God as the true cogito

[Terrapin Station]

Mental or nonmetal world, meanings mean what they mean, and they mean what they mean because existence is the way it is. All meaningful things are meaningful as a result of existence being the way it is. Not as a result of us being the way we are. We recognise meaningful things as a result of existence being the way it is, and as a result of us having the ability to recognise meaningful things.

Oy, no. Ignoring the distinction I make between meanings and definitions for a moment, meanings/definitions simply tell you how particular individuals are thinking about/conceptualizing something. Meanings/definitions aren't determined by anything else, and they're not correct or incorrect.

[philosopher19]

The shape my four year old drew without a ruler, is imperfect as a triangle. Some would argue it's not even a triangle at all. Resembling a perfect triangle (an imperfect triangle) and being a true triangle (a perfect triangle) are two different truths.

A) Whatever's perfectly x, is indubitably x (an imperfect triangle's triangularity can either be rejected or doubted. A perfect triangle's cannot).

B) Whatever's perfectly existing, is indubitably existing (just as whatever's perfectly triangular, is indubitably triangular).

We know what it is for x to be perfectly triangular. What is it for x to be perfectly existing? To be, is to exist (to be an imaginary human, dream, or "real" human, is to exist as an imaginary human, dream, or "real" human. Denying this would be both logically and semantically inconsistent). Thus, to be imperfect, is to exist as an imperfect being/existent. An imperfect triangle exists imperfectly as a triangle, and as an existent (better triangles and existents than it can be conceived of).

Nothing is better than a perfect triangle when triangularity is the reference or standard. When goodness is the standard, nothing is better than God or a perfect existence (I do not want a pretend/imaginary god on my side because he cannot sustain a really perfect existence. Real good is better than pretend good, and pretend evil/harm is better than real evil. It takes evil/absurdity to favour real evil/harm over real good/benefit. Hence why only evil people go to Hell). When existing is the standard, nothing is better than the real God. It is better to be the real God than to exist as just an illusion/image of God (the real God is better than all humans or image/imaginary/pretend gods). We are meaningfully/semantically aware that something perfectly/indubitably exists, semantics dictate that this is God (of which there can only be one. You cannot have two omnipotent/perfect beings).

It is not us who truly/indubitably exist (contrary to the cogito). It is not us who instantiate existence (contrary to solipsism). We can meaningfully doubt ourselves and our realness, yet we cannot meaningfully doubt existence (the omnipresent) and its realness.. By this I mean the omnipresent is necessarily at least as real as us. Having contradictory (semantically-inconsistent) beliefs/theories is wrong by definition/semantics.

Just as we cannot reject three-sidedness as being a semantical component of triangle, we cannot reject existence and realness as being semantical components of God. It is contradictory/irrational to have contradictory (semantically-inconsistent) beliefs.

For more on the above: http://philosophyneedsgods.com/2021/05/ ... ue-cogito/

There are no known perfect triangles, just concepts of perfect triangles.

The world is "omnipresent", but why would that make it God?

The OP shows that if you reject existence (or that which is omnipresent) as being perfect (infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent towards good, omnimalevolent towards evil), then you hold a contradictory (semantically inconsistent) belief.

Any given theory, belief, or statement that is contradictory, is 100% wrong/false. This holds true everywhere. For example, in science, if a theory is shown to be contradictory, then it is either abandoned, or it is reformulated such that it is no longer contradictory (semantically inconsistent). This is why God (the Lord of the worlds if we are to reference scripture, or the truly omnipresent, or the truly perfect being) is the reality that sustains all realities (if we are to view reality as coming in various degrees). There is not more real or complete in existing/existence, than God.

[philosopher19]

Mental or nonmetal world, meanings mean what they mean, and they mean what they mean because existence is the way it is. All meaningful things are meaningful as a result of existence being the way it is. Not as a result of us being the way we are. We recognise meaningful things as a result of existence being the way it is, and as a result of us having the ability to recognise meaningful things.

Oy, no. Ignoring the distinction I make between meanings and definitions for a moment, meanings/definitions simply tell you how particular individuals are thinking about/conceptualizing something. Meanings/definitions aren't determined by anything else, and they're not correct or incorrect.

To me, the semantic of triangle and true perfection is the same for everyone who is aware of those semantics. It may be that you may have to shift their attention to those semantics, but once they shift their focus onto those semantics, they recognise that only triangles are three-sided shapes with interior angles totalling 180 degrees, and they recognise that only God is a perfect being.

I don't think any further conversation between us will bear any fruit. If you think the perfect being is something other than God, or if you are not aware that the perfect being is God, then you will not understand the OP. Further discussion would be like trying to discuss the angles in a triangle with someone who does not recognise triangles as being triangles.

[Steve3007]

1) That which has three-sides with its interior angles totalling 180 degrees = that which is perfectly triangular = a perfect triangle.

If you ask me how I've defined the above, then the only thing I can say is that these are just the semantics that I am aware of such that rejecting the above leads contradictions in semantics. Either you aware of them too, or you are not. If you are aware of them, then we can discuss them. Similarly:

2) That which is infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibeneovlent towards good, and omnimalevolent towards evil = that which is perfectly existing = a perfect being

As in previous topics, you conflate two entirely different concepts by using a fallacy of equivocation. The fallacy centres on the word "perfect". You conflate the abstractions of mathematics and geometry with the unrelated subject of ethics.

It's a bit like claiming that irrational numbers are numbers that are incapable of creating a coherent argument.

[Terrapin Station]

Mental or nonmetal world, meanings mean what they mean, and they mean what they mean because existence is the way it is. All meaningful things are meaningful as a result of existence being the way it is. Not as a result of us being the way we are. We recognise meaningful things as a result of existence being the way it is, and as a result of us having the ability to recognise meaningful things.

Oy, no. Ignoring the distinction I make between meanings and definitions for a moment, meanings/definitions simply tell you how particular individuals are thinking about/conceptualizing something. Meanings/definitions aren't determined by anything else, and they're not correct or incorrect.

To me, the semantic of triangle and true perfection is the same for everyone who is aware of those semantics. It may be that you may have to shift their attention to those semantics, but once they shift their focus onto those semantics, they recognise that only triangles are three-sided shapes with interior angles totalling 180 degrees, and they recognise that only God is a perfect being.

I don't think any further conversation between us will bear any fruit. If you think the perfect being is something other than God, or if you are not aware that the perfect being is God, then you will not understand the OP. Further discussion would be like trying to discuss the angles in a triangle with someone who does not recognise triangles as being triangles.

Semantics refers to meaning. The semantic of anything isn't the same for everyone. Again, semantics tells you how a particular individual thinks about or conceptualizes something. That's all it is. That can easily differ from individual to individual, though obviously there are commonalities (re definitions, at least) that are influenced to be common via socialization.

[Atla]

The OP shows that if you reject existence (or that which is omnipresent) as being perfect (infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent towards good, omnimalevolent towards evil), then you hold a contradictory (semantically inconsistent) belief.

Any given theory, belief, or statement that is contradictory, is 100% wrong/false. This holds true everywhere. For example, in science, if a theory is shown to be contradictory, then it is either abandoned, or it is reformulated such that it is no longer contradictory (semantically inconsistent). This is why God (the Lord of the worlds if we are to reference scripture, or the truly omnipresent, or the truly perfect being) is the reality that sustains all realities (if we are to view reality as coming in various degrees). There is not more real or complete in existing/existence, than God.

I must have missed it.
Nothing is more triangular than a perfect triangle: okay, but there are no known perfect triangles.
Nothing is better than God / perfect existence: okay, but there is no such known God.

The existence we do know is very imperfect.

[Terrapin Station]

Any given theory, belief, or statement that is contradictory, is 100% wrong/false. This holds true everywhere.

See paraconsistent logic for a counterexample:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logi ... onsistent/

[philosopher19]

Mental or nonmetal world, meanings mean what they mean, and they mean what they mean because existence is the way it is. All meaningful things are meaningful as a result of existence being the way it is. Not as a result of us being the way we are. We recognise meaningful things as a result of existence being the way it is, and as a result of us having the ability to recognise meaningful things.

Oy, no. Ignoring the distinction I make between meanings and definitions for a moment, meanings/definitions simply tell you how particular individuals are thinking about/conceptualizing something. Meanings/definitions aren't determined by anything else, and they're not correct or incorrect.

To me, the semantic of triangle and true perfection is the same for everyone who is aware of those semantics. It may be that you may have to shift their attention to those semantics, but once they shift their focus onto those semantics, they recognise that only triangles are three-sided shapes with interior angles totalling 180 degrees, and they recognise that only God is a perfect being.

I don't think any further conversation between us will bear any fruit. If you think the perfect being is something other than God, or if you are not aware that the perfect being is God, then you will not understand the OP. Further discussion would be like trying to discuss the angles in a triangle with someone who does not recognise triangles as being triangles.

Semantics refers to meaning. The semantic of anything isn't the same for everyone. Again, semantics tells you how a particular individual thinks about or conceptualizes something. That's all it is. That can easily differ from individual to individual, though obviously there are commonalities (re definitions, at least) that are influenced to be common via socialization.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

[philosopher19]

1) That which has three-sides with its interior angles totalling 180 degrees = that which is perfectly triangular = a perfect triangle.

If you ask me how I've defined the above, then the only thing I can say is that these are just the semantics that I am aware of such that rejecting the above leads contradictions in semantics. Either you aware of them too, or you are not. If you are aware of them, then we can discuss them. Similarly:

2) That which is infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibeneovlent towards good, and omnimalevolent towards evil = that which is perfectly existing = a perfect being

As in previous topics, you conflate two entirely different concepts by using a fallacy of equivocation. The fallacy centres on the word "perfect". You conflate the abstractions of mathematics and geometry with the unrelated subject of ethics.

It's a bit like claiming that irrational numbers are numbers that are incapable of creating a coherent argument.

I don't think I'm doing what you are saying. I am treating meanings as being the meanings that they are and am avoiding a contradictory belief. That contradictory belief being: God does not truly exist.

In any case, we've had discussions before on other subjects. I am confident that any further discussion between me and you on the OP will not bear any fruit.

[philosopher19]

The existence we do know is very imperfect.

The existence that you see, does seem imperfect (take cancer, poverty, and MS for example). But if you could see that all those things were being inflicted upon those who truly deserved it, your view would change. The fact of the matter is, neither you nor I can truly verify empirically if those who suffer such things deserve them or not. But, pure reason dictates that they do. You interpret your empirical observations in line with pure reason so as to avoid forming contradictory theories or interpretations of what you have observed. For example:

You will never be able to empirically verify that round squares are impossible. But pure reason dictates that they are. So you know that if some individual claimed that they had just seen a round square, you know that they have either chose the wrong word to describe what they saw (something that shifted between a circle and a square back and forth), or that they are lying. Similarly, if someone says to you evil was better off by being evil, you know that they are either unaware of the perfection of existence, or that they were evil/absurd/irrational.

Nothing is more triangular than a perfect triangle: okay, but there are no known perfect triangles.
Nothing is better than God / perfect existence: okay, but there is no such known God.

There doesn't have to be any empirically witnessed perfect triangles. But triangles have to be three-sided. Rejecting the three-sidedness of triangles is contradictory.

Just as it's in the definition of triangle that it has three sides, it's in the definition of God that He exists. I think the OP is clear enough in showing that rejecting God as indubitably existing is contradictory (like rejecting the three-sidedness of triangles).

[philosopher19]

Any given theory, belief, or statement that is contradictory, is 100% wrong/false. This holds true everywhere.

See paraconsistent logic for a counterexample:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logi ... onsistent/

There can be no meaningful (non-contradictory) counter example to the following:

Any given theory belief that is semantically inconsistent/contradictory, is 100% wrong.

How is one supposed to counter the above when that counter is supposed to counter the very notion of meaningfulness and being non-contradictory in presenting an counter argument? What meaningful authority can it bring when it rejects meaningfulness? None.

[Atla]

The existence we do know is very imperfect.

The existence that you see, does seem imperfect (take cancer, poverty, and MS for example). But if you could see that all those things were being inflicted upon those who truly deserved it, your view would change. The fact of the matter is, neither you nor I can truly verify empirically if those who suffer such things deserve them or not. But, pure reason dictates that they do. You interpret your empirical observations in line with pure reason so as to avoid forming contradictory theories or interpretations of what you have observed. For example:

You will never be able to empirically verify that round squares are impossible. But pure reason dictates that they are. So you know that if some individual claimed that they had just seen a round square, you know that they have either chose the wrong word to describe what they saw (something that shifted between a circle and a square back and forth), or that they are lying. Similarly, if someone says to you evil was better off by being evil, you know that they are either unaware of the perfection of existence, or that they were evil/absurd/irrational.

Nothing is more triangular than a perfect triangle: okay, but there are no known perfect triangles.
Nothing is better than God / perfect existence: okay, but there is no such known God.

There doesn't have to be any empirically witnessed perfect triangles. But triangles have to be three-sided. Rejecting the three-sidedness of triangles is contradictory.

Just as it's in the definition of triangle that it has three sides, it's in the definition of God that He exists. I think the OP is clear enough in showing that rejecting God as indubitably existing is contradictory (like rejecting the three-sidedness of triangles).

So we define God as necessarily existing, therefore God exists? Why are you wasting your time on such tricks?

[Tegularius]

After speed-reading through the posts I now have a new respect for triangles!

[Steve3007]

...That contradictory belief being: God does not truly exist.

In any case, we've had discussions before on other subjects.

Yes, in the previous discussion your fallacy of equivocation centred mainly around the word "existence" and your use of it both as a proper noun (essentially as a synonym for God) and as a verb denoting the state of being of objects. That is what allows you to say things like "It is self-contradictory to believe that God doesn't exist", because you define that proposition as "Existence doesn't exist" and use the equivocation between those two different usages of that word to make your point. As I said, this time it centres more around the word "perfect" but the fallacy is essentially the same.

I am confident that any further discussion between me and you on the OP will not bear any fruit.

I agree. Nice talking again. (Briefly!)

[Steve3007]

After speed-reading through the posts I now have a new respect for triangles!

Yes! Triangles are perfect. God is perfect. Therefore triangles are God. A new take on the Holy Trinity. (Presumably the choice of triangles, as opposed to some other polygon, is no accident.)

If one is willing to indulge in fallacies of equivocation one can claim, essentially, anything. Although obviously this equivocation between the notion of mathematical perfection and the notion of an objectively existing absolute Good has deep, old philosophical roots!