People just love to pretend to know things they just don't!Mark1955 wrote: ↑March 10th, 2021, 5:21 amI'd go a step further and say it's the only position we can defend, but the human ego is not built for humility so it is one few are willing to even acknowledge. It is also an evolutionary dead end as 'I don't know if I should have children' always loses to 'I am superman and must breed as fast as I can'.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 10th, 2021, 4:38 amI only gave an example on how questionable absolute statements are in extreme scales of reality and why the phase "we don't know" is the best position we can hold.
Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
Sure Steve.Steve3007 wrote: ↑March 10th, 2021, 5:23 am I'd just like to clarify some terminology usage, and perhaps tighten it up a bit.
NickGaspar wrote:Superposition in QM is a phenomenon of real life that contradicts an analytical statement "one thing can only be in one place at a time".This leaves me uncertain as to how you use the expression "contradicts an analytical statement". I assumed (wrongly I guess) that when you refer to an analytical statement here, you're referring to a statement that is necessarily true, by definition. i.e. its truth is such that to deny it would be self-contradictory. Therefore something which contradicts it would be necessarily false, by definition. But you seem to agree with me that self-contradictory statements are of no use to QM or anything else.NickGaspar wrote:-Correct.Steve3007 wrote:-"If the statement "one thing can be in more than one location at a time" really was self-contradictory then it would be of no use in QM or anything else"
So could you flesh out what it means to you for something to "contradict an analytical statement"? The way I would use that expression, nothing in QM or any other field of physics contradicts analytical statements because to do so would be self-contradictory.
Let me start by copying the most common definitions of an Analytic and a Synthetic proposition.
1.Any proposition whose truth is dependent on the meaning of the proposition is labeled Analytic. Synthetic propositions are propositions that are true in virtue of the relationship between the content of the proposition and the world.
2.Any proposition whose truth is dependent on the relationship between the content of the proposition and the world is labeled Synthetic.
Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of their meaning, whereas synthetic propositions' truth, if any, derives from how their meaning relates to the world.
So what I mean is that the specific analytical proposition can be internally consistent(non self contradictory) but it contradicts our current real world observations. I use the definition "be in conflict with".
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
-I am only saying that the term "thing" is vague. In QM we deal with measurable energetic glitches so we don't really know their properties. By labeling them "things" we shouldn't expect to display the same properties with other classical things.I'd like to just stop there and clarify what you mean by this, and then deal with the rest of this section (quoted below) after that's done. We don't know what? We don't know whether we're defining the term "single thing" in the context of QM?
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
You keep doing the hypostatization. Semantics are not concrete things but concepts related to meaning and language. It doesn't make any sense to talk about having access to language or meaning, these are consubstantial to the faculties of mind.philosopher19 wrote: ↑March 9th, 2021, 6:49 pmDo our minds create the semantics that they are aware of independently of Reality, or is Reality and Its Nature responsible for ALL the semantics that we have access to?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 8:31 pm You treat semantics and truths as things independent of minds, to which they can then get access to, but that is obviously false. It's a classic hypostatization.
Rather than my failure to see it, it looks more like your failure to demonstrate such a thing. And if one compares these assertions, that rely on having absolute knowledge, with your previous comments acknowledging that you don't know everything, one sees that there's not much consistency in your arguments.philosopher19 wrote: ↑March 9th, 2021, 6:49 pmYou fail to see that we are a part of Reality (which I call Existence/God/Truth). There is only one Existence or true reality that all other existents or realities are rooted in.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 8:31 pmYou fail to show how the limits of your mind apply to the supreme being's mind. You just make the jump: "it works this way in my mind, it must work in the supreme being's mind, too". The reason, supposedly, is because the supreme being is bound to the same rules as you. That's an interesting take for someone talking about an omnipotent supreme being. Also, this contradicts your own statement that the mind of this god is different than yours.
Reality is "responsible"? This way of talking is messy and instead of clarifying concepts, makes them more confusing. You say reality dictates what is real and possible, which we might guess should include knowledge, but then it is through knowledge that we get reality. How come?philosopher19 wrote: ↑March 9th, 2021, 6:49 pmIt is responsible for semantics being the way they are. In other words, Reality is responsible for meanings meaning what they mean. Reality dictates what is Real, possible, and absurd. We have some knowledge of Reality.
philosopher19 wrote: ↑March 9th, 2021, 6:49 pm For example we know that Reality/Existence is such that four-sided triangles are absurd. No existing being or real being will believe in a four-sided triangle.
No. Reality is as we know it to be to the best of our cognitive abilities, which are still limited. Within the scope of what we already know, there's the well-earned conviction that four-sided triangles cannot exist. But here comes the legion of proponents of deities with absolute, unlimited attributes, encompassing the full range of reality that by definition surpasses the possibilities of assimilation of mortal, imperfect humans. And yet one will claim that he can surely grasp that full scope of reality, to some extent that he will know with absolute certainty that those four-sided triangles are impossible in every possible universe.
Perhaps you should take your own advice. Omnipotence and omniscience are, after all, no different than the triangle and the circle. You reject firmly the possibility that these two geometric figures could coexist in the same entity, you claim is completely absurd and should not be brought into a meaningful, rational discussion. And yet, you are trying to fight so hard as to conciliate the absurd, irrational coexistence of omnipotence and omniscience, which by definition are contradictory. Because even if it weren't possible for an omnipotent deity to make a four-sided triangle, it could certainly pick between chocolate and vanilla.philosopher19 wrote: ↑March 9th, 2021, 6:49 pmI don't know how else to convey this to you. You cannot bring absurdities into a meaningful discussion and treat them as rational/meaningful objections when they are in fact absurdities.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 8:31 pmThat is a circular statement: "being able to do all that is being able to do". It doesn't work. Omnipotence actually implies being able to do everything, without any limits.
Omnipotence = being able to do all that is doable (this is meaningful/rational) Omnipotence = being able to create round squares and become non-omnipotent as well as fhjkgsj and any other thing (this is absurd). Triangle = a three-sided shape (this is meaningful/rational/semantically consistent) Triangle = that which is round and triangular (this is absurd/meaningless/semantically inconsistent/not understandable/not true of Existence/false of Existence/false/wrong/irrational/bad/unreasonable)
No. You simply conceive and idea of an entity which you call God and propose the attributes that go along with this conception, for example the attributes of absolute perfection, absolute knowledge, and so on. That's fine as the theory goes, but you cannot say, because you don't have the slightest justification to do so, that you know that this entity actually exists and that you know how it actually is. You just believe that your theoretical construction is true, that's all. No one has to believe you, but the issue is whether your theoretical construction holds water or not. It doesn't. The being that you conceived has been conceived as a reality out of reach of your own reality, and yet you claim that you can actually reach this reality, understand it completely to the full scope of its existence. You're actually acting as if you were that entity that you conceived.philosopher19 wrote: ↑March 9th, 2021, 6:49 pmNot knowing everything is not the same as not knowing anything. You seem to treat these two different meanings as the same meaning. I know God Is Perfect.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 8:31 pmSince you have acknowledged that you don't know everything, you are forced to allow the possibility that whatever your beliefs are about this god's mind, are wrong.
Let's say it is exactly 10:30 p.m, and I have made the decision that exactly at 10:35 p.m I will make a choice between two options. The possible choices are vanilla and chocolate. Right now, at 10:30 p. m., I know (A) that at 10:35 p. m. I will have the knowledge (B) of what I choose between the two options. A is my present knowledge at 10:30 p. m. about a state of affairs at 10:35 p.m. and that state of affairs is the knowledge that I will have of the events I will experience in the future (B) at 10:35 p. m. My choice is clearly open for me to know in the future, it is undoubtedly knowledge to be had at 10:35 p. m. And so, 10:35 p. m. arrives, I choose vanilla and immediately I gain the knowledge I was expecting to have. Bear in mind that between 10:30 and 10:35 I could have had the certainty that I would pick chocolate, but ultimately, I can also change my mind at the precise moment of choosing and pick vanilla instead.philosopher19 wrote: ↑March 9th, 2021, 6:49 pmTo use your own words, do you acknowledge that it is knowledge to be had in the future (when the choice is made) and not now when the choice has not been made? If not, then why are you specifically saying "it is knowledge to be had in the future" as opposed to "it is knowledge to be had now" ?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 8:31 pmAs I said a zillion times: once an experience occurs it will be known (B). It is knowledge to be had in the future. You cannot deny this.
Now, moving this scenario to one where instead of me, there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity about to make the exact same choice, we immediately find this: this being knows everything, including the future, so it knows now (A) at 10:30 p. m, beforehand, that it will pick vanilla at 10:35 p. m. But that means there's no possibility of picking something different to vanilla at 10:35 p. m., so there was actually no choice at any moment, but the obligation of vanilla. There was no moment of uncertainty between chocolate and vanilla, it had to be only vanilla. It cannot freely choose chocolate at 10:35 p. m., it is never an option since it gained knowledge of choosing vanilla at 10:30 p. m. All this unable to be done by this entity because of knowing everything in advance. That completely shatters its omnipotence, because omniscience and omnipotence by definition, necessarily exclude each other.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
I see. In that case I'm not sure if I agree. For sure, not all analytic propositions are relevant to the world. But to be in a state of contradiction with a true analytic proposition, to my mind, means being self-contradictory.NickGaspar wrote:So what I mean is that the specific analytical proposition can be internally consistent(non self contradictory) but it contradicts our current real world observations. I use the definition "be in conflict with".
This is why I made the point that the only unambiguous way to define words like "thing", "object" and "place" is in terms of collections of observations and patterns that we've spotted in those observations. In a recent post (which wasn't addressed to anyone in particular but was just me musing on the subject) I cited the notion of an electron in the twin slit experiment as an example. If people are tempted to get into long arguments as to whether an electron "is a particle or a wave or could said to be both at once", and things likes that, then my suggestion, before they get into those arguments, is to consider carefully what is actually observed before rushing to their respective ontological corners of the philosophical wrestling ring. It's surprising how little that happens.NickGaspar wrote:-I am only saying that the term "thing" is vague. In QM we deal with measurable energetic glitches so we don't really know their properties. By labeling them "things" we shouldn't expect to display the same properties with other classical things.
(I think we agree on this stuff, by the way, but I still think there's no harm discussing it. I have a longstanding theory that people probably agree on things much more than they often think they do but are just divided by the clumsiness and imprecision of language.)
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
Steve3007 wrote: ↑March 11th, 2021, 5:35 amNickGaspar wrote:So what I mean is that the specific analytical proposition can be internally consistent(non self contradictory) but it contradicts our current real world observations. I use the definition "be in conflict with".I see. In that case I'm not sure if I agree. For sure, not all analytic propositions are relevant to the world.
I will totally agree with you on that. After all, all analytic propositions are based on Logic and our rules and principles of logic are shaped by the world. Kant was flatly wrong on his idea of "a priori" propositions. Without human experience of the world we wouldn't have any rules available for our analytic tautologies.
-Well I am not talking about a "true analytic proposition". I am talking about analytic propositions that aren't tautologies or verified to be true.But to be in a state of contradiction with a true analytic proposition, to my mind, means being self-contradictory.
I talk about those propositions that are presented as a priori truths but their claims are about parts of reality that can not be verified to be governed by the same rules of our world (before the big bang, beyond the classical world).
-Yes I read that. I agreed and I said that we are not justified to use any known common usage of the term 'thing'. We don't know whether Quantum particles defy classical laws and logic or our observations have hit an obstacle.This is why I made the point that the only unambiguous way to define words like "thing", "object" and "place" is in terms of collections of observations and patterns that we've spotted in those observations.
-Correct, this is why my special phrase (to philosopher) is WE don't KNOW!.In a recent post (which wasn't addressed to anyone in particular but was just me musing on the subject) I cited the notion of an electron in the twin slit experiment as an example. If people are tempted to get into long arguments as to whether an electron "is a particle or a wave or could said to be both at once", and things likes that, then my suggestion, before they get into those arguments, is to consider carefully what is actually observed before rushing to their respective ontological corners of the philosophical wrestling ring. It's surprising how little that happens.
Now, QM tells us that electrons are just waves of fields. We as observers decided to give this label to a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents(quanta). We label this glitch"particle" and it is part of the "structure" of the wave....and I know that the language I use doesn't really helps describe the true picture of the quantum world.
-I agree too. Language and different aspects can undermine all discussions.(I think we agree on this stuff, by the way, but I still think there's no harm discussing it. I have a longstanding theory that people probably agree on things much more than they often think they do but are just divided by the clumsiness and imprecision of language.)
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of. There is nothing better than a perfect existence. In a perfect existence everyone gets what they truly perfectly deserve. For this to be the case an Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent towards good and Omnimalevolent towards evil Being is need. In other words, Existence would have to be God for Perfection to be Perfect.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 10th, 2021, 4:06 amYou didn't address the points in my last post.philosopher19 wrote: ↑March 9th, 2021, 7:18 pmI considered all semantics, and then formed semantically consistent beliefs about Existence. If you had done the same, you would not describe the Omnipresent as finite. You would not embrace absurdities in the name of unknowns. You would not equate absurdities with unknowns. You would be sincere to the semantics that you are aware of. You would be sincere to truth. You would be sincere to Realty/Existence, not rejecting of It and Its Nature.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 9th, 2021, 7:11 pmThe problem is in your title-claim.
"Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect"
The enduring question of humanity has always been "Does god exist". The arbitrary relabeling of god to the state you need to prove him in is not an honest or reasonable way to answer that question.
To do that you will first need to define him but not by claiming he is the state you need to prove he is in! We already have a label for the state of being...its Existence.
After defining him you will need to provide objective evidence for his existence.
Last bu not least, you need to prove through synthetic propositions that existence is indeed Perfect.
So the problem is that you have 2 presuppositions that you are unable to verify them through a synthetic proposition(God and existence to be perfect) and the arbitrary equation of two different concepts (god and existence) when your sole obligation is to prove that a god can be in that state(of existence).
Call that which is Omnipresent, "Existence". Is Existence Infinite? Has Existence always existed. Will ever turn to non-Existence?
Semantical consistency dictates that the semantic of Perfection did not come from non-existence. It is also objectively the case Perfection = God (see above). The only way to account for the semantic of Perfection without being semantically inconsistent in the process, is to acknowledge Existence As Being Perfect. See the OT for full details.
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
Do you not take meanings to absolutely mean what they mean? Do you not take Existence (that which all things exist in, or as a result of, or because of) and Its Nature to Dictate what's meaningful and what's not? For example, It Dictates that roundsquares are not meaningful. It Dictates that red squares are meaningful. It Dictates that infinity and perfection are meaningful. There are an infinite number of semantics because an Infinite Existence accommodates an infinite number semantics. This can be rejected at the cost of being semantically inconsistent (contradictory/irrational/unreasonable/insincere to the semantics that one is aware of). The cost is too high for such a move. I advise against it.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 10th, 2021, 4:38 amI only gave an example on how questionable absolute statements are in extreme scales of reality and why the phase " we don't know" is the best position we can hold.philosopher19 wrote: ↑March 9th, 2021, 7:14 pmI know. And that's exactly what I highlighted to Nick. I asked him to give me an example of something that is a priori absurd but a posteriori true, and he gave me the above.But the question of whether it is, in fact, self-contradictory obviously hangs on the definition of the term "one thing". If it means "a single object occupying a single location" then obviously the statement is self-contradictory.
You cannot hold semantically inconsistent (contradictory in meaning) beliefs such as soothing coming from nothing or one thing being two different things at the same time. Other examples include triangle being four-sided. Existence being finite. Existence being imperfect. Nick understanding one thing being in two different places at the same time. Steve understanding something coming from nothing. Either Nick and Steve are focused on different semantics to the semantic that I focus on when the word "one thing" and "nothing" are used, or they are just blatantly lying when they say they understand absurdities (semantical inconsistencies).
You cannot understand that which is not understandable. You cannot focus on nothing. You cannot think about nothing. You're either not focusing/thinking, or you're thinking about something, or focusing on something.
We need to stay honest and avoid absolute claims since we don't have a way to investigate them.
As I pointed out logic and empirical indications suggest that absolute "nothing" as a preexisting "state" is a non sequitur. What does it even mean for nothing to be a state. To be means to exist .
I guess you argument goes like this: "something can't come from nothing.....therefore god is that something.
That is a huge jump and an unjustified equation of different concepts. I don't know how one can demonstrate that claim.
In addition to that, it's one thing to say "nothing" can not be a prexisting state of the Cosmos and an other to prove that everything in our Cosmos can only be caused by existing nothings . We just don't know and can't prove that.
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
The mind does not create semantics. We are not Reality. We are a part of Reality. Reality dictates what's meaningful and what's not. Do you think we can create semantics independently of Reality? If no, then account for the semantics of Infinity and Perfection in a meaningful manner (by meaningful I mean in a manner that is semantically consistent, all semantics considered)Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 11th, 2021, 12:22 am You keep doing the hypostatization. Semantics are not concrete things but concepts related to meaning and language. It doesn't make any sense to talk about having access to language or meaning, these are consubstantial to the faculties of mind.
Not much I can do if you cannot acknowledge the following (which to me is as obvious as saying a triangle has three sides)Rather than my failure to see it, it looks more like your failure to demonstrate such a thing. And if one compares these assertions, that rely on having absolute knowledge, with your previous comments acknowledging that you don't know everything, one sees that there's not much consistency in your arguments.
We are a part of Reality. There is only one Existence or true reality that all other existents or realities are rooted in. A dream or matrix world or brain in a vat, cannot be rooted in non-existence or 0 reality. An existent thing cannot be existing in a non-existent thing. Reality is responsible for meanings meaning what they mean.
No. You simply conceive and idea of an entity which you call God and propose the attributes that go along with this conception, for example the attributes of absolute perfection, absolute knowledge, and so on. That's fine as the theory goes, but you cannot say, because you don't have the slightest justification to do so, that you know that this entity actually exists and that you know how it actually is. You just believe that your theoretical construction is true, that's all. No one has to believe you, but the issue is whether your theoretical construction holds water or not. It doesn't. The being that you conceived has been conceived as a reality out of reach of your own reality, and yet you claim that you can actually reach this reality, understand it completely to the full scope of its existence. You're actually acting as if you were that entity that you conceived.
See the OP.
Suppose I love chocolate and hate vanilla. I know that every time I am given a choice between the two, I will always choose chocolate. A being tells me "do you want to know your future with regards to the next time you are given a choice between chocolate and vanilla?" I say yes. I then find out that I will choose vanilla. It cannot be the case that I do not choose vanilla when the choice making opportunity comes. This is because knowledge of the future encompasses all the premises that lead to that specific outcome. This includes the event where I was told about my future, and all the events that follow it, right up to the point I come to make my choice. It may be that at the second to last millisecond or moment I'm thinking of choosing chocolate, but then for some reason or premise, I shift to vanilla. It does not matter. What matters is that I still chose and that I was given knowledge of the future.Now, moving this scenario to one where instead of me, there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity about to make the exact same choice, we immediately find this: this being knows everything, including the future, so it knows now (A) at 10:30 p. m, beforehand, that it will pick vanilla at 10:35 p. m. But that means there's no possibility of picking something different to vanilla at 10:35 p. m., so there was actually no choice at any moment, but the obligation of vanilla. There was no moment of uncertainty between chocolate and vanilla, it had to be only vanilla. It cannot freely choose chocolate at 10:35 p. m., it is never an option since it gained knowledge of choosing vanilla at 10:30 p. m. All this unable to be done by this entity because of knowing everything in advance. That completely shatters its omnipotence, because omniscience and omnipotence by definition, necessarily exclude each other.
Where there is nothing that is absolutely random, then God Knows All that He Will Will before he Wills It.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
-"that which"?No no no no "that which" is a really bad way to start a definition...specially in 2021!Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of.
"That which" is the reason why people confuse concepts with entities/"things", in your case god.(red herring).
"Perfection" is an abstract concept of a quality that characterizes an action or a process free from errors of faults.
(Perfection:the action or process of improving something until it is faultless.)
IT is a processes towards an untenable goal, a theoretical objective, an ideal state.
In what aspect? FIrst of all you need to explain what characteristics make existence perfect and how a non perfect existence would look like!There is nothing better than a perfect existence.
-Sure, in a utopia of a perfect world one can argue that getting what he deserves is a characteristic of such a perfect state. Unfortunately we don't observe such characteristics in our cosmos. Maybe I am wrong....In a perfect existence everyone gets what they truly perfectly deserve.
-And here is the whole problem in your syllogism!For this to be the case an Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent towards good and Omnimalevolent towards evil Being is need. In other words, Existence would have to be God for Perfection to be Perfect.
"Existence would have to be God for Perfection to be Perfect"??????
Existence is a state of being. God , by definition, traditionally, historically and religiously , is an Existential Claim.
This is why there are atheists and theists in our world. Atheists reject that existential claim while theists accept it!
God(s) in order to have any qualities,he/they first need to exist! You are making a Category mistake here.
Existence, again is a state. Its not perfect or imperfect. Its a state of being! Only processes and entities during this state of being are able to display qualities that can make us identify them as faultless(perfect) or not.
Existence is Neutral. Perfection is an evaluation metric on specific characteristics of the nature of existence of things. God is an existential claim that we are unable to verify.
That is a semantically null and irrelevant statement. Sematically consistency should prevent you from merging Existence(a state),Perfection(ideal quality of existing process or entity) and god (an unfounded existential claims about an entity with absolute qualities).Semantical consistency dictates that the semantic of Perfection did not come from non-existence.
- Of course not. As I explained about, it is an Equivocation fallacy based on an Association fallacy and a Category error(we assume existence and god are perfect...thus god=existence).It is also objectively the case Perfection = God (see above).
-You are literally committing an semantic error by projecting qualities on the concept Existence...that the concept represents!!!!The only way to account for the semantic of Perfection without being semantically inconsistent in the process, is to acknowledge Existence As Being Perfect. See the OT for full details.
You literally wrote "Existence As Being Perfect." !!!!
AGAIN Existence(the abstract concept) is the actual state of BEING! Existence doesn't display any qualities..its just the state of being.
Only Things that exist can display qualities like perfection.
i.e. A faultless and without errors process or entity can be labeled as perfect.
You are trapped and undermined by your abstract language. You use abstract concept as if they are "things".
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
-I don't know what that statement means. Words have different meanings. I always define and ask for definitions before a conversation.Do you not take meanings to absolutely mean what they mean?
I take the definition that is given to me but I find a conflict in a definition I reject it.
This is a problematic definition. Existence is a STATE of being. Existence is not something "that which all things exist in or as a result of, or because of".! Our world is in the state of existence. Everything that exists can interact with other things in this world!Do you not take Existence (that which all things exist in, or as a result of, or because of) and Its Nature to Dictate what's meaningful and what's not?
-"Its Nature to Dictate what's meaningful and what's not? "
-Of course not. Nature doesn't deals with meanings, it is a mindless process. Thinking agents, human beings find and dictate what is meaningful to them.
-No. We as thinking agent find a logical inconsistency in that ideal form since it describes a shape with conflicting characteristics.For example, It Dictates that roundsquares are not meaningful.
-Of course not. Nature doesn't produce concepts of "squares" or "red". Our brains come up with ideal forms that we project on patterns in Nature(square shaped structures) and our brains interpret the energy carried by specific light waves and label a specific spectrum red. A redsquare shape is not logically inconsistent, so it is meaningful to us.It Dictates that red squares are meaningful.
-Again Nature dictates nothing. The brains of thinking agents observe thing in nature and they tend to produce absolute idealistic concepts that may mean or think they mean something to us. i.e. perfection and absolute nothingness are not observed in nature but they are absolute concepts of hypothetical values or states.It Dictates that infinity and perfection are meaningful.
-Well this sentence makes no sense. Maybe if you define what you mean by "semantics" and "infinite existence" I maybe able to evaluate your point.There are an infinite number of semantics because an Infinite Existence accommodates an infinite number semantics.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
Minds are not independent subjects with agency, real people are independent subjects with minds. People use their minds and language to communicate meaning through words structured with particular relationships, and we call this semantics. Reality is not an independent subject either, with agency to "dictate" things and proclaim meaning.philosopher19 wrote: ↑March 14th, 2021, 1:21 pmThe mind does not create semantics. We are not Reality. We are a part of Reality. Reality dictates what's meaningful and what's not. Do you think we can create semantics independently of Reality? If no, then account for the semantics of Infinity and Perfection in a meaningful manner (by meaningful I mean in a manner that is semantically consistent, all semantics considered)Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 11th, 2021, 12:22 am You keep doing the hypostatization. Semantics are not concrete things but concepts related to meaning and language. It doesn't make any sense to talk about having access to language or meaning, these are consubstantial to the faculties of mind.
You have no justification for proclaiming any hierarchy of reality, other than your personal wishes and beliefs. No domain of the real has to be "rooted" in any other domain of the real, the sum of which would make just one domain of the real. Yes, we are part of that one domain of the real, just as many other things that our rational assessment has concluded to be real. It would take to have absolute and perfect knowledge of all that is empirically real in order to be able to make absolute empirical claims about it, knowledge that no one could claim to have. Our imagination, however, is free to produce ideas and allows for claiming many things to be real, without them being necessarily real. It allows for the production of the idea of a deity within the domain of the real with infinite attributes, and we can analyze how coherent is that theoretical construction, but since by definition it involves an entity with infinite attributes, there's no room for claims of empirical knowledge.philosopher19 wrote: ↑March 14th, 2021, 1:21 pmNot much I can do if you cannot acknowledge the following (which to me is as obvious as saying a triangle has three sides)Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 11th, 2021, 12:22 amRather than my failure to see it, it looks more like your failure to demonstrate such a thing. And if one compares these assertions, that rely on having absolute knowledge, with your previous comments acknowledging that you don't know everything, one sees that there's not much consistency in your arguments.
We are a part of Reality. There is only one Existence or true reality that all other existents or realities are rooted in. A dream or matrix world or brain in a vat, cannot be rooted in non-existence or 0 reality. An existent thing cannot be existing in a non-existent thing. Reality is responsible for meanings meaning what they mean.
philosopher19 wrote: ↑March 14th, 2021, 1:21 pm Suppose I love chocolate and hate vanilla. I know that every time I am given a choice between the two, I will always choose chocolate. A being tells me "do you want to know your future with regards to the next time you are given a choice between chocolate and vanilla?" I say yes. I then find out that I will choose vanilla. It cannot be the case that I do not choose vanilla when the choice making opportunity comes. This is because knowledge of the future encompasses all the premises that lead to that specific outcome. This includes the event where I was told about my future, and all the events that follow it, right up to the point I come to make my choice. It may be that at the second to last millisecond or moment I'm thinking of choosing chocolate, but then for some reason or premise, I shift to vanilla. It does not matter. What matters is that I still chose and that I was given knowledge of the future.
The problem has nothing to do with accessory and irrelevant elements added to the hypothetical scenario. The hypothetical scenario is precisely illustrative of the essential and relevant elements to evaluate knowledge (implied in omniscience), power to act (implied in omnipotence), presence (implied in omnipresence) and personal will (implied in thought and desire to act). Adding preferences and motivations does not change the essential relationships. There are options that imply uncertainty before choosing and there are choices made. There is knowledge about the options and there's knowledge about the choices made. These simply don't work in a being with said infinite attributes.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
So I now think that we can no longer progress in this discussion. What seems crystal clear to me, you say is not crystal clear to you.
All the best,
Nyma
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
Sure. There is a reason why I copy sentence by sentence my Interlocutor's sentences and highlight the syllogistic and definitional errora in each one. What seems crystal clear for you is constructs on bad language mode and tricks in definitions. You won't have the chance to correct them if you are not willing to challenge the critique of your claims ...one by one.philosopher19 wrote: ↑March 16th, 2021, 9:05 am Nick and Count
So I now think that we can no longer progress in this discussion. What seems crystal clear to me, you say is not crystal clear to you.
All the best,
Nyma
That is an essential step if we are willing to flush our errors . We need to find the details in our presuppositions which are responsible for rendering your arguments weak or invalid.
Take care.
-
- Posts: 317
- Joined: January 23rd, 2022, 6:47 pm
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023