God as the true cogito
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm
God as the true cogito
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/
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: God as the true cogito
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: God as the true cogito
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm
Re: God as the true cogito
It's a case of being aware of the semantics.
1) I am aware that the semantic of triangle is such that three-sidedness is a semantical component of it.
2) I am meaningfully/semantically aware that that which perfectly/indubitably exists, is God (or a truly perfect existence).
Rejecting 1 or 2 leads to an inconsistency in semantics (provided that you are meaningfully/semantically aware of the semantics in question).
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: God as the true cogito
Say what? I don't get how your response tells me how you're defining "perfect"?philosopher19 wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2021, 12:54 amIt's a case of being aware of the semantics.
1) I am aware that the semantic of triangle is such that three-sidedness is a semantical component of it.
2) I am meaningfully/semantically aware that that which perfectly/indubitably exists, is God (or a truly perfect existence).
Rejecting 1 or 2 leads to an inconsistency in semantics (provided that you are meaningfully/semantically aware of the semantics in question).
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: God as the true cogito
Are you 'philosophyneedsgod', or have you just created this topic by posting someone else's work? If the latter, I wonder what you think about the issue?philosopher19 wrote: ↑June 1st, 2021, 2:55 pm The shape my four year old drew without a ruler, is imperfect as a triangle[...] For more on the above: http://philosophyneedsgods.com/2021/05/ ... ue-cogito/
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm
Re: God as the true cogito
1) That which has three-sides with its interior angles totalling 180 degrees = that which is perfectly triangular = a perfect triangle.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2021, 6:00 amSay what? I don't get how your response tells me how you're defining "perfect"?philosopher19 wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2021, 12:54 amIt's a case of being aware of the semantics.
1) I am aware that the semantic of triangle is such that three-sidedness is a semantical component of it.
2) I am meaningfully/semantically aware that that which perfectly/indubitably exists, is God (or a truly perfect existence).
Rejecting 1 or 2 leads to an inconsistency in semantics (provided that you are meaningfully/semantically aware of the semantics in question).
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
Again, 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.
Given 1, saying x is triangular whilst x is not three-sided, is contradictory.
Give 2, saying x is perfect whilst x is not infinite and omnipotent, is contradictory.
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm
Re: God as the true cogito
Yes, I'm 'philosophyneedsgod'. I've tried to work within the paradigm of 'existence is perfect' since 2013 maybe. But I think I perhaps did this the most around 2018-2019. The empirical experiences I had then greatly backed the cogito I am presenting here.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2021, 10:09 amAre you 'philosophyneedsgod', or have you just created this topic by posting someone else's work? If the latter, I wonder what you think about the issue?philosopher19 wrote: ↑June 1st, 2021, 2:55 pm The shape my four year old drew without a ruler, is imperfect as a triangle[...] For more on the above: http://philosophyneedsgods.com/2021/05/ ... ue-cogito/
Karma isn't just real, it's brutal where you are evil (I speak from experience), and glorious where you are good (again, I speak from experience), and it is with great depth and breadth. It's almost as if it mirrors the ins and outs of your soul. These are what my experiences have empirically suggested to me, though I should not have had to have had those experiences to verify this (but it was rewarding and strengthening to see). It is a matter of pure reason that existence perfectly exists, and this logically and semantically entails that existence is such that everyone gets what they truly/perfectly deserve.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: God as the true cogito
The question here would be, "Why is that perfectly triangular? What, exactly, does 'perfect' refer to here?"philosopher19 wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2021, 1:27 pm 1) That which has three-sides with its interior angles totalling 180 degrees = that which is perfectly triangular = a perfect triangle.
Why is it so hard in many of these threads to get someone to give a definition of a term they're using?
Imagine you were tasked with writing a dictionary definition of the term "perfect"? Aren't you capable of doing that?
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: God as the true cogito
This looks like a version of the Ontological Argument for God, but I'm struggling to follow it.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).
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/
As it's something you say you've worked on, could you give a summary of the premises and conclusion?
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm
Re: God as the true cogito
I'm not sure I can add more to what I've already said.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2021, 5:04 pmThe question here would be, "Why is that perfectly triangular? What, exactly, does 'perfect' refer to here?"philosopher19 wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2021, 1:27 pm 1) That which has three-sides with its interior angles totalling 180 degrees = that which is perfectly triangular = a perfect triangle.
Why is it so hard in many of these threads to get someone to give a definition of a term they're using?
Imagine you were tasked with writing a dictionary definition of the term "perfect"? Aren't you capable of doing that?
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm
Re: God as the true cogito
I think the best that I can do, is this:Gertie wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2021, 7:09 pmThis looks like a version of the Ontological Argument for God, but I'm struggling to follow it.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).
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/
As it's something you say you've worked on, could you give a summary of the premises and conclusion?
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 to be perfectly triangular. What is it to be perfectly existing? The short answer is "it is to be God".
Nothing is better than a perfect triangle when triangularity is the reference or standard.
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).
Whatever's perfectly existing, is indubitably existing. God is perfectly existing, therefore, God is indubitably existing. Thus, contrary to Descartes' cogito, it is not us who indubitably exist. It is God.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: God as the true cogito
Okay, weird. When you were in grade school, didn't you ever have an assignment where you had to define words?philosopher19 wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2021, 2:12 amI'm not sure I can add more to what I've already said.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2021, 5:04 pmThe question here would be, "Why is that perfectly triangular? What, exactly, does 'perfect' refer to here?"philosopher19 wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2021, 1:27 pm 1) That which has three-sides with its interior angles totalling 180 degrees = that which is perfectly triangular = a perfect triangle.
Why is it so hard in many of these threads to get someone to give a definition of a term they're using?
Imagine you were tasked with writing a dictionary definition of the term "perfect"? Aren't you capable of doing that?
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm
Re: God as the true cogito
I remember writing about a particular subject. I don't remember having to define words in an assignment. I went to school in the UK. In any case, if you don't understand what I mean by perfectly triangular and perfectly existing (despite the explanation I provided in the OP), then I think the only thing left for me to do, is to highlight the following:Terrapin Station wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2021, 7:43 amOkay, weird. When you were in grade school, didn't you ever have an assignment where you had to define words?philosopher19 wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2021, 2:12 amI'm not sure I can add more to what I've already said.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2021, 5:04 pmThe question here would be, "Why is that perfectly triangular? What, exactly, does 'perfect' refer to here?"philosopher19 wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2021, 1:27 pm 1) That which has three-sides with its interior angles totalling 180 degrees = that which is perfectly triangular = a perfect triangle.
Why is it so hard in many of these threads to get someone to give a definition of a term they're using?
Imagine you were tasked with writing a dictionary definition of the term "perfect"? Aren't you capable of doing that?
If you want to be absolute with your semantics, then the following is true:
Triangle = that which has three sides with its interior angles totalling 180 degrees. So a non-Euclidean triangle (a three-sided shape whose lines are not 100% straight) is not a triangle because we have taken an absolute approach with semantics.
Perfection = that which is perfect, or the perfect being. Because we have taken an absolute approach, it is absurd to say perfectly triangular, or a perfect triangle. By this I mean:
x is either a triangle or it isn't. If x is a three-sided shape with its lines being 100% straight, then and only then is x a triangle. There is no such thing as a perfect triangle or imperfect triangle. There is only triangle or non-triangle.
x is either perfect or it isn't. If x is God, then and only then is x perfect. There is no such thing as a perfect perfect, or an imperfect perfect, or perfect imperfect, or imperfect imperfect.
It is not us who exist. We are sustained by existence (or that which completely/truly/perfectly/indubitably exists if you take the non-absolute approach regarding semantics).
If you don’t want to be absolute with your semantics, then the following is true:
An imperfect triangle is a triangle, it’s just not a perfect triangle. In any case, the perfect triangle's triangularity cannot be meaningfully/semantically doubted in any way.
A human is still a being/existent, it’s just not a perfect being/existent. In any case, the perfect being's/existent's existence cannot be meaningfully/semantically doubted in any way.
I hope that clarifies further.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: God as the true cogito
You can't define a word by using the same word in the definition.philosopher19 wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2021, 2:55 pm
Perfection = that which is perfect, or the perfect being. Because we have taken an absolute approach, it is absurd to say perfectly triangular, or a perfect triangle. By this I mean:
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