(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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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."
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
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
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
Ça plane pour moi
Allez hop! la nana quel panard!
De s'envoyer sur le paillasson
Limée, ruinée, vidée, comblée
You are the King of the divan !
Qu'elle me dit en passant
I am the King of the divan
Mon 24 Sep, 2018 09:54 am
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?
Mon 24 Sep, 2018 12:52 pm
"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?
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'.