Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

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?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
philosopher19
Posts: 246
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by philosopher19 »

Hi all. If interested in the nature of Existence, consider the following:

Core to the argument: If a given belief/theory is semantically inconsistent (as in it is hypothetically impossible for it be true) then it must be rejected.

I will try again:

1) Existence being infinite accounts for why all semantics are meaningful. It is inconsistent to believe that a finite existence can contain an infinite number of semantics. A finite computer cannot have access to an infinite number of meanings/semantics, unless it had access to the cloud and the cloud was infinite.

2) Round squares, married bachelors, non-existence existing, sitting and standing at the same time, these are all hypothetical impossibilities. What makes something a hypothetical impossibility? That it cannot exist. That it cannot be true of Existence. It cannot be true of Existence that there is a man sitting and standing at the same time. Or that there is a round square. Or that non-existence exists. Or that Existence does not exist. Or that Existence is finite.

3) If something is hypothetically impossible, then it is not meaningful or understandable. You cannot understand a round square. Round has meaning. Square has meaning. Round square has no meaning. There can be nothing that is both hypothetically impossible and understandable/meaningful at the same time.

4) Given 3, If something is meaningful or understandable, then it is certainly not hypothetically impossible. To reiterate: ALL hypothetical impossibilities are meaningless and not understandable.

5) Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of. There is nothing better than a perfect existence. If existence is imperfect, then perfection (a perfect existence) is hypothetically impossible.

6) If perfection is hypothetically impossible, then it should be meaningless and not understandable (check 4). Again, ALL hypothetical impossibilities are meaningless and not understandable.

7) Perfection is meaningful/understandable, therefore, perfection is not a hypothetical impossibility.

8 ) If Existence is perfect, then perfection is not hypothetically impossible. If Existence is imperfect, then perfection is hypothetically impossible. We understand perfection, therefore, perfection is not hypothetically impossible. Therefore, Existence is perfect.

Existence is perfect is the same as saying God exists. This is because a perfect existence logically entails that everyone gets what they truly deserve (it would be imperfect otherwise). This logically requires the omnipresent (Existence) to be omnipotent and omniscient. It logically requires: Existence = God (pantheism)
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Belindi »

Philosopher19 wrote:
Existence being infinite accounts for why all semantics are meaningful. It is inconsistent to believe that a finite existence can contain an infinite number of semantics. A finite computer cannot have access to an infinite number of meanings/semantics, unless it had access to the cloud and the cloud was infinite.
But existence is not infinite as existence is contained within possibility i.e. what events are possible.

Possibility is not the province of deduction. Possibility is the gap between probability and certainty. Deduction yields certainty whereas induction yields possibility and probability.

Existence is therefore the uncaused cause of possible events and has nothing to do with linear infinity.
philosopher19
Posts: 246
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by philosopher19 »

Belindi wrote: January 31st, 2021, 3:14 pm But existence is not infinite as existence is contained within possibility i.e. what events are possible.
Thank you for replying. I think you have to look at this in reverse, otherwise, it will result in an inconsistency in meaning/semantics. Here's why:

1) If x can happen, then x is hypothetically possible. If x can't happen, then x is hypothetically impossible. Agreed?

2) x can only happen if the potential exists for it to happen. If the potential does not exist for it to happen, then x is not hypothetically possible. It is hypothetically impossible. Agreed?

3) A finite existence cannot make all xs possible because a finite existence's potential, is finite. So, either we say:

3a) Not all possibilities are truly possible (which is as semantically inconsistent as saying not all triangles are truly triangles)
3b) All possibilities truly are possible (which is semantically consistent)

Summary: There are no alternatives to 3a and 3b. 3a is contradictory. 3b semantically/logically requires Existence to be Infinite.

Note that there is a difference between an unknown and a possibility which I believe is often grossly overlooked by almost all philosophers. I will attempt to highlight this: Whether or not there are unicorns in our galaxy is an unknown. Whether there will be unicorns in the future of our galaxy, again is unknown. Whether there can be unicorns in the future, is certainly yes. It is not an unknown. Whether or not beings with a 10th sense can exist in Existence, is an unknown. As in we don't know if Existence has the potential to produce a being with a 10th sense.

So when you I it's possible that a being with a 10th sense is possible, I am in fact saying, 'it's unknown whether Existence is such that a being with a 10th sense is possible or not'.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Belindi »

Philosopher19 wrote:
3) A finite existence cannot make all xs possible because a finite existence's potential, is finite. So, either we say:
Not only can a finite existence not make all xs possible, a finite existence cannot make all anythings possible: a finite existence contains all possibilities

By definition of 'possible' , only what is possible exists and infinity adds nothing.

___________________

If x is not possible then x does not exist.

God has infinite attributes and none of those attributes is impossible for God; God defines what is possible and what is impossible. If God transcends His attributes then His attributes do not define Him. If God is defined by His attributes then it is possible men can know some of God. If the transcendental attributes are goodness, truth, and beauty then men can know some of God as each of these transcendental attributes implies the other two.

NB there is an important difference between transcendental attributes and mundane attributes.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 3656
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Sculptor1 »

philosopher19 wrote: January 31st, 2021, 1:21 pm Hi all. If interested in the nature of Existence, consider the following:

Core to the argument: If a given belief/theory is semantically inconsistent (as in it is hypothetically impossible for it be true) then it must be rejected.

I will try again:

1) Existence being infinite accounts for why all semantics are meaningful.
You seem to fall at the first hurdle here. Not all semantic are true, and the claim that existence might be infinite is not verifyable.
It is inconsistent to believe that a finite existence can contain an infinite number of semantics. A finite computer cannot have access to an infinite number of meanings/semantics, unless it had access to the cloud and the cloud was infinite.
Why are you saying this? There is not an infinite amount of anything, as far as we know. And since our lives are clearly finite, we shall never be capable of knowing if infintiy of any kind is the case.

2) Round squares, married bachelors, non-existence existing, sitting and standing at the same time, these are all hypothetical impossibilities. What makes something a hypothetical impossibility? That it cannot exist. That it cannot be true of Existence. It cannot be true of Existence that there is a man sitting and standing at the same time. Or that there is a round square. Or that non-existence exists. Or that Existence does not exist. Or that Existence is finite.
SO much for semantics

3) If something is hypothetically impossible, then it is not meaningful or understandable. You cannot understand a round square. Round has meaning. Square has meaning. Round square has no meaning. There can be nothing that is both hypothetically impossible and understandable/meaningful at the same time.
Point 3 is the same as 2
4) Given 3, If something is meaningful or understandable, then it is certainly not hypothetically impossible. To reiterate: ALL hypothetical impossibilities are meaningless and not understandable.

5) Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of. There is nothing better than a perfect existence. If existence is imperfect, then perfection (a perfect existence) is hypothetically impossible.
GIbberish. Semantic tautology. Not empirical. And let's face it what is perfect is an opinion.

6) If perfection is hypothetically impossible, then it should be meaningless and not understandable (check 4). Again, ALL hypothetical impossibilities are meaningless and not understandable.
repeating yourself again

7) Perfection is meaningful/understandable, therefore, perfection is not a hypothetical impossibility.
Wrong.
A perfect blue orange is not semantically false. but cannot exist unless it is faked.
A thing that is not a hypothetical impossibility

8 ) If Existence is perfect, then perfection is not hypothetically impossible. If Existence is imperfect, then perfection is hypothetically impossible. We understand perfection, therefore, perfection is not hypothetically impossible. Therefore, Existence is perfect.
You are not saying anything. You have moved from a defintion (assumed, not stated) to an adjective. What you really have here is merely an exchange of words. All you are saying is that Perfection is another word for existence. You cannot conclude that existence is perfect. All you are saying is that the arbitrary collection of letters;" perfect" is another word for existence.

Existence is perfect is the same as saying God exists.
HAHAH. I thought this was going here. ROTFLMFHO.
This is because a perfect existence logically entails that everyone gets what they truly deserve (it would be imperfect otherwise). This logically requires the omnipresent (Existence) to be omnipotent and omniscient. It logically requires: Existence = God (pantheism)
And to cap it off you introduce a whole new set of undefined concepts "deserve", omnipotence, omniscience. ad nauseam, none of which have anything to do with the foregoing.

You might as well say; DOG= perfection= existence= deserving.

Sadly I know some people who are definitely NOT deserving of owning a DOG so the world is not perfect.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Belindi »

4) Given 3, If something is meaningful or understandable, then it is certainly not hypothetically impossible. To reiterate: ALL hypothetical impossibilities are meaningless and not understandable.
You need to fine tune the above. It is possible to sort of imagine what a perfect circle looks like, and it is supremely probable the idea of a perfect circle is useful and beautiful.However in this vale of tears that sort of perfection does not exist except as an ideal or aspiration. Same with God.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 3656
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Sculptor1 »

Belindi wrote: February 1st, 2021, 8:36 am
4) Given 3, If something is meaningful or understandable, then it is certainly not hypothetically impossible. To reiterate: ALL hypothetical impossibilities are meaningless and not understandable.
You need to fine tune the above. It is possible to sort of imagine what a perfect circle looks like, and it is supremely probable the idea of a perfect circle is useful and beautiful.However in this vale of tears that sort of perfection does not exist except as an ideal or aspiration. Same with God.
What he has done is to assume that "not hypothetically impossible" is the same as neccesary and existent.
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1319
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Papus79 »

Some thoughts off the top:

4) slight disagreement - the impossible seems like it could be a stopper (unless superposition can somehow be more than a model), the non-impossible doesn't seem like it's a green light either however, we don't know what we don't know and there may be just as many things to stop certain happenings or things from existing which we simply have insufficient information on to take a decisive stance.

5) Whose conception of perfection and why does the universe rely on it?

6/7/8) Perfection just seems ill-defined in that few people would agree on it and anything built from there just amplifies the noise of the first step.
Existence is perfect is the same as saying God exists. This is because a perfect existence logically entails that everyone gets what they truly deserve (it would be imperfect otherwise). This logically requires the omnipresent (Existence) to be omnipotent and omniscient. It logically requires: Existence = God (pantheism)
As someone whose warm toward pantheism / panentheism myself I don't see the connection, nor do I even feel comfortable trying to assess who deserves what or what 'deserves' would mean from the vantage point of a mind that - when you think about it - would not have been built from our Darwinian fitness framework and whose goals could likely be utterly orthogonal to what we see as our fitness landscape. I think our best evidence of such a mind are people's constant run-ins with it, whether via constant confirmation from NDE's, Jacques Vallee's accrual of odd areal and cultural events and what vectors of meaning they point at, and many more. The sense I get from all of these is that we're not only not the center of the universe but that we'd have an incredibly difficult time pinning down our place in it any deeper than perhaps trying to pick at the extremely local question like 'what is this system trying to do with us?' which we might be able to come to understand on some basic levels but to really and properly understand it we'd need to see causes behind it which are completely inaccessible to us.
People aren't fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, we're fundamentally trying to survive. It's the environment and culture which tells us what that's going to be.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Belindi »

Sculptor1 wrote: February 1st, 2021, 8:55 am
Belindi wrote: February 1st, 2021, 8:36 am
4) Given 3, If something is meaningful or understandable, then it is certainly not hypothetically impossible. To reiterate: ALL hypothetical impossibilities are meaningless and not understandable.
You need to fine tune the above. It is possible to sort of imagine what a perfect circle looks like, and it is supremely probable the idea of a perfect circle is useful and beautiful.However in this vale of tears that sort of perfection does not exist except as an ideal or aspiration. Same with God.
What he has done is to assume that "not hypothetically impossible" is the same as neccesary and existent.
Does he mean if p exists then p necessarily exists?
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 956
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by chewybrian »

Sculptor1 wrote: February 1st, 2021, 8:55 am What he has done is to assume that "not hypothetically impossible" is the same as neccesary and existent.
The other critical error I see is assuming that perfection is 'hypothetically possible'. It was hypothetically possible to put pineapple on a pizza before anyone did it, and the fact that people did it shows it was possible. But, why should we assume perfection is possible, even in theory?

Any attempt at perfection seems to run into infinity at some point, and nothing infinite is possible for a finite being. Say I wish to create a perfect wheel for my bicycle. I may create a wheel so round that you can not detect it being out of round. Yet, you may create a device capable of judging imperfections at a level undetectable with human senses. Then, I can work to create a better wheel, and then you can devise a way to measure it at a smaller scale and find imperfections. Why or how would we we assume there would ever be a end to this process, and that the perfect wheel could be achieved, even in theory?

Further, why do we so often assume that our abstract ideas can impose rules upon the real world, rather than the other way around? (Looking in your direction, determinists...).
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 5307
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Terrapin Station »

philosopher19 wrote: January 31st, 2021, 1:21 pm 1) Existence being infinite accounts for why all semantics are meaningful. It is inconsistent to believe that a finite existence can contain an infinite number of semantics. A finite computer cannot have access to an infinite number of meanings/semantics, unless it had access to the cloud and the cloud was infinite.
You seem to be using the word "semantic(s)" unusually.

Semantics is philosophy of meaning. (Or per the dictionary, "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.")

"Semantic" in general refers to meaning. So, for example, when talking about music, I'll often note that I don't care about the semantic content of lyrics. In other words, I don't care about the meaning of lyrics when I'm listening to music.

So "accounts for why all semantics are meaningful" seems rather nonsensical. If "semantic" refers to meaning in the first place, we don't need to account for why "semantics are meaningful." The semantic content of something IS the meaning of it.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 5307
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Terrapin Station »

Aside from the above:

"8 ) If Existence is perfect, then perfection is not hypothetically impossible. If Existence is imperfect, then perfection is hypothetically impossible. We understand perfection, therefore, perfection is not hypothetically impossible. Therefore, Existence is perfect."

This is the same old mistake--a mistake that should be very obvious--of St. Anselm's ontological argument. Being able to conceive of something doesn't imply that what you can conceive of exists. It just implies that it's conceivable.

The following also does not at all follow:

"Existence is perfect is the same as saying God exists. This is because a perfect existence logically entails that everyone gets what they truly deserve (it would be imperfect otherwise). This logically requires the omnipresent (Existence) to be omnipotent and omniscient. It logically requires: Existence = God (pantheism)"

"Perfect" is subjective. You say "Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of. That's fine, but "x is greater than y" is subjective (at least aside from simply using the quantity sense of "greater (than)"). So "A world in which God exists is greater than one where God doesn't exist" is subjective--it depends on what one desires, and "a world where everyone gets what they 'truly deserve' is better than a world where some people don't get what they 'truly deserve'" is subjective, too--again, it just depends on the individual you ask, what they desire, what they prefer.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 3656
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Sculptor1 »

Belindi wrote: February 1st, 2021, 9:17 am
Sculptor1 wrote: February 1st, 2021, 8:55 am
Belindi wrote: February 1st, 2021, 8:36 am
4) Given 3, If something is meaningful or understandable, then it is certainly not hypothetically impossible. To reiterate: ALL hypothetical impossibilities are meaningless and not understandable.
You need to fine tune the above. It is possible to sort of imagine what a perfect circle looks like, and it is supremely probable the idea of a perfect circle is useful and beautiful.However in this vale of tears that sort of perfection does not exist except as an ideal or aspiration. Same with God.
What he has done is to assume that "not hypothetically impossible" is the same as neccesary and existent.
Does he mean if p exists then p necessarily exists?
He might think he is saying that but "not hypothetically impossible" is no where near P exists.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 3656
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Sculptor1 »

chewybrian wrote: February 1st, 2021, 9:31 am
Sculptor1 wrote: February 1st, 2021, 8:55 am What he has done is to assume that "not hypothetically impossible" is the same as neccesary and existent.
The other critical error I see is assuming that perfection is 'hypothetically possible'. It was hypothetically possible to put pineapple on a pizza before anyone did it, and the fact that people did it shows it was possible. But, why should we assume perfection is possible, even in theory?

Any attempt at perfection seems to run into infinity at some point, and nothing infinite is possible for a finite being. Say I wish to create a perfect wheel for my bicycle. I may create a wheel so round that you can not detect it being out of round. Yet, you may create a device capable of judging imperfections at a level undetectable with human senses. Then, I can work to create a better wheel, and then you can devise a way to measure it at a smaller scale and find imperfections. Why or how would we we assume there would ever be a end to this process, and that the perfect wheel could be achieved, even in theory?

Further, why do we so often assume that our abstract ideas can impose rules upon the real world, rather than the other way around? (Looking in your direction, determinists...).
Yes there are flaws throughout.
The problem with perfect is that relies on opinion what might be perfect.
On the face of it a perfect bike wheel might be a great idea until it rain, or until you want to cycle on mud.
There are many designs for bike wheels and none of them are more than approximately circular.
philosopher19
Posts: 246
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by philosopher19 »

Belindi wrote: February 1st, 2021, 5:23 am By definition of 'possible' , only what is possible exists and infinity adds nothing.
I think it is contradictory for a finite existence to have an infinite amount of potential. So a finite existence will not account for why have access to an infinity of semantics.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021