philosopher19 wrote: ↑June 1st, 2021, 2:55 pm
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).
SInce a triangle is a coneptual shape in 2 dimension and reality includes at least 3, then it is not possible for a perfect triangle to exist in reality.
All triangles that can be observed are virtual only.
Shapes of 2 dimensions cannot exist.
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.
To follow your misunderstood conceptions of 2d shapes you seem to now seem to follow that with some unfounded and non sequitural bold assertions for which you offer no basis.
We cannot so much as conceive omnipotence let alone assert it as "indubitable". Neither may we call it necessary.
Having contradictory beliefs is common enough, and I think you might have offered one here. Unless you have more to say on these assertions, they must remain unfounded assertions.
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.
This does not follow. A triangle is a conceptual idea, and it being three sided is tautological. Ideas such as "existence" , "realness", "god" are vauge and diffuse ideas. And as a triangle cannot exist in reality, so too would any sematic construction that bound these concepts together. You may define triangle as you will, and even god as you will, but you cannot bring them into existence.
Whilst you can command a pencil to draw a line, you can approximate and represent a triangle, you may also do the same with God. What you have, then, is you can make DRAWING of god, but may not summon god into existence.