0
   

Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

 
 
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2018 01:51 pm
(1) There is existence/x exists

(2) Everything that exists, does so only in existence

(3) We are fully dependent on existence

(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows

(5) Given 4, anything that is either rational/comprehensible/understandable, necessarily belongs to existence (existence accommodates it; as in either it is necessarily existent, or existence has the potential to create it or produce it. This why our minds classify it or recognise it as a hypothetical possibility and this is why it has meaning. So a unicorn is a potential thing that Existence can produce) On the other hand, anything that is either irrational or incomprehensible is necessarily non-existent (existence does not accommodate it. The potential for it to exist has never been there and will never be there. For example, no square-circles or married bachelors can ever exist. Such phrases iare absurd and makes no sense)

(6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational concepts that we have an understanding of. So Existence must accommodate these concepts. As highlighted by 5, to deny this is to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing. Therefore, either:

6a) The potential is there for something to become omnipotent and omniscient, or 6b) Something is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

(7) Only Existence/that which is all-existing/omnipresent can be almighty/omnipotent and all-knowing/omniscient because the semantics of omnipotence are not satisfied if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence. Similarly, you can't be all-knowing if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence.

(8) Given 7, 6a must be false as nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state as nothing can substitute Existence. So the potential for something to become omnipresent is not there which entails that the potential for something to become omnipotent or omniscient is also not there.

(9) Given that 6a is false and that the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are not absurd, it follows that 6b is true.

(10) Only Existence/that which is all-existing/omnipresent can be almighty and all knowing.

(11) Given 5-10, Existence is necessary omnipotent and omniscient.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,758 • Replies: 152
No top replies

 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2018 07:29 pm
@Philosopher19,
Foolish 101.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2018 07:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Foolish 101.


cicerone knows because that was his major.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2018 08:31 pm
@Philosopher19,
Philosopher19 wrote:
anything that is either irrational or incomprehensible is necessarily non-existent (existence does not accommodate it. The potential for it to exist has never been there and will never be there. For example, no square-circles or married bachelors can ever exist. Such phrases iare absurd and makes no sense)

I recommend separating conceptual representations, linguistic/rhetorical logic, etc. from what actually exists. A person exists separately from his social-status designation as 'married' or 'bachelor.' Those labels are attributions that are added to people in the way they are represented within the mind. So someone doesn't 'exist' as a 'bachelor' or a 'husband,' because that designation/status only exists within the mind as a cognitive interpolation of them.

Once you sort out how things exist, i.e. whether they exist of atoms, molecules, and energy; or whether they exist as cognitive interpolations of perceptions, ideas, memories, etc. then you begin to see reality for what it truly is, i.e. a mixture of conceptually neutral artifacts and human mental representations and interactions that construe/construct them within social-cultural narratives that allow humans to make sense of them and incorporate them into their/our societal processes.

Reading about Social Constructionism can give you food for thought to go in the right direction, but ultimately you will have to sort out for yourself what really exists and how things exist, e.g. as fictions, as concepts, as materialities/physicalities, as social statuses, meanings, projections, etc. etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 01:43 am
@Philosopher19,
No. The meaning of 'existence' like all concepts denoted by words is relative to the context surrounding its usage, and fluctuates as the context changes.(Wittgenstein:"meaning is use")

It is the abstract persistence of words which misleads language uses into thinking that meanings are fixed and not context dependent. Concepts stand or fall on the basis of their utility in communication (including internal conversation aka 'thinking'). Thus for theists 'God exists' is a truism for their mutual social interactions. For physicists 'time does not exist' is a statement about the utility of the word 'time' with respect discussion of certain equations, but 'time exists' has a succinct meaning in the context of prison sentences.

In general 'existence' is about the functional status of 'things' which are denoted by 'words'...the currency of social exchange. And like all currencies, that status fluctuates. Ontology is parochial.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 01:59 am
@livinglava,
I endorse the general content of your reply (except perhaps for your use of the word 'really' Wink ).
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 06:55 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

I endorse the general content of your reply (except perhaps for your use of the word 'really' Wink ).

Really?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 12:36 pm
@Philosopher19,
If it has a description, it exists.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 01:17 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
If it has a description, it exists.


You should stick to selling shoes, ci.

How often has god, heaven, hell, ... been described?

Just for your edification, "describe" is a verb form, 'description' is a noun.
0 Replies
 
Philosopher19
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 01:41 pm
@livinglava,
I have made the separation. I'm using pure reason here. I put to you the following challenge: Can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist?
Philosopher19
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 01:43 pm
@fresco,
So are you saying that there can be another possible definition of Existence than the one that I have highlighted? Are you saying that Existence can be something other than that which is all-existing/omnipresent?

Also, I put to you the following challenge: Can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 03:26 pm
@Philosopher19,
Here's an interesting subject. https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/calling-earth-a-loser-trump-vows-to-make-better-deal-with-new-planet
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 06:25 pm
@Philosopher19,
Thats an oxymoron. As c.i. has stated in another way 'thinghood' implies 'existence'. So 'unicorns' exist for the purposes of heraldry and fairy stories. They are context bound tokens of communication. As an 'atheist' I understand that 'God exists' for believers because the concept informs their modus operandi. The concept has no utility for me and fellow atheists so 'God has no existence' for us, and concepts are all thinkers have got ! Since humans have largely similar perceptual systems and needs, there is much they agree abou for which the question of 'existence' never arises in everyday life.

BTW 'Pure reason' is limited. Read Kant, Piaget, Russell's Paradox, Godel, Derrida, and Quantum Theory.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 07:03 pm
@Philosopher19,
Philosopher19 wrote:

I have made the separation. I'm using pure reason here. I put to you the following challenge: Can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist?

Everything that exists in the imagination exists as a thought pattern. Brain functions and subjective experience are part of what exists, the same way what appears on your monitor exists because it is manifested their by your processor.

In the words of the Beatles, "there's nothing you can do that can't be done."
laughoutlood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 08:11 pm
@Philosopher19,
Finally, proof of the almighty.

Won't Berty Russell be jealous in heaven.

300 pages to prove 1+1 = 2, versus your 11 points to the explication of divine omniety.



Yam ! Bam ! mon chat Splash
Git sur mon lit a bouffe
Sa langue en buvant tout mon whisky
Quant a moi peu dormi, vidé, brimé
J'ai dû dormir dans la gouttière
Ou j'ai eu un flash
Oooo-ooo-ooo-ooo !
En quatre couleurs

Allez hop! un matin
Une louloute est venue chez-moi
Poupee de cellophane, cheveux chinois
Un sparadrap, une gueule de bois
A bu ma biere dans un grand verre en caoutchouc
Oooo-ooo-ooo-ooo !
Comme un indien dans son igloo

Ça plane pour moi ça plane pour moi
Ça plane pour moi moi moi moi moi
Ça plane pour moi
Oooo-ooo-ooo-ooo!
Ça plane pour moi

Allez hop! la nana quel panard!
Quelle vibration!
De s'envoyer sur le paillasson
Limée, ruinée, vidée, comblée
You are the King of the divan !
Qu'elle me dit en passant
Oooo-ooo-ooo-ooo!
I am the King of the divan
0 Replies
 
maryannfreeman
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2018 09:54 am
@Philosopher19,
I guess omniscience is just another side of the "omnipotence" coin. But according to Edubirdie.com its an important distinction. We all know that God has unlimited power, freedom and knowledge, right?
0 Replies
 
Philosopher19
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2018 12:52 pm
@fresco,
"Thats an oxymoron. As c.i. has stated in another way 'thinghood' implies 'existence'."

Thinghood implies existing in some way. There's a difference between being in Existence and being Existence. You and I are both in Existence but neither of us are Existence. Existence is existing and it is Existence. We are both existing, but we are not Existence. Agreed?

Again, any definition of existence that contradicts the following definition: That which is all-existing/omnipresent is paradoxical/irrational.

In any case, for the sake of efficiency, I've put the argument premise by premise. Which premise is rationally problematic?


URL: https://able2know.org/reply/post-6716874
Philosopher19
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2018 12:55 pm
@livinglava,
"There's nothing you can do that can't be done" If that's your position on the matter, then we are in agreement.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2018 02:31 pm
@Philosopher19,
A 'state of existence', is what a naive realist ascribes to 'things' which are deemed to populate 'a world' independent of observers. To argue that 'existence' is itself 'a thing' is an example of Russell's Paradox (the class of all classes which are members of themselves) and hence is anchored in terms of 'atomic statements' (ref: logical positivism) which have been rejected by nonrepresentationalist philosophers of language Wittgenstein.

IMO Your main problem with your thesis is your first two axioms which look like vacuous tautologics. Unless you read up on some of the references I have suggested, you will continue to generate 'word salad'....not surprising if you have a theistic leaning which tends to be subject to seduction by 'word magic'.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2018 02:33 pm
Ah-hahahahahaha . . .

You can't beat this place for free entertainment. So tell us, oh fount of eternal wisdom, if there is no reality independent of observers, where did observers come from? This **** always cracks me up.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2018 at 10:04:35