God as the true cogito

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: 323
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

God as the true cogito

Post by 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/
User avatar
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

Post by Terrapin Station »

How are you defining "perfect" here?
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: God as the true cogito

Post by Ecurb »

The only perfection to which we humans can aspire is love. Therefore, a perfect triangle is a love triangle. I think.
philosopher19
Posts: 323
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: God as the true cogito

Post by philosopher19 »

Terrapin Station wrote: June 1st, 2021, 3:40 pm How are you defining "perfect" here?
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).
User avatar
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

Post by Terrapin Station »

philosopher19 wrote: June 2nd, 2021, 12:54 am
Terrapin Station wrote: June 1st, 2021, 3:40 pm How are you defining "perfect" here?
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).
Say what? I don't get how your response tells me how you're defining "perfect"?
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: God as the true cogito

Post by Pattern-chaser »

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/
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?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
philosopher19
Posts: 323
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: God as the true cogito

Post by philosopher19 »

Terrapin Station wrote: June 2nd, 2021, 6:00 am
philosopher19 wrote: June 2nd, 2021, 12:54 am
Terrapin Station wrote: June 1st, 2021, 3:40 pm How are you defining "perfect" here?
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).
Say what? I don't get how your response tells me how you're defining "perfect"?
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

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.
philosopher19
Posts: 323
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: God as the true cogito

Post by philosopher19 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 2nd, 2021, 10:09 am
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/
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?
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.

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.
User avatar
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

Post by Terrapin Station »

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.
The question here would be, "Why is that perfectly triangular? What, exactly, does 'perfect' refer to here?"

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?
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: God as the true cogito

Post by Gertie »

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/
This looks like a version of the Ontological Argument for God, but I'm struggling to follow it.

As it's something you say you've worked on, could you give a summary of the premises and conclusion?
philosopher19
Posts: 323
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: God as the true cogito

Post by philosopher19 »

Terrapin Station wrote: June 2nd, 2021, 5:04 pm
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.
The question here would be, "Why is that perfectly triangular? What, exactly, does 'perfect' refer to here?"

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?
I'm not sure I can add more to what I've already said.
philosopher19
Posts: 323
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: God as the true cogito

Post by philosopher19 »

Gertie wrote: June 2nd, 2021, 7:09 pm
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/
This looks like a version of the Ontological Argument for God, but I'm struggling to follow it.

As it's something you say you've worked on, could you give a summary of the premises and conclusion?
I think the best that I can do, is this:

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.
User avatar
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

Post by Terrapin Station »

philosopher19 wrote: June 3rd, 2021, 2:12 am
Terrapin Station wrote: June 2nd, 2021, 5:04 pm
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.
The question here would be, "Why is that perfectly triangular? What, exactly, does 'perfect' refer to here?"

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?
I'm not sure I can add more to what I've already said.
Okay, weird. When you were in grade school, didn't you ever have an assignment where you had to define words?
philosopher19
Posts: 323
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: God as the true cogito

Post by philosopher19 »

Terrapin Station wrote: June 3rd, 2021, 7:43 am
philosopher19 wrote: June 3rd, 2021, 2:12 am
Terrapin Station wrote: June 2nd, 2021, 5:04 pm
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.
The question here would be, "Why is that perfectly triangular? What, exactly, does 'perfect' refer to here?"

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?
I'm not sure I can add more to what I've already said.
Okay, weird. When you were in grade school, didn't you ever have an assignment where you had to define words?
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:

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.
User avatar
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

Post by Terrapin Station »

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:
You can't define a word by using the same word in the definition.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 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

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 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