God as the true cogito

[Belindi]

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.

But no attribute is common to everything. We attribute predicates in order to distinguish one thing from another. If you add "and moreover it exists" you have added an empty predicate.

Philosopher19 wrote "We meaningfully say x exists, or x does not exist, or x is an existing thing, or x is not an existing thing." I can quite imagine someone saying of any phenomenon "And moreover it exists" . The claim would indicate the speaker's state of mind not something attributable to the object of thought, and would refer to a phenomenon or theory with no possible objective evidence for it or no possiblility for falsification.

[philosopher19]

But no attribute is common to everything. We attribute predicates in order to distinguish one thing from another. If you add "and moreover it exists" you have added an empty predicate.

Philosopher19 wrote "We meaningfully say x exists, or x does not exist, or x is an existing thing, or x is not an existing thing." I can quite imagine someone saying of any phenomenon "And moreover it exists" . The claim would indicate the speaker's state of mind not something attributable to the object of thought, and would refer to a phenomenon or theory with no possible objective evidence for it or no possiblility for falsification.

Going by the non-absolute approach:

Shape is the attribute common to all possible shapes in existence. Existing is the attribute common to all possible existents in existence. Having no attribute whatsoever is only true of that which is not a possible existent. All possible shapes are possible existents. All possible things/existents are possible existents. Roundsquare is not a possible existent (thus it is also not a possible shape). Roundsquares are not shapes, they are not existents. Only absurdities have no attribute whatsoever. It is precisely for this reason that they are classed as absurdities/contradictions/impossibilities (because they are not true of existence in any way, shape, or form).

Sentences, beliefs, statements, and theories can take the property of being absurd when they describe something that is not true of existence. The statement "I just stood and sat at the same time" is one such example.

Any given belief or theory that is contradictory (semantically inconsistent) is not true of existence. God truly/indubitably exists is a statement that is true of existence (just as the interior angles of a true triangle adding up to 180 degrees, is true of existence. As in existence is such that true triangles are this way. As in existence is such that God is omnipresent. Or existence is such that nothing is more real than God or the Omnipresent). The rejection of God being truly real is as contradictory as the rejection of existence being truly real or truly existing.

[Belindi]

But no attribute is common to everything. We attribute predicates in order to distinguish one thing from another. If you add "and moreover it exists" you have added an empty predicate.

Philosopher19 wrote "We meaningfully say x exists, or x does not exist, or x is an existing thing, or x is not an existing thing." I can quite imagine someone saying of any phenomenon "And moreover it exists" . The claim would indicate the speaker's state of mind not something attributable to the object of thought, and would refer to a phenomenon or theory with no possible objective evidence for it or no possiblility for falsification.

Going by the non-absolute approach:

Shape is the attribute common to all possible shapes in existence. Existing is the attribute common to all possible existents in existence. Having no attribute whatsoever is only true of that which is not a possible existent. All possible shapes are possible existents. All possible things/existents are possible existents. Roundsquare is not a possible existent (thus it is also not a possible shape). Roundsquares are not shapes, they are not existents. Only absurdities have no attribute whatsoever. It is precisely for this reason that they are classed as absurdities/contradictions/impossibilities (because they are not true of existence in any way, shape, or form).

Sentences, beliefs, statements, and theories can take the property of being absurd when they describe something that is not true of existence. The statement "I just stood and sat at the same time" is one such example.

Any given belief or theory that is contradictory (semantically inconsistent) is not true of existence. God truly/indubitably exists is a statement that is true of existence (just as the interior angles of a true triangle adding up to 180 degrees, is true of existence. As in existence is such that true triangles are this way. As in existence is such that God is omnipresent. Or existence is such that nothing is more real than God or the Omnipresent). The rejection of God being truly real is as contradictory as the rejection of existence being truly real or truly existing.

Except when they are mathematically or logically incorrect, absurdities are relatively absurd i.e. some are more or less absurd than others.

God truly/indubitably exists is a statement that is true of existence (just as the interior angles of a true triangle adding up to 180 degrees, is true of existence.

That God exists is neither mathematically nor logically true. If God is defined as existence itself then you add nothing by the claim "and He exists". Existence includes 1) being ,and 2) all the things and phenomena of being. You can claim of any thing or phenomenon that it exists .If you claim God is numbered among the things or phenomena of existence I think this is probably either superstition or blasphemy.

[philosopher19]

Except when they are mathematically or logically incorrect, absurdities are relatively absurd i.e. some are more or less absurd than others.

Whilst it is the case that some theories have more inconsistencies or contradictions/absurdities than others, this does not alter the fact that if any given statement or belief is contradictory, then that statement or belief is wrong by definition. For example: Triangles have four side. Perfect triangles are not truly/indubitably triangular. God (the perfect being/existent) does not truly/indubitably exist.

It is not magic that we are able to meaningfully distinguish between a perfect triangle and a shape that resembles triangularity but does not fully hit the semantic of triangle (an imperfect triangle does not fully/absolutely hit the semantic of triangle). It is the nature of existence. It is not magic that we recognise God as the perfect/absolute being, it is the nature of existence. It is not magic that we recognise even Descartes' cogito does not establish that we indubitably exist. The OP makes this clear. It's all a matter of being reasonable via being meaningfully/semantically consistent (as opposed to contradictory and unreasonable).

That God exists is neither mathematically nor logically true. If God is defined as existence itself then you add nothing by the claim "and He exists". Existence includes 1) being ,and 2) all the things and phenomena of being. You can claim of any thing or phenomenon that it exists. If you claim God is numbered among the things or phenomena of existence I think this is probably either superstition or blasphemy.

Your only meaningful objection that I could root back to the OP was that existing is not a property. I addressed this clearly in my last reply to you. I don't know if you still think existing is not a property or not. If you think existing is a property (which you should if you want to avoid being contradictory), then the OP shows that only God truly/absolutely exists (just as only perfect triangles are truly triangular). If you don't take semantics as absolute, then the OP shows that nothing is more real than God (because nothing is better than a really perfect being). Real good is better than illusory good. Real good is better than the image of good.

It is absurd/contradictory to think imperfect triangles as really triangular, but perfect triangles as not really triangular.
It is absurd to think imperfect beings as really existent/being, but the perfect being as not really being/existing.

It is absurd to say we exist whilst God does not (God's existence is the existence that we are in. We do not instantiate existence (contrary to solipsism). God does). It is absurd to say we are more real than God. None can be more real than that which instantiates existence.

[Belindi]

Except when they are mathematically or logically incorrect, absurdities are relatively absurd i.e. some are more or less absurd than others.

Whilst it is the case that some theories have more inconsistencies or contradictions/absurdities than others, this does not alter the fact that if any given statement or belief is contradictory, then that statement or belief is wrong by definition. For example: Triangles have four side. Perfect triangles are not truly/indubitably triangular. God (the perfect being/existent) does not truly/indubitably exist.

It is not magic that we are able to meaningfully distinguish between a perfect triangle and a shape that resembles triangularity but does not fully hit the semantic of triangle (an imperfect triangle does not fully/absolutely hit the semantic of triangle). It is the nature of existence. It is not magic that we recognise God as the perfect/absolute being, it is the nature of existence. It is not magic that we recognise even Descartes' cogito does not establish that we indubitably exist. The OP makes this clear. It's all a matter of being reasonable via being meaningfully/semantically consistent (as opposed to contradictory and unreasonable).

That God exists is neither mathematically nor logically true. If God is defined as existence itself then you add nothing by the claim "and He exists". Existence includes 1) being ,and 2) all the things and phenomena of being. You can claim of any thing or phenomenon that it exists. If you claim God is numbered among the things or phenomena of existence I think this is probably either superstition or blasphemy.

Your only meaningful objection that I could root back to the OP was that existing is not a property. I addressed this clearly in my last reply to you. I don't know if you still think existing is not a property or not. If you think existing is a property (which you should if you want to avoid being contradictory), then the OP shows that only God truly/absolutely exists (just as only perfect triangles are truly triangular). If you don't take semantics as absolute, then the OP shows that nothing is more real than God (because nothing is better than a really perfect being). Real good is better than illusory good. Real good is better than the image of good.

It is absurd/contradictory to think imperfect triangles as really triangular, but perfect triangles as not really triangular.
It is absurd to think imperfect beings as really existent/being, but the perfect being as not really being/existing.

It is absurd to say we exist whilst God does not (God's existence is the existence that we are in. We do not instantiate existence (contrary to solipsism). God does). It is absurd to say we exist whilst God does not (God's existence is the existence that we are in.

It is absurd to say we exist whilst God does not (God's existence is the existence that we are in.

God is not both 1) existence "that we are in" and 2)one among the things that exist thing that exists such as is Belinda, my coffee cup, Mont Blanc, what you know about the internal combustion engine.

It is absurd to say we exist whilst God does not (God's existence is the existence that we are in.

You and I and Mont Blanc are real. and existence itself is real. Existence itself is the cause of you, I, Mont Blanc, and everything else. It is meaningless to say existence exists, because without exception all the things that exist do exist.

Let me put it this way. Within a conversation where each participant knows mathematics if Joe says 5+ 4=9 he never needs to add "this is mathematical."

The perfect triangle exists as an idea but in a relative world the perfect triangle is impossible and it can be only relatively perfect. Every idea of God is only relatively perfect. Me, I am contented that the idea of a perfect God was invented and taught to me however I do not go around hoping I will see this perfect being walking around some church or supermarket or be viewed in the distance from a roadside in France.

[philosopher19]

You and I and Mont Blanc are real.

Yes, I agree that we are all real in the same way that an imperfect triangle is triangular. But this would mean that even our dreams are real (just less so than our waking experiences). Similarly, a triangle drawn without a ruler is triangular (just less so than a triangle drawn with a ruler). WIth this approach, every thing that is non-contradictory, is real. How real it is, or how it is existing, is another matter. The OP shows that if we are to ascribe existence or realness to anything, then that thing ought to be God, because not doing so would lead to contradictions (much like not ascribing infiniteness to existence leads to contradictions, or not ascribing three-sidedness to triangles).

It is meaningless to say existence exists

I don't think it's meaningless. Saying existence exists is like saying triangles are triangular. Perfect triangles are absolutely triangular, the perfect existence is absolutely existing. Even though we do not have the eyes to a posteriori see this, we do have the semantical awareness to understand this, and recognise that rejecting this is contradictory. We are meaningfully aware of what constitutes a perfect triangle. We are meaningfully aware of what constitutes a perfect existence or perfect being (a perfect being and a perfect existence both amount to the exact same thing/truth/reality).

[philosopher19]

Every idea of God is only relatively perfect. Me, I am contented that the idea of a perfect God was invented and taught to me

To me, that's like saying the idea of a perfect triangle is only relatively perfect. I agree that those with non-absolute standards will call an imperfect triangle a triangle. For example, some may or may not acknowledge a triangle that a four year old drew as being triangular, some may or may not acknowledge a triangle drawn with a ruler as being triangular. All will acknowledge a perfect triangle as being triangular (if they are rational).

Some may or may not acknowledge Zeus as being perfect. Some may or may not acknowledge themselves as being perfect. All will acknowledge God as being perfect (if they are rational). All will acknowledge that infiniteness, omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence towards good, and omnimalevolence towards evil, are semantical components of being perfect (just as interior angles totalling 180 degrees is a semantical component of being triangular).

[Belindi]

Every idea of God is only relatively perfect. Me, I am contented that the idea of a perfect God was invented and taught to me

To me, that's like saying the idea of a perfect triangle is only relatively perfect. I agree that those with non-absolute standards will call an imperfect triangle a triangle. For example, some may or may not acknowledge a triangle that a four year old drew as being triangular, some may or may not acknowledge a triangle drawn with a ruler as being triangular. All will acknowledge a perfect triangle as being triangular (if they are rational).

Some may or may not acknowledge Zeus as being perfect. Some may or may not acknowledge themselves as being perfect. All will acknowledge God as being perfect (if they are rational). All will acknowledge that infiniteness, omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence towards good, and omnimalevolence towards evil, are semantical components of being perfect (just as interior angles totalling 180 degrees is a semantical component of being triangular).

Among things and ideas in this world there is no such attribute as objective perfection. Perfection is a subjective evaluation and cannot be objective. A perfect triangle is perfect relative to plane geometry. Plane geometry is a symbolic system for measuring areas.

The attributes of God that you listed are impossible in a relative world. This is why Christians believe Jesus Christ came to interpret God . This is why Muslims believe the Koran interprets Allah .

These interpretations are fingers pointing at the Moon they are not the Moon.

[philosopher19]

Among things and ideas in this world there is no such attribute as objective perfection. Perfection is a subjective evaluation and cannot be objective. A perfect triangle is perfect relative to plane geometry. Plane geometry is a symbolic system for measuring areas.

P) Triangular perfection (or objective triangularity) = that which no greater than in triangularity can be conceived of.
Q) Perfect perfection (or objective perfection) = that which no greater than in being can be conceived of.

P is a three-sided thing/existent with interior angles totalling 180 degrees. This is objectively true. Agree or disagree?

Q is an infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent towards good, omnimalevolent towards evil being/thing/existent. This is objectively true. Agree or disagree?

If you disagree with either P or Q, then can you provide one possible alternative to either P or Q? If you are able to do this without running into contradictions, you will have proven your point that objective/true/perfect/real perfection (or perfect triangularity if you object to P) is not objective.

[Belindi]

Yes, I agree with your Q and your P. However they are not the whole story.

The idea of a triangle and the idea, as your Q describes God,are good ideas. But they are ideas they are not God . Sound logic is not God.

Apart from the experiences of genuine **religious mystics, we cannot know God which is why Xianity is founded upon a go-between i.e. Jesus Christ.

** beware of charlatans

[Thomyum2]

P) Triangular perfection (or objective triangularity) = that which no greater than in triangularity can be conceived of.

P is a three-sided thing/existent with interior angles totalling 180 degrees. This is objectively true. Agree or disagree?

Q is an infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent towards good, omnimalevolent towards evil being/thing/existent. This is objectively true. Agree or disagree?

If you disagree with either P or Q, then can you provide one possible alternative to either P or Q? If you are able to do this without running into contradictions, you will have proven your point that objective/true/perfect/real perfection (or perfect triangularity if you object to P) is not objective.

P is only true in Euclidean geometry - i.e. under the umbrella of the axioms that Euclid set forth. Your definition of a triangle is Euclid's, which specifies that it is of a triangle on a 2-dimensional plane. But a perfect triangle on the surface of a sphere, for example, could have interior angles totaling 270 degrees. In other words, the truth of P is always dependent on the premises you hold about the nature of those geometric shapes.

Similarly, all logical/rational truths are based on and derived from axioms. Rational thought or argument can only get you from your axioms to your conclusions - they cannot generate truths out of thin air. In my view, God's existence is necessarily axiomatic - it is the starting point, not something that is derived from some other truth based in human thought or experience. The truth of God's existence cannot be dependent on the truth of some other premise as that would be contradictory to the very definition of God. If God's existence could be rationally proven, then that would imply that there is some axiom upon which the proof was based that if changed or rejected could allow for God's existence to be disproven.

[Belindi]

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.

Existence is uniquely common to everything. Shape is not common to everything, for instance ideas lack shape or every other spatial characteristic.


No thing has the property of existing or not existing, because existing is not a property.Properties quantify or qualify what exists. If something does not exist it totally lacks properties and cannot have properties or attributes.

It is true that we can think of perfect triangles . It is also true that we can think the plastic foot rule is perfectly calibrated. But nothing in this world is perfectly measured. All measurements and all qualities are degrees of space, time, beauty, goodness, and truth. Possibly there is a sort of existence where presumably God and other perfections are to be found. However even Jesus of Nazareth denied that he himself was perfectly good and Jesus himself claimed only God is good.

Perfection, philosopher, is not of this world.

[philosopher19]

Yes, I agree with your Q and your P. However they are not the whole story.

The idea of a triangle and the idea, as your Q describes God,are good ideas. But they are ideas they are not God . Sound logic is not God.

Apart from the experiences of genuine **religious mystics, we cannot know God which is why Xianity is founded upon a go-between i.e. Jesus Christ.

** beware of charlatans

Do you agree with the following:

X) Any given theory, belief, or statement that is contradictory, is wrong by definition (which is the same as saying it is not true of existence in any way, shape, or form).

Y) If rejecting z is contradictory (or leads to contradictions), then z is necessarily true. For example, we cannot reject triangles as having three sides, therefore, it is necessarily true that triangles have three sides.

Perfection, philosopher, is not of this world.

It is not of us, but it is of existence (in the absolute sense). How else can we meaningfully tell what constitutes a perfect being in an objective manner? It is not random that we are able to objectively tell what constitutes a perfect triangle or a perfect being. It is just the way existence is, and we are meaningfully/semantically aware of It.

Existence is uniquely common to everything.

Where you take the non-absolute approach, then yes, existing is common or true of every non-contradictory thing. Where you take the absolute approach, then existence is only true of God.

No thing has the property of existing or not existing, because existing is not a property.

But you are literally equating somethingness with nothingness, or existence with non-existence (which is contradictory). It is because x does not have the property of existing that we describe it as non-existent (or without any properties whatsoever).

When we take the non-absolute approach: Round-squares, and every other concept/belief/statement that is necessarily not true of existence in any way, shape, or form, do not have the property of existing; which by extension means they do not have any other properties. The absurd concept has the property of being contradictory/absurd precisely because what it describes is not true of existence/existing in any way, shape, or form. What it describes has no ties to existence whatsoever (hence why it is described as contradictory).

Properties quantify or qualify what exists. If something does not exist it totally lacks properties and cannot have properties or attributes.

See above.

If we are to say that only God alone is Good (capital G to emphasise completeness/absoluteness), then consistency would have us say that only God alone Exists. I am all for this approach. God Exists, and His Existence Sustains us. We are not the ones Instantiating Existence or Goodness. We can be aware or appreciative of Existence or Goodness, or we can be rejecting of It. The latter are evil/irrational/contradictory/absurd, the former are not.

[philosopher19]

P is only true in Euclidean geometry - i.e. under the umbrella of the axioms that Euclid set forth. Your definition of a triangle is Euclid's, which specifies that it is of a triangle on a 2-dimensional plane. But a perfect triangle on the surface of a sphere, for example, could have interior angles totaling 270 degrees. In other words, the truth of P is always dependent on the premises you hold about the nature of those geometric shapes.

I think I understand your point, but I think you have this backwards:

P is not just true in Euclidean geometry, P is always true. Now, if we were to talk about imperfect triangles (non-Euclidean triangles), then you could say that p is only a triangle outside of non-Euclidean standards or geometry. Do you see my point with regards to you having this backwards (and I mean no offence by this at all)? It is possible for you to meaningfully reject the triangularity of a non-Euclidean triangle, but it is impossible for you to meaningfully reject the triangularity of a Euclidean triangle. If your standards of triangularity were absolute, then you would not accept non-Euclidean triangles as triangles. If your standards of triangularity were reasonably high, then you would not accept a triangle drawn without a ruler as a triangle. Do you see where I'm going with this?

The truth of God's existence cannot be dependent on the truth of some other premise as that would be contradictory to the very definition of God.

The term God (where God is the label used for the semantic of the perfect being, or that which truly exists) dictates that only God absolutely exists. As with the triangle example in the previous paragraph, if our standards are absolute, then we would not accept non-God beings as existing/being. If our standards were non-absolute, then other things/beings/existents can be classed as beings/existents too. If our standards of being were reasonably high, then we would not describe tables as beings.

[Terrapin Station]

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

You should have either added that you understood what I wrote in my previous post, and then adapted to it, or you should have been able to come up with pointed objections to (and be able to respond to the same) to what I wrote in my previous post.