Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

No claim is objective reality. Objective reality is what exists, i.e. matter and energy and the patterns they form.

Subjectivity is what humans (and animals, etc.) experience inside. Thought is part of that, so no one being able to prove the existence of God is part of subjective reality, not objective reality.

How you define/understand God/gods determines whether you can accurately claim He/they exist or not. It is the same as with spirits, which exist if you define them as subjective patterns but they don't exist if you define them as physical creatures flying around like birds.

Likewise, God doesn't exist if you define God as a limited physical being located somewhere specific within or outside the universe. God does exist, however, if you define Him as the ultimate power behind everything in the universe; including the potential of subjectivity to evolve into a form that can contemplate the existence of God.

Gods and spirits are hokey pokey with not objective evidence. I'm not denying the fact that millions of people on this earth have belief in gods. That's objective.

You: No claim is objective reality.

Do you have parents?

I dismiss anyone who denies there is an objective reality independent of humans. Your belligerence shows how ill-prepared you are to answer a valid criticism of your most important premise. I will, of course report the name-calling.

Look up 'nonrepresentationalism' in language and reconsider your last post.

You are going round in circles because you want to make 'existence' an exception to the thesis that all concepts are constructed. That in turn leads you to other exceptions like 'heat' and 'light'. Construction does NOT mean 'invention'...it means 'consistent social understanding as to word usage'.

What's the matter with you? Who cares what a fool who hasn't got the courtesy or the ability to read the literature wants to dismiss or not ? You remind me of the apochryphal old woman who insisted that the Earth was supported on the back of turtles 'all the way down'....but maybe you haven't read that either.
Go and play at being a bully on other threads. If you keep trying that nonsense with me you will get it straight back in spades.

I don't think you really understand the relationship between objective evidence and how the evidence is understood in relation to the claim. To understand it, you would have to think deeply about other kinds of claims which you do believe there is evidence for and realize those claims are subjective/representational as well.


Statistics are irrelevant where truth is concerned. If 99% of people in a city witness what they believe to be a meteor and it turns out to be an alien space ship, they were all wrong because truth is beyond human subjectivity.


Idk what your point is, but mine is that objective reality is what happens beyond our minds and senses. If you look at something, say a tree, light reflecting off the tree is entering your retinas and triggering neural activity that you recognize as a tree. That neural activity is what you experience as subjectivity.

There is objective reality happening in the tree, the light, your retina, your neurons, etc. but you don't experience any of that directly. What you experience is the image of the tree, and that is subjective reality. The tree outside your head is the objective reality, but you don't see it directly. What you see is the image of the tree that is generated by your retina's interaction with your neurons.

Oh dear. Youv'e got your work cut out if you think you can sustain the dichotomy 'subjective-objective'.

If anyone here is playing the bully, it's you, with your sneers and insults and name-calling. Adding threats does nothing to address the basic flaw in your premise of explaining where those whom you allege construct context, or observe, or "language" derive. Worshiping at the altar of your demigods would not address that flaw. I will, of course, report your latest name-calling.

If you're not going to post reasons for things you say that can be discussed, don't post. This is a discussion, not a bulletin board for asserting your unreasoned opinion.

Oh good. Don't forget to mention your 'patoot' in the report.

I won't be playing 'last wordism' games with you any further.

The 'reasons' are all there in the previous post I gave you.
So I repeat, you have your work cut out catching up on 17 Years of discussion.

You make a jargon for everything. I'm sure you have enough on your hands with the elaborate and silly word games you play now. If you don't call people names, there's no reason to report you. It would save us all a lot of trouble, and unnecessary unpleasantness. You might also enjoy the adult experience.

Ok, I'll take that to mean you have no interest in discussing this topic with me. So no need to respond to my posts then.

I know it's stating the obvious. But it's an important premise in the argument. One that ultimately leads to Existence is infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient.

If you can provide a definition of Existence that lacks any of the aforementioned traits without it being paradoxical and contradictory then fair enough, I shouldn't be doing Philosophy. But if you can't, then you should re-assess the foundations of your philosophy.

I have already provided the standard reference: Wittgenstein 'meaning is use'.

In addition Rorty et el argue that all words (including 'existence') have no fixed meaning. Words do not represent reality they construct it by negotiated wgreement and they have no permanent basis independent of a shifting communicative contexts with respect to human projects.

As far as 'existence ' itself is concerned, at least one philosopher, Heidegger, argued that it Existenz was only applicable to a mode of being Sein experienced by humans with respect to time Zeit in which 'things' were merely 'affordances for potential interaction'. This view of 'things' he called 'considering'. And beyond philosophy, it is now a major view of physicists that there are no 'things' per se, rather there are 'interaction events' some of which are deemed to persist or repeat with respect to human observers, but not in 'time',but relative to increasing entropy.

I should perhaps have made clear that it was the later Wittgenstein (in Philosophical Investigations) who rejected his own representaliet 'Picture Theory of Language' described in his earlier Tractatus, as untenable

You should consider this:

https://philosophyneedsgod.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/organising-semantical-gaps-using-reason/

Semantics are always fixed. The labels we ascribe to them vary, but the semantics themselves never vary. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to translate one language to another.

Considered and rejected !

I don't need a mythical entity to fill the 'gaps'. You are of course entitled to satisfy your psychological needs as you wish, but don't call it 'philosophy'.

"Reason" is a subjective term. "The utility of a commodity is always subjective because it depends upon the consumer as much as on commodity. It is the psychological satisfaction as feeling of the consumer. Hence, it is internal not external."

Good point. 'Reason' based on 'logic' depends on chice of premises. Nor does traditional logic allow for the dynamics within communicative exchanges in which 'semantics' are negotiated.

To Philospher19
All premises based on 'absolutes' or 'permanence' fly in the face of the human experience of ubiquitous change (formalised as 'the second law of thermodynamics). This implies that choice of premises involving 'permanence' is irrational and constitutes a psycholgical palliative to counter the inevitability of change leading to death.