is such that no matter how many finite beings you have within it (2), they will never amount to being Existence/fully infinite (1).

This logically implies that not all parts of Existence are finite. Or at the very least, it implies that the sum of all finite beings does not = Existence. Correct?

Do you see the clear difference between the finite and the infinite? So, X) Being a part of the infinite and Y) The infinite being divisible, are not the same thing. Nor does X amount to Y. Where is the paradox?
In what system aren't there paradoxes?


I've addressed your point about the divisibility of infinity. Do you see any paradoxes in what I'm proposing?
You are saying the infinite can have parts (be divided), and that length is not length. It is and is not itself.

I never said length is not length and I never said that the infinite can be divided. Division requires finiteness.
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?
All dimensions are infinite in terms of length. You can never measure infinity. But you can measure within it. You can choose a starting point on it and an end point and then measure that. What's wrong with this?
you just admitted to thinking of infinity as a container. Do you know a container has borders
Indeed I did. I know containers that have borders and I know a container that has no borders. In all cases, all containers are containing things.
Container = that which contains things. Container does not exclusively mean: a thing with borders that contains things.

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

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by Maxcady10001 » September 28th, 2018, 6:43 am

You did not answer to why you used a triangle to represent an infinite existence. That alone shows that there's some kind of misunderstanding.
Having a space or reality that is eternal but finite in terms of size and depth.
If the reality is finite in terms of size and depth, through the dimension's relations, all other aspects of this reality are going to be finite. Just like the infinite triangle example you brought up, by drawing a triangle you've put limits on what it can contain. Also by imagining a room, you've put limits on what that room contains. And because you can imagine and draw these things they are not infinite. You cannot call what naturally has borders/limits infinite.

Can you drink from a cup of infinite depth? No. Imagine pouring something into a rim of darkness. Now could a cup of infinite depth be lifted? No. Could you use a straw on a cup of infinite depth? No. Straw would go on forever never reaching any bottom because the bottom dies not exist. Can a cup with no bottom be called a cup? No. Then can the limited (things you mentioned like rooms and triangles) be unlimited? No.
But our reason coupled with our senses, still clearly differentiates between them in terms of something like location. In our dreams we are not within the waking world. In the waking world, we're sleeping. So how can they be the same reality?
Reasin (past experience) differentiates between locations all the time. Are the bathroom and living room different realities?
No, I do know what you mean. You mean reason differentiates between conditions of thought, but the earlier example still applies, differing conditions don't bring us to other realities because the same stuff is real.
The same stuff being the senses.
You can count infinitely, but you cannot count to infinity.
Wrong. A finite thing (man) cannot count infinitely (to no end). So your first point isn't doing. A person can only count as long as their lifespan, not infinitely.
Something that has a start point but no end point in any dimension. Lets call this semi-infinite.
No, don't call anything semi-infinite. A person cannot count infinitely, they begin counting and they're done when they're dead. That is not semi infinite. Limits are already put on a persons life, and on any conditions involved with being a person, such as how good a shaoe there in, how many breaths to take before saying the next number, things like that. So how can a person count infinitely? They can't.
The nature of Existence is such that no matter how many finite beings you have within it (2), they will never amount to being Existence/fully infinite (1)
This bit certainly doesn't follow. First of all, what is fully infinite? Is there a such thing as completed infinity? No. Also don't use terms like semi/half infinite. And it doesn't follow, at all, because people can't count infinitely. Also by using the term existence in a way to mean a completion, all of, or everything, you put limits on what you're calling infinite, that which has no limits.

This logically implies that not all parts of Existence are finite. Or at the very least, it implies that the sum of all finite beings does not = Existence. Correct?
Again, (2) made no sense. A thing that needs to put food and water in its mouth every few hours cannot count infinitely. Ridiculous. And once again, I find you denying time and change. What is existence? It is what we observe. Have you observed anything not subject to change? No. Or, do your observations change, changing everything with them? Yes.
All dimensions are infinite in terms of length. You can never measure infinity. But you can measure within it. You can choose a starting point on it and an end point and then measure that. What's wrong with this?
What's wrong with it? Ok. Imagine you have a really long line, and you draw lines through it. Say it's now three lines. The bit of line before the first mark through, the bit of line after the second mark through and the bit of line between. Now if you want to call the first line infinite, then you have just successfully divided the infinite into three sections. Is that possible? No. First of all it's impossible to imagine an infinite line, and how the hell are you going to mark off anything unless it's drawn on paper. No the capacity to be limited is limited to only the limited. Only a limited line can be sectioned, because only a limited line can be seen, or imagined or drawn.

Oh, and tell me about the container you know that has no borders.

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

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by philosopher19 » September 29th, 2018, 7:55 am

Maxcady10001 wrote:
September 27th, 2018, 5:57 am
You did not answer to why you used a triangle to represent an infinite existence. That alone shows that there's some kind of misunderstanding.
I meant to show that being in something (in this case, inside a triangle) and being different to the thing that you’re in (in this case, various shapes), does not alter the definition of the thing that you’re in. What matters is that the definition remains true (paradox free)
And because you can imagine and draw these things they are not infinite. You cannot call what naturally has borders/limits infinite.
Agreed
Can you drink from a cup of infinite depth? No. Imagine pouring something into a rim of darkness. Now could a cup of infinite depth be lifted? No. Could you use a straw on a cup of infinite depth? No. Straw would go on forever never reaching any bottom because the bottom dies not exist. Can a cup with no bottom be called a cup? No. Then can the limited (things you mentioned like rooms and triangles) be unlimited? No.
Yes, and that’s my point exactly. You can clearly see how your example amounts to a paradox and is therefore impossible. But now, I’ll give you an example, and you try and show me paradoxes in it:

You have an object (let’s call it a semi-infinite cup), again, I’ve used the word semi-infinite to describe this cup as only true infinity has no start and no end point whereas semi-infinite (in any dimension), has a start point, but not an end point. Only Existence can be truly infinite.

Obviously you cannot pour anything into this cup as semi-infinite depth logically implies a bottomless cup. Nor can you lift it, again, for the same reason. So the only hypothetically possible way that you can drink from a semi-infinite cup is if that cup is already filled. Then, you can take your straw, and drink from it. So long as you and your environment are immortal (semi-infinite in the time dimension), you can drink forever/semi-infinitely. How you do this, like how many sips you take in a minute, is another matter that does not contradict doing the act semi-infinitely.
Wrong. A finite thing (man) cannot count infinitely (to no end). So your first point isn't doing. A person can only count as long as their lifespan, not infinitely.
He can do so if he is immortal, and there’s nothing paradoxical about an immortal man. You clearly demonstrated the paradox of drinking from a cup of infinite depth. Show me why an immortal man is paradoxical. Bearing in mind that immortal (semi-infinite in time) is not the same as eternal (infinite in terms of time, which is exclusive to Existence/that which is omnpresent)
Limits are already put on a persons life, and on any conditions involved with being a person, such as how good a shaoe there in, how many breaths to take before saying the next number, things like that. So how can a person count infinitely? They can’t.
How many breaths they take in a minute is not relevant to their ability to drink in an immortal manner. Let’s say immortal man X takes 20 breaths per minute and has 20 sips in 1 minute. They continue this without end because the nature of time is such that it allows repetition of this act without end.

Now, another immortal man Y takes 10 breaths per minute and has 10 sips in one minute. This act with these measures is repeated without end.

They are both drinking semi-infinitely but with different measures. This does not takeaway from their drinking semi-infinitely.

Now you may think that one will ultimately end up drinking more than the other but that is absurd because they simply won’t end their action. So neither will outdrink each other when this task is done in a semi-infinite manner. What you might say is that if at any point in their semi-infinite timeline you took a measurement (which would be finite), then you would conclude that in this timespan, X is drinking more than Y.

So where is there a paradox with semi-infinite? I can show you how its rejection would be paradoxical.
First of all, what is fully infinite?

Existence is the only thing that can be infinite (paradoxical to reject). By fully infinite, I meant to make a clear distinction between being infinite and being semi-infinite.
Is there a such thing as completed infinity?
Depends on what you mean. Existence is infinite but infinity is not something you can ever reach (paradoxical). Your word completed implies an end, which Existence does not have. So completed infinity sounds paradoxical to me.

Please note, that Existence being complete is not the same as Existence being completed. Things in Existence get completed via the process of change. Existence itself, has always been complete (contained within it all things/potentials) and will always be complete. What happens inside it (as in what happens with the potential that it has) does not alter Existence being complete. Nothing goes out of it, and nothing comes into it.
I find you denying time and change. What is existence?
I do not deny time and change. Again, take a look at what I said with regards to semi-infinites and the example I gave with regards to the immortal drinkers.
Imagine you have a really long line, and you draw lines through it. Say it's now three lines. The bit of line before the first mark through, the bit of line after the second mark through and the bit of line between. Now if you want to call the first line infinite, then you have just successfully divided the infinite into three sections. Is that possible?
There is no paradox in drawing lines through a semi-infinite line. Saying that you’ve divided the semi-infinite line is paradoxical because you can’t divide something that has no end. You can measure from where you drew your first line to where you drew your second or third line. There is no paradox here.
Oh, and tell me about the container you know that has no borders.
Existence contains us within it. It has no borders.

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

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by Maxcady10001 » September 29th, 2018, 11:08 am

There's no way you tried to understand any of what I said.

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

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by philosopher19 » September 29th, 2018, 12:09 pm

Maxcady10001 wrote:
September 29th, 2018, 11:08 am
There's no way you tried to understand any of what I said.
I understood It and addressed it fully. We're at the following:

1) I demonstrated that any description of Existence as being anything other than omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient/infinite to be paradoxical.

2) You claimed that I'm wrong and tried to disprove me by showing me a paradox with regards to infinity.

3) I used your own example and produced a counter example that directly addressed your point/questions fully.

4) You accuse me of not understanding any of what you said.

Ironically, instead of trying to understand and address my counter example, 4 happens. If that was the case, 3 would not have happened. Either 3 is wrong and 4 is right, or, 4 is wrong and 3 is right.

In all fairness though, I think I'm in a more suitable and justified position to say "Theres no way you tried to understand any of what I said."

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 941
Joined: November 29th, 2012, 10:56 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Heraclitus

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by A_Seagull » September 29th, 2018, 6:53 pm

philosopher19 wrote:
September 29th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Maxcady10001 wrote:
September 29th, 2018, 11:08 am
There's no way you tried to understand any of what I said.

In all fairness though, I think I'm in a more suitable and justified position to say "Theres no way you tried to understand any of what I said."
Its really really hard to understand nonsense.
The Pattern Paradigm - yer can't beat it!

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

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by philosopher19 » September 30th, 2018, 12:09 am

A_Seagull wrote:
September 29th, 2018, 6:53 pm
philosopher19 wrote:
September 29th, 2018, 12:09 pm



In all fairness though, I think I'm in a more suitable and justified position to say "Theres no way you tried to understand any of what I said."
Its really really hard to understand nonsense.
It's not really really hard to understand nonsense. It's actually impossible to understand nonsense/paradoxes/absurdities because they have no meaning. They make no sense. No matter how hard you try, you will never understand nonsense.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2806
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by Burning ghost » September 30th, 2018, 3:03 am

Phil -

I’ll give this a go later - time for work. Reading the first few opints set out in the OP I think I see where you’re going in your head.
AKA badgerjelly

Burning ghost
Posts: 2806
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by Burning ghost » September 30th, 2018, 3:13 am

It looks like you’re saying existence is existence. Yet you don’t really attempt to define what this means and then arrive at a description of “existence” as being everything that is and conscious of everything that is. I say “conscious” because you did outline “exist” as being what is possible to human rationality, yet if you’re implying that there is some “other” “supra-human existence” then it isn’t existence in the sense that we can talk of - because, and I hope this is obvous, supra-human existence is beyond us and if it isn’t then you’re talking about human existence anyway becasue you’re human.

I see hints of Wittgenstein in here and some of the usual issue coming to the fore about Kant’s views on rationalism.

What is there ou ca counter above and if you cannot how do you remedy your OP?
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 941
Joined: November 29th, 2012, 10:56 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Heraclitus

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by A_Seagull » September 30th, 2018, 5:49 am

philosopher19 wrote:
September 30th, 2018, 12:09 am
A_Seagull wrote:
September 29th, 2018, 6:53 pm


Its really really hard to understand nonsense.
It's not really really hard to understand nonsense. It's actually impossible to understand nonsense/paradoxes/absurdities because they have no meaning. They make no sense. No matter how hard you try, you will never understand nonsense.
Some paradoxes are trivial to understand; all they require is a different perspective.
The Pattern Paradigm - yer can't beat it!

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

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by philosopher19 » October 1st, 2018, 2:07 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
September 30th, 2018, 3:13 am
It looks like you’re saying existence is existence.
I'm essentially describing the core traits of Existence.
It looks like you’re saying existence is existence. Yet you don’t really attempt to define what this means and then arrive at a description of “existence” as being everything that is and conscious of everything that is.
I give the outline of the key traits of Existence. Namely: Infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient
if you’re implying that there is some “other” “supra-human existence” then it isn’t existence in the sense that we can talk of - because, and I hope this is obvous, supra-human existence is beyond us and if it isn’t then you’re talking about human existence anyway becasue you’re human.
I'm essentially following the dictates of reason. It dictates: We're not Existence. We're in it. Reason makes a clear distinction between us (beings within Existence) and Existence itself. The outline of what Existence is, is clear to us: Infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient. It's clear because any other alternative is paradoxical.

So aspects of it, are probably unknown to us: For example, how many senses are there in Existence? Is there some alien creature that has like a 100 senses? This sort of stuff is unknown to us. However, what is clearly known is that Existence is necessarily infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient because any alternative, is paradoxical.

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

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by philosopher19 » October 1st, 2018, 2:13 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
September 30th, 2018, 3:13 am
I see hints of Wittgenstein in here and some of the usual issue coming to the fore about Kant’s views on rationalism.

What is there ou ca counter above and if you cannot how do you remedy your OP?
Kant's view on rationalism was wrong. He had an irrational understanding of time and infinity.

What about Wittegenstein? What does he say that causes problems with what I'm saying?

In Existence, you can only have one language/semantics. You can have different signs/words/sounds/gestures labelling these semantics, but you cannot have different semantics. You'd require a separate existence for that and that is blatantly absurd.

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

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by philosopher19 » October 1st, 2018, 2:20 pm

A_Seagull wrote:
September 30th, 2018, 5:49 am
philosopher19 wrote:
September 30th, 2018, 12:09 am


It's not really really hard to understand nonsense. It's actually impossible to understand nonsense/paradoxes/absurdities because they have no meaning. They make no sense. No matter how hard you try, you will never understand nonsense.
Some paradoxes are trivial to understand; all they require is a different perspective.
We never understand paradoxes. We try to understand what amounted to a paradox and then address it. Being open-minded and trying different perspectives is necessary to this, otherwise, we'd be dogmatic and we'd never understand what amounted to the paradox.

Only when we clearly have a paradox-free system can we then say being open to different perspective is irrational. This is because there can only be one paradox free system which means that if it's truly paradox free, no other perspectives/hypothetical possibilities would be available for us to consider.

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

Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 1st, 2018, 2:40 pm

philosopher19 wrote:
October 1st, 2018, 2:13 pm
Kant's view on rationalism was wrong. He had an irrational understanding of time and infinity.
Easy to say. Not so easy to show.
I doubt you understand Kant enough to make that assertion.

Post Reply