God as the true cogito

[philosopher19]

I am claiming that God is the true cogito in the sense that God's existence is indubitable, not ours. We (whatever or whoever we may be) are indubitably aware of the semantic of God and Omnipresent. We cannot meaningfully/semantically deny that only that which is Omnipresent is truly existence (or truly exists or absolutely exists), because to say Existence is not Omnipresent, is to suggest that non-Existence exists. Non-Existence existing is contradictory. Truly/absolutely/perfectly existing are semantical components of Existence, God, and the truly omnipresent (in the same way that interior angles totalling 180 degrees is a semantical component of perfect/true/absolute triangles, but not imperfect triangles).

Existence is omnipresent, but omnipresence doesn't also imply omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence.

So you say: Existence is omnipresent, but omnipresence doesn't also imply omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence. This is like saying a triangle is a three sided shape, but being a three-sided shape doesn't also imply interior angles totalling 180 degrees.

See the OP. That which is perfect or exists perfectly is infinite, omnipresent, omniscient etc. This means that that which exists omnipresently, or is omnipresent (existence), is omnipotent and omniscient (existence). Only God's existence truly qualifies as the existence that sustains us. We do not instantiate existence (contrary to solipsism), nor do we indubitably exist (contrary to Descartes' cogito). God does.

[philosopher19]

We do not define triangles as being necessarily three-sided, nor do we define God as necessarily existing. We just recognise that these are truths because their rejection leads to contradictions in semantics/meanings. Any given theory or belief that is contradictory (semantically inconsistent), is wrong by definition.

They're only contradictory to particular definitions, which are arbitrary.

If they are arbitrary, then describe to me a perfect triangle or a perfect being that is different to what I have described without running into contradictions. You will not be able to do this meaningfully (or contradiction-free). Such is the authority of semantics and pure reason. It cannot be rationally rejected. It takes absurdity/contradiction to reject matters of pure reason or semantics.

We could define a triangle any way we like. For example, we could define it as a three-sided figure with wavy lines, or a three sided figure where the sides meet at curves rather than points, or whatever we'd like. Why would you think that wouldn't be possible?

If we are to go by your approach, then we could define a square any way we like. For example, we could define it as a three-sided shape.

Whilst we can choose different labels for different semantics, we cannot choose different semantics for different semantics. For example, we could choose to stop calling three-sided shapes 'triangle' and instead call them 'trian' because it's shorter. What we cannot do, is say the semantic of 'three-sided shape with straight lines' is the same as the semantic of 'three-sided shape with wavy lines' or 'four-sided shape'.We cannot do this because it results in inconsistencies in semantics. It results in treating x as other than x. It results in x being not x at the same time (which is contradictory).

If we take the absolute approach, then the three-sided shape with wavy lines is not a triangle at all. If we take the non-absolute approach, then the three-sided shape with wavy lines is a triangle, but it is an imperfect triangle.

That which is perfectly triangular is objectively clear. That which is perfect or exists perfectly (the perfect being/existent) is also objectively clear. You can label it whatever you want, but you cannot meaningfully/semantically treat it as another semantic.

[Steve3007]

That was also the case more recently with Kepler when he tried to nest the orbits of the six then known planets into the five perfect solids of Pythagoras. As we know, that idea fell apart; instead the truth turned out to be much more fascinating, not decreed by old ideas of perfection in which very little is left to consider.

Yes, Kepler's discovery of the (approximately) elliptical orbits of the planets, leading to Newton's Universal Gravitation, is often cited as the archetypal example of the triumph of the empirical, experimental method over the ancient notion that the truths of the world can be divined by simply thinking about abstract concepts like mathematics and geometry, and not getting one's hands dirty. It's the idea that mathematics and geometry are tools we use for spotting patterns in what we've observed, not masters that we revere as gods. I think Phil's connection between the characteristics of triangles and of God illustrates the ultimate reductio ad absurdum of doing the latter.

Imo, perfection equates to sterility and the universe itself wouldn't exist if it had to conform to some crystalline purity. It's precisely the imbalances which causes the universe to be a dynamic entity. If the world consisted as a Garden of Eden kind of formation it would have almost no moving parts, a crystal entity which remains the same forever until the impurity of some original sin implodes it. The universe was probably at its most perfect, without yielding completely to perfection, during its first microseconds. During the following inflationary period these imperfections were amplified and continue to be in the form of entropy.

My view on perfection is the same as the one that's been pointed out by others previously: If used in any kind of ethical context it's entirely subjective. Different people regard different things as perfect depending on their own preferences and purposes. Of course, as with a lot of words, it can be used to mean different things in different contexts, as in mathematics for example. It's different usages for the same collections of letters (same words) that allow people to construct fallacies of equivocation like those that Phil uses.

Of course, I could also be completely screwed-up in this conjecture.

Couldn't we all!

[Terrapin Station]

If we are to go by your approach, then we could define a square any way we like.

We can and do define everything any way we like. All definitions are made up. How could you not realize this?

Whilst we can choose different labels for different semantics

Again, "semantics" is a term for meanings or definitions. We make those up.

we cannot choose different semantics for different semantics. For example, we could choose to stop calling three-sided shapes 'triangle' and instead call them 'trian' because it's shorter. What we cannot do, is say the semantic of 'three-sided shape with straight lines' is the same as the semantic of 'three-sided shape with wavy lines' or 'four-sided shape'. We cannot do this because it results in inconsistencies in semantics. It results in treating x as other than x. It results in x being not x at the same time (which is contradictory).

We can't change what happens to be, in other words, but everything that happens to be happens to be. So if there are three-sided figures with wavy lines, those happen to be. And for discussions of "perfection," everything is just as it happens to be, so we could say that everything is perfect, no? It's perfectly what it is, whatever it is. Whether there's a term for it is just a matter of whether we've gotten around to inventing a term for it or not, whether we've described it or not.

If we take the absolute approach, then the three-sided shape with wavy lines is not a triangle at all.

It's just that it's not a three-sided figure with non-wavy lines. Which one we call "triangle" doesn't matter. And one isn't better than the other.

If we take the non-absolute approach, then the three-sided shape with wavy lines is a triangle, but it is an imperfect triangle.

Not if that's what we choose to label "triangle."

The three-sided figure with wavy lines is a perfect three-sided figure with wavy lines. And the three-sided figure with straight lines is a perfect three-sided figure with straight lines.

Of course, the three-sided figure with wavy lines isn't a perfect three-sided figure with straight lines, but just like the three-sided figure with straight lines isn't a perfect three-sided figure with wavy lines. Again, each thing is just what it is. Name it, describe it, and it's perfectly that thing. So everything is perfect if we take that approach.

[Sculptor1]

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.

[Atla]

That which is perfect or exists perfectly is infinite, omnipresent, omniscient etc.

Here you admit that omnipresence by itself isn't enough for perfection. So if existence is merely omnipresent but not omniscient etc., then existence is not perfect.

[Tegularius]

My view on perfection is the same as the one that's been pointed out by others previously: If used in any kind of ethical context it's entirely subjective. Different people regard different things as perfect depending on their own preferences and purposes. Of course, as with a lot of words, it can be used to mean different things in different contexts, as in mathematics for example. It's different usages for the same collections of letters (same words) that allow people to construct fallacies of equivocation like those that Phil uses.

Perfection requires a noumenal stance a Ding an sich conception amounting to a singularity beyond which no interpretation exists. It's the freezing of a single perspective which negates its very principle. It seems the only way humans can acknowledge perfection is by uncontexualizing it. Perfection is nothing more than a philosophic swindle or trope which assumes the human brain can penetrate to a finality beyond which there is nothing.

Can we even know if it exists anywhere? Well, maybe in Mozart's music!

[philosopher19]

I done think there's anything else for me to add or discuss given what has already been discussed and clarified.

[Belindi]

Philosopher19 wrote:

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.

The four year old's triangle is true relative to other 'triangles' that may be even less accurate than the four year old's triangle. There is no such thing as a perfect triangle except in people's imaginations. For all we can know(except for mystics) there exists no perfect order , and ideal triangle same as ideal love is a shape-shifting icon.

The idea of ideal triangle depends utterly upon the idea of plane geometry which is a method for measuring areas. Plane geometry as we know from empirical facts is historically true not eternally true.

A good try, Philospopher19, and always worth revisiting.

[philosopher19]

Philosopher19 wrote:

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.

The four year old's triangle is true relative to other 'triangles' that may be even less accurate than the four year old's triangle. There is no such thing as a perfect triangle except in people's imaginations. For all we can know(except for mystics) there exists no perfect order , and ideal triangle same as ideal love is a shape-shifting icon.

The idea of ideal triangle depends utterly upon the idea of plane geometry which is a method for measuring areas. Plane geometry as we know from empirical facts is historically true not eternally true.

A good try, Philospopher19, and always worth revisiting.

The OP highlights that just as one cannot meaningfully/semantically deny that three-sidedness is true of triangles, one cannot meaningfully/semantically deny that existence is only absolutely true of God. Any given theory, belief, or statement that is semantically/meaningfully contradictory (such as triangles having four sides, and God not absolutely existing), is wrong by definition. The OP shows that rejection of God's absolute existence is wrong by definition. It is irrational/unreasonable/contradictory to hold meaningfully contradictory beliefs. Thus, God's absolute existence cannot be rationally or meaningfully rejected (just as a triangle's three-sidedness cannot be rationally or meaningfully rejected).

[Atla]

Philosopher19 wrote:

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.

The four year old's triangle is true relative to other 'triangles' that may be even less accurate than the four year old's triangle. There is no such thing as a perfect triangle except in people's imaginations. For all we can know(except for mystics) there exists no perfect order , and ideal triangle same as ideal love is a shape-shifting icon.

The idea of ideal triangle depends utterly upon the idea of plane geometry which is a method for measuring areas. Plane geometry as we know from empirical facts is historically true not eternally true.

A good try, Philospopher19, and always worth revisiting.

The OP highlights that just as one cannot meaningfully/semantically deny that three-sidedness is true of triangles, one cannot meaningfully/semantically deny that existence is only absolutely true of God. Any given theory, belief, or statement that is semantically/meaningfully contradictory (such as triangles having four sides, and God not absolutely existing), is wrong by definition. The OP shows that rejection of God's absolute existence is wrong by definition. It is irrational/unreasonable/contradictory to hold meaningfully contradictory beliefs. Thus, God's absolute existence cannot be rationally or meaningfully rejected (just as a triangle's three-sidedness cannot be rationally or meaningfully rejected).

The OP shows that if we define existence as necessarily perfect and as God, then existence is by definition necessarily perfect and God. Surprising revelation isn't it?

[Belindi]

Philosopher19 wrote:

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.

The four year old's triangle is true relative to other 'triangles' that may be even less accurate than the four year old's triangle. There is no such thing as a perfect triangle except in people's imaginations. For all we can know(except for mystics) there exists no perfect order , and ideal triangle same as ideal love is a shape-shifting icon.

The idea of ideal triangle depends utterly upon the idea of plane geometry which is a method for measuring areas. Plane geometry as we know from empirical facts is historically true not eternally true.

A good try, Philospopher19, and always worth revisiting.

The OP highlights that just as one cannot meaningfully/semantically deny that three-sidedness is true of triangles, one cannot meaningfully/semantically deny that existence is only absolutely true of God. Any given theory, belief, or statement that is semantically/meaningfully contradictory (such as triangles having four sides, and God not absolutely existing), is wrong by definition. The OP shows that rejection of God's absolute existence is wrong by definition. It is irrational/unreasonable/contradictory to hold meaningfully contradictory beliefs. Thus, God's absolute existence cannot be rationally or meaningfully rejected (just as a triangle's three-sidedness cannot be rationally or meaningfully rejected).

The OP shows that if we define existence as necessarily perfect and as God, then existence is by definition necessarily perfect and God. Surprising revelation isn't it?

Yes. Existence, unlike three-sideness, is not an attribute.This is because existence, unlike shape, is common to everything.

[philosopher19]

Philosopher19 wrote:


The four year old's triangle is true relative to other 'triangles' that may be even less accurate than the four year old's triangle. There is no such thing as a perfect triangle except in people's imaginations. For all we can know(except for mystics) there exists no perfect order , and ideal triangle same as ideal love is a shape-shifting icon.

The idea of ideal triangle depends utterly upon the idea of plane geometry which is a method for measuring areas. Plane geometry as we know from empirical facts is historically true not eternally true.

A good try, Philospopher19, and always worth revisiting.

The OP highlights that just as one cannot meaningfully/semantically deny that three-sidedness is true of triangles, one cannot meaningfully/semantically deny that existence is only absolutely true of God. Any given theory, belief, or statement that is semantically/meaningfully contradictory (such as triangles having four sides, and God not absolutely existing), is wrong by definition. The OP shows that rejection of God's absolute existence is wrong by definition. It is irrational/unreasonable/contradictory to hold meaningfully contradictory beliefs. Thus, God's absolute existence cannot be rationally or meaningfully rejected (just as a triangle's three-sidedness cannot be rationally or meaningfully rejected).

The OP shows that if we define existence as necessarily perfect and as God, then existence is by definition necessarily perfect and God. Surprising revelation isn't it?

Yes. Existence, unlike three-sideness, is not an attribute.This is because existence, unlike shape, is common to everything.

So you say it's not an attribute, and your reason for this is that it's common to everything. First of all, IF it's common to every thing, then it's an attribute that's common to every thing. You do not reason that shape-ness is not an attribute just because being a shape is common to every shape. Yet, this seems to be your approach with regards to the attribute of existing or existence (which is meaningfully/semantically inconsistent or contradictory on your part).

Second of all, if existence is not an attribute, then the following is true: Nothing has the property of existing or existence, or there is no thing with the property of existing or existence. We meaningfully say x exists, or x does not exist, or x is an existing thing, or x is not an existing thing. Rejection of this is clearly contradictory, therefore, rejection of existing or existence as being a property is clearly contradicotry.

Finally, when we take a non-absolute approach, it clearly the case that we can meaningfully distinguish between perfect and imperfect triangles in an objective manner. We can also meaningfully distinguish between perfect and imperfect beings/existents in an objective manner. Perfect triangles are necessarily triangular, though they are not necessarily existing. The perfect being/existent is not triangular, but it is necessarily existing.

[philosopher19]

The OP shows that if we define existence as necessarily perfect and as God, then existence is by definition necessarily perfect and God. Surprising revelation isn't it?

Your post shows that either you have not understood the OP (coupled with all my replies to you), or you have understood but are lying to yourself (because you don't like the idea of God existing) by being insincere to the semantics that you are aware of. In any case, I don't think any further discussion between us will bear any fruit.

[Atla]

The OP shows that if we define existence as necessarily perfect and as God, then existence is by definition necessarily perfect and God. Surprising revelation isn't it?

Your post shows that either you have not understood the OP (coupled with all my replies to you), or you have understood but are lying to yourself (because you don't like the idea of God existing) by being insincere to the semantics that you are aware of. In any case, I don't think any further discussion between us will bear any fruit.

You're lying to yourself (and to us) as people are pointing out. Existence is just existence, it's not known to be related to perfection, omniscience etc.