Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

[NickGaspar]

lol no, that all you there!
The Big Bang theory describes a change of state(commence of a process that can be quantified through spatial and temporal units) part of the same realm known by two different labels (Universe or Cosmos).
Our theories about the Cosmo include hypotheses about possible different states of the cosmos, informed by the current observable state of the cosmos.
My 8yp nephew did not need more than 10 minutes to get this mate!.....Ok, his ego was not threatened by this simple definition so he didn't waste time thinking how to strawman me. Your argumentation makes me wonder...how are you Alta?

You continue contradicting yourself. If cosmos = universe then you can't say that "No space No time" is a specific claim about our universe. How do you know that the claim is correct?

Firrst try to understand the differences between "contradiction" and "additional usages of a word".
Secondly that is not a claim that I entertain. Why are you making things up??
Why don't you accept the fact that the word Cosmos has this additional use and move on to what you really want to talk about. Is it about Jesus?

I don't know what you're smoking but I never doubted that the cosmos can be understood as a theorethical take on a well-ordered universe, as a secondary meaning. I've been saying from the start that you're the one talking about a third something.

Again, why is "No space No time" a specific claim about the universe? This is what you based your lecture on about how people should use the word "nothing".
Yet "No space No time" is not part of our observations, it's a possible hypothesis. Another possible hypothesis is that there were space and time in our universe before the BB. Another possible hypothesis is that there was absolutely nothing 'before' the BB. etc.
This should be 'cosmos' no? But you say it's specifically about universe but not cosmos. It doesn't even make any sense. You'd need to have a literally bigger cosmos for this.

its obvious that you are not just unable to understand basic concepts, you also don't want to understand.
I am bored.......

[Steve3007]

That is not necessary!Astronomers build the picture of the universe through observations. Cosmologists build hypotheses for the Universe by using Physics and Astronomical Observations. The produced "pictures"(theories) exceeds what we can verify through astronomy. That is labeled as "Cosmos"!

Fair enough. Are you talking about theories that can't be verified via astronomy because of the practical limitations of (current) technology? Or theories that, even in principle, could not be experimentally tested by any physical means?

[Atla]

I don't know what you're smoking but I never doubted that the cosmos can be understood as a theorethical take on a well-ordered universe, as a secondary meaning. I've been saying from the start that you're the one talking about a third something.

Again, why is "No space No time" a specific claim about the universe? This is what you based your lecture on about how people should use the word "nothing".
Yet "No space No time" is not part of our observations, it's a possible hypothesis. Another possible hypothesis is that there were space and time in our universe before the BB. Another possible hypothesis is that there was absolutely nothing 'before' the BB. etc.
This should be 'cosmos' no? But you say it's specifically about universe but not cosmos. It doesn't even make any sense. You'd need to have a literally bigger cosmos for this.

its obvious that you are not just unable to understand basic concepts, you also don't want to understand.
I am bored.......

I was thinking, if you use terms this way:

- nothing is not entirely nothing, it's more than that
- universe is all there is, but it may be less than that
- universe and cosmos are the same physically, except cosmos always meant something bigger
- conflating visible universe with universe
- conflating the 'all there is' universe with the 'part of a multiverse' universe

and then you always run into these annyoing people who can't have a clear discussion with you.. well, maybe it's not entirely their fault?

This is why people strive for clarity and use cosmos and universe as synonyms, by default, and use the absolute meaning of nothing, by default.

[NickGaspar]

That is not necessary!Astronomers build the picture of the universe through observations. Cosmologists build hypotheses for the Universe by using Physics and Astronomical Observations. The produced "pictures"(theories) exceeds what we can verify through astronomy. That is labeled as "Cosmos"!

Fair enough. Are you talking about theories that can't be verified via astronomy because of the practical limitations of (current) technology? Or theories that, even in principle, could not be experimentally tested by any physical means?

The theoretical concept of Cosmos is constructed by all types of hypotheses. This is the whole idea behind this concept. There are observations that imply things about our universe we currently don't understand or can't test.
Unfortunately for us the theoretical ideas of cosmos expand beyond the state of the universe we can observe.

[Count Lucanor]

Unless God is also someone who is into enjoyment and pleasure (and occasionally mischief).

Do you have a favorite dish? You know exactly what it tastes like, but you desire to eat it again and again.

Knowing the future is not a detriment to enjoyment. And God, not being subject to aging, illness, death, or scarcity of resources, gets to do things solely to enjoy himself.

What has this anything to do with the inherent contradictions between omnipotence and omniscience?

In any case, now that you bring up that other subject, has it ever crossed your mind what is implied in god having enjoyment, and only enjoyment? It is obvious that any level of enjoyment inferior to a given state of enjoyment would mean scarcity of enjoyment in relation to that state, which you say is something that will not happen to this divine being. So, no future state of things can bring to that divine entity more enjoyment than it already has, that means there can't be any motivation to acquire another state of joy. That actually eliminates any possibility of enjoyment for that god. We humans define our joys always in relation to states of scarcity, we value more what we don't have.

In ancient Greek religion enjoyment was the main drive behind all gods' actions. Abrahamic gods display sadistic qualities which are a form a satisfaction and enjoyment. Creating things is an enjoyable process that drive our urge to make new things.

Well, I guess that says a lot about the illogical underpinnings of those religions.

I don't really know how you exclude enjoyment from god's nature.

I just showed you how it is done. You just watch the projections you take from your flawed, mortal human mind, into the perfect mind of the deity, and show how they cannot work there. It makes as much sense to think this deity thrives for pleasure as much as it makes sense to think it gets hungry or needs to go to the bathroom.

[Count Lucanor]

There aren't any inherent contradictions between Omnipotence and Omniscience. I replied to your objections. You have yet to reply to my reply.

We'll see about that when we get there. I'm confident, though, since you haven't gained an inch of terrain so far.

What is clearly contradictory are the following:

Existence is finite
Existence is imperfect

Thus, what is clearly true, are the following:

Existence is infinite
Existence is perfect

Why? These are only assertions, but where are the arguments that support them?

[Count Lucanor]

The choosing among options is necessarily a contingent action (it can happen or not) and knowledge about this action is therefore synthetic a posteriori knowledge, not analytic a priori knowledge. For god's omniscience, we are concerned (also) about the synthetic a posteriori knowledge of its actions. And we are back to the same problem. In the end, it seems that what you're actually arguing is that god cannot exercise contingent actions, but to follow a predestined fate. That would be a claim against its free will and omnipotence.

If it is an a posteriori matter, then the synthetic a posteriori knowledge is not knowledge to be had until it has become determined from a state of being undetermined. Whilst it is absolutely undetermined, all that is knowable is that it is undetermined. In other words, all that is knowable about the undetermined, is that it is undetermined. Omniscience does not require knowing beyond all that is knowable. Knowing beyond all that is knowable is an absurd proposition.

You're committing a fallacy here by confusing "knowledge not yet acquired" with "knowledge not able to be acquired", the latter being false for synthetic a posteriori knowledge. An agent's choice will be knowledge acquired at some time, therefore it is knowledge to be had, it is without no doubt knowable information. When the choice has been determined, it is within the reach of our knowledge, and so it should be for a god that makes choices. The essence of the contradiction between omnipotence and omniscience lies precisely in that a determined action involving choice requires uncertainty before the choice, something that is denied by omniscience itself.

In any case, saying that there are things unintelligible to a god is to limit its knowledge, it cancels its infinite wisdom, and omniscience goes down the drain.

No it doesn't. Omniscience = knowing all that is knowable or intelligible. If something is not knowable or intelligible, then it is not knowable or intelligible. And if it's not knowable or intelligible, then it is not a part of "all that is knowable or intelligible", is it?

A fallacy again. I already replied to that. Your statement would imply that every person is omniscient because they know what they know. For an omniscient being, everything that there is and there can be is knowable, and it knows everything, without limits. It follows that if there are things that escape this god's knowledge, this being is not omniscient.

A 10th sense is unintelligible to us, but it is not a known absurdity. It is an unknown. A round square is unintelligible to all. It is a known absurdity. It is not an unknown to us like a 10th sense is.

A round square looks impossible in our geometrical world and the mind setup that goes along with our perceptions of space and time, but of course you cannot attribute those limitations to a being said to be infinitely perfect and all powerful. One would expect, naturally, that what appears as unintelligible to us, will be intelligible to this deity, so you cannot attribute universal non-intelligibility to anything if you also admit the existence of an infinite, perfect, almighty, omniscient being.

So with that in mind, you decide: Is God knowing its own future beyond the a priori an absurdity, or an unknown?

Choices are actions made by agents, and actions are contingent events. Contingent events belong to the sphere of experience, a posteriori knowledge. By admitting that this god does make choices, you're also admitting that such god has experiences.

If it is an absurdity (as is the case with any x knowing what it would decide before it actually decides beyond the a priori), then it is not an item of knowledge. It is not a knowable thing. It is therefore irrelevant to Omniscience. Agreed?

Are you claiming that god's experiences are not knowable to itself? They are not items of knowledge? If god cannot know its own experiences, then it is not even close to omniscience.

[NickGaspar]

There aren't any inherent contradictions between Omnipotence and Omniscience. I replied to your objections. You have yet to reply to my reply.

We'll see about that when we get there. I'm confident, though, since you haven't gained an inch of terrain so far.

What is clearly contradictory are the following:

Existence is finite
Existence is imperfect

Thus, what is clearly true, are the following:

Existence is infinite
Existence is perfect

Why? These are only assertions, but where are the arguments that support them?

Or better...where are his objective evidence supportive of the premises that would make those arguments sound and ... meaningful

[Steve3007]

Are you talking about theories that can't be verified via astronomy because of the practical limitations of (current) technology? Or theories that, even in principle, could not be experimentally tested by any physical means?

The theoretical concept of Cosmos is constructed by all types of hypotheses. This is the whole idea behind this concept. There are observations that imply things about our universe we currently don't understand or can't test.
Unfortunately for us the theoretical ideas of cosmos expand beyond the state of the universe we can observe.

So are we talking about theories that can't be verified via astronomy because of the practical limitations of (current) technology, or theories that, even in principle, could not be experimentally tested by any physical means?

[NickGaspar]

Are you talking about theories that can't be verified via astronomy because of the practical limitations of (current) technology? Or theories that, even in principle, could not be experimentally tested by any physical means?

The theoretical concept of Cosmos is constructed by all types of hypotheses. This is the whole idea behind this concept. There are observations that imply things about our universe we currently don't understand or can't test.
Unfortunately for us the theoretical ideas of cosmos expand beyond the state of the universe we can observe.

So are we talking about theories that can't be verified via astronomy because of the practical limitations of (current) technology, or theories that, even in principle, could not be experimentally tested by any physical means?

I am talking about any Theory based on Naturalistic principles and with epistemic connectedness to our establish epistemology independent of our current ability to verify it or not...

[Steve3007]

I am talking about any Theory based on Naturalistic principles and with epistemic connectedness to our establish epistemology independent of our current ability to verify it or not...

Mmmm. That sentence is going to take a bit of digesting, but I'll give it a go.

"Naturalistic principles" - I'm not sure what you mean by that unless you contrast it with other possible types of principles.

"Epistemic connectedness to our establish epistemology" - that appears to mean you're talking about theories that are consistent with existing theories in the sense that they don't contradict previous findings. If that's what you mean, that's fine by me. New theories generally encompass old theories in the sense that the old becomes a special case of the new. The new theory reduces to the old if simplifying assumptions are made.

"Independent of our current ability to verify it or not" - OK, the key word there for me is "current". What I asked in my earlier question was whether you're also talking about theories that could never be tested (verified/falsified) even in principle.

[NickGaspar]

Unless God is also someone who is into enjoyment and pleasure (and occasionally mischief).

Do you have a favorite dish? You know exactly what it tastes like, but you desire to eat it again and again.

Knowing the future is not a detriment to enjoyment. And God, not being subject to aging, illness, death, or scarcity of resources, gets to do things solely to enjoy himself.

What has this anything to do with the inherent contradictions between omnipotence and omniscience?

In any case, now that you bring up that other subject, has it ever crossed your mind what is implied in god having enjoyment, and only enjoyment? It is obvious that any level of enjoyment inferior to a given state of enjoyment would mean scarcity of enjoyment in relation to that state, which you say is something that will not happen to this divine being. So, no future state of things can bring to that divine entity more enjoyment than it already has, that means there can't be any motivation to acquire another state of joy. That actually eliminates any possibility of enjoyment for that god. We humans define our joys always in relation to states of scarcity, we value more what we don't have.

In ancient Greek religion enjoyment was the main drive behind all gods' actions. Abrahamic gods display sadistic qualities which are a form a satisfaction and enjoyment. Creating things is an enjoyable process that drive our urge to make new things.

Well, I guess that says a lot about the illogical underpinnings of those religions.

I don't really know how you exclude enjoyment from god's nature.

I just showed you how it is done. You just watch the projections you take from your flawed, mortal human mind, into the perfect mind of the deity, and show how they cannot work there. It makes as much sense to think this deity thrives for pleasure as much as it makes sense to think it gets hungry or needs to go to the bathroom.

You are confusing me with an other interlocutor. My point was just what you said at the end :

It makes as much sense to think this deity thrives for pleasure as much as it makes sense to think it gets hungry or needs to go to the bathroom.

How one can argue objectively about a deity when this process of choosing qualities isn't limited or informed by any epistemic feedback.
People just say how they would like a deity to be without taking in to account "its" responsibilities or its role in the world we witness our self.

[NickGaspar]

I am talking about any Theory based on Naturalistic principles and with epistemic connectedness to our establish epistemology independent of our current ability to verify it or not...

Mmmm. That sentence is going to take a bit of digesting, but I'll give it a go.

"Naturalistic principles" - I'm not sure what you mean by that unless you contrast it with other possible types of principles.

"Epistemic connectedness to our establish epistemology" - that appears to mean you're talking about theories that are consistent with existing theories in the sense that they don't contradict previous findings. If that's what you mean, that's fine by me. New theories generally encompass old theories in the sense that the old becomes a special case of the new. The new theory reduces to the old if simplifying assumptions are made.

"Independent of our current ability to verify it or not" - OK, the key word there for me is "current". What I asked in my earlier question was whether you're also talking about theories that could never be tested (verified/falsified) even in principle.

By Naturalistic principles, I simple mean Theories that can be objectively evaluated by Methodological Naturalism( the philosophical backbone of Science).
Its not an arbitrary bias towards a specific metaphysical worldview, but based on the acknowledgement of the limitations of our empirical nature(logic) and the nature of the methodologies of Science.

Epistemic connectedness in Philosophy of Science means that a proposed hypothesis is in agreement and product of our current verified knowledge.
This means that we don't need to toss out all our physics , without any evidence, with the only goal in mind, the accommodation of a new hypothesis.
Now these conditions allow the evolution of new and old theories, as you described!

-"What I asked in my earlier question was whether you're also talking about theories that could never be tested (verified/falsified) even in principle.''
-What we can say for sure is that we are not sure if a current unfalsifiable scientific hypothesis will remain unfalsifiable for ever (due to our technological advances). i.e. String theory, once thought as untestable, has gain traction by our advances in Experimental Physics. More often new methods pop up suggesting a new way to test the hypothesis.
This is why I used the word "current" and why the concept of theoretical cosmos is far greater then the "universe".

[philosopher19]

Why? These are only assertions, but where are the arguments that support them?

Check the OP. The OP shows that belief in an imperfect and finite existence is semantically inconsistent (contradictory) all things/semantics considered.

You're committing a fallacy here by confusing "knowledge not yet acquired" with "knowledge not able to be acquired", the latter being false for synthetic a posteriori knowledge.

No I'm not. This is your confusion which your own words attest to. You say:

"An agent's choice will be knowledge acquired at some time, therefore it is knowledge to be had, it is without no doubt knowable information. When the choice has been determined, it is within the reach of our knowledge"

You yourself recognise that when the choice has been determined, then it is within the reach of our knowledge. When the choice has not been determined, then it is not within the reach of our knowledge. Of course, our knowledge and God's Knowledge are not the same. Hence why I made a clear distinction between that which is objectively determined, and that which is objectively absolutely undetermined. Are you making this distinction? There is nothing more to know about that which is absolutely undetermined other than that it is absolutely undetermined. Its undeterminedness is not contingent on anything (whereas we are fully contingent on God). It is absolutely unknowable beyond that it is absolutely undetermined/unknowable/unknown.

A fallacy again. I already replied to that. Your statement would imply that every person is omniscient because they know what they know.

I know what I know. You know what you know. God Knows what He Knows. There are things I know that you don't know (and vice versa). There are things that God Knows that we don't know. There is nothing that is knowable that God does not know. There are things that are knowable that we do not know. Do you see why only God qualifies as Omniscient?

A round square looks impossible in our geometrical world and the mind setup that goes along with our perceptions of space and time, but of course you cannot attribute those limitations to a being said to be infinitely perfect and all powerful.

Really? I've seen this fallacy too often in philosophy and religion and other subjects. The treating of what is absurd, as what is unknown. The accepting/embracing of absurd (semantically inconsistent) beliefs in the name of unknowns. Be aware that you are showing signs of committing this. A round square does not look impossible. It IS impossible. It IS an absurdity. It isn't maybe an absurdity like a 10th sense is. It IS an absurdity. It is not a limitation of someone to not know what a gjsojrog or round square or 10th sense is when all those things are absurdities. Of course, we do not know if gjsojrog and 10th sense are absurd or not, so perhaps God Knows those things. So we cannot comment on them beyond saying that they are unknowns to us. But a round square is a known absurdity TO ALL. If you think it meaningful to say, Existence can produce round squares, then either I bring absurdities into rational discourse like you and say "Yes, Existence can produce round squares because it is infinite", or I avoid a semantically inconsistent (absurd) conversation. The latter is wiser/meaningful/reasonable/consistent.

Are you claiming that god's experiences are not knowable to itself? They are not items of knowledge? If god cannot know its own experiences, then it is not even close to omniscience.

No. I am saying per the dictates of the a priori: no being can a priori know what it would decide beyond the a priori before it actually decides. Knowing what God would choose beyond the a priori is not knowledge to be had. It is an absurdity. If it is an absurdity, then it is not an item of knowledge.

[Steve3007]

By Naturalistic principles, I simple mean Theories that can be objectively evaluated by Methodological Naturalism( the philosophical backbone of Science).

So theories that can be tested by describable and repeatable observation?

Its not an arbitrary bias towards a specific metaphysical worldview, but based on the acknowledgement of the limitations of our empirical nature(logic) and the nature of the methodologies of Science.

OK.

Epistemic connectedness in Philosophy of Science means that a proposed hypothesis is in agreement and product of our current verified knowledge...

Yes, agreed.

-What we can say for sure is that we are not sure if a current unfalsifiable scientific hypothesis will remain unfalsifiable for ever (due to our technological advances). i.e. String theory, once thought as untestable, has gain traction by our advances in Experimental Physics. More often new methods pop up suggesting a new way to test the hypothesis.
This is why I used the word "current" and why the concept of theoretical cosmos is far greater then the "universe".

OK. Understood. Given your explanations I'm happy that I understand the ways in which you use the word "Cosmos" and the distinction you see between Astronomy and Cosmology.