Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

That is not what is being proposed. In a nutshell, the following is being proposed:

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.

Are you in agreement or disagreement with the above?

Reason is infallible. Our use of it is not. At times we lack knowledge or we misunderstand words/semantics, or we just lack sincerity. When we don't lack knowledge and when we don't misunderstand words/semantics, and when we don't lack sincerity, then we're right.

To use reason is also part of a human experience. Let's discuss this experience.

We find reason dictating things with authority, such that we cannot deny it. Do you agree? For example, can you doubt reason using reason?

Do you not find reason establishing itself with authority as being undeniable?

Sorry, you are about 70years behind developments in the philosophy of language, if indeed you have ever studied it. I don't have the patience to deal with unreferenced and largely vacuous claims.

This is my last response on this thread.

Reason cannot be reconciled, because it's subjective.

Reason is objective. It's use of it is subjective. By this I mean: It depends on the subject "using" it, it's either used correctly or incorrectly.

Each person's reasoning is subjective whether it can be objectively proven or not. Just look at all the people who believe in their god(s). You can tell them their god doesn't exist, but they will never believe you. Those are the facts of human existence. Reason is not objective; it is demonstrably subjective. Why are there so many religions in the world? Objective is when personal opinion can be proven wrong with objective evidence. That's the reason why religion is such a philosophical subject. For atheists like myself, I see no objective evidence of any god, and trust what scientists tell us about evolution and our environment.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-of-earth/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

https://www.thoughtco.com/objective-vs-subjective-philosophy-and-religion-250573

I agree that each person's reasoning is subjective. But this amounts to: Each person's use of reason is different. Some use it inappropriately, some use it inadequately, and some use it both inappropriately and inadequately.

Yet this does not amount to reason being fallible or subjective. It amounts to the subjects using it as being fallible or subjective with their use of it.

If reason was not objective, we would never have any kind of unity on things. Science, math or any field that uses reason would be absurd.

Science and math are not subjective because it always seeks truth with evidence. Technology has been helpful in seeking truth in these fields.

The problem is that some people are not submissive to reason. By that I don't mean that they aren't submissive to someone else's reasoning and/or reasons. I mean they themselves avoid reasoning to the best of their own ability and then accepting the conclusions that they reason for themselves.

So, for example, you can reason with someone that 2+2=4, for lack of a better example. Then, they will avoid reasoning for themselves about whether it's true or not because they are too afraid that if they acknowledge that 2+2=4 is a reasonable conclusion, it will deprive them of some arbitrary prerogative they have as an unreasonable person with the power to choose things for some other motive than their reasonability.

"Reasoning" is a different animal. Not everyone studies the veracity of something they might believe. Reasoning involves seeking truth, but truth is very subjective.

Did you get the point of my post? I said that people don't just resist the reasoning of others trying to convince them of something, they avoid reasoning independently because they are afraid it will interfere with their prerogative to do whatever they want regardless of whether they reason it to be good or not.

In short, people choose to be unreasonable at the expense of the opportunity to reason better and more ethical choices. To be really blunt about it, they are willfully evil. The mental effort they could put into reasoning better and more ethical choices goes into rationalizing and whitewashing the evil they desire. A big part of it is that they don't want to think of it as 'evil' at all, for the sake of their pride. Even just the use of the word, 'evil' itself is a taboo for many modern people for this reason.

Here you are setting yourself up for a fallacy of equivocation . The equivocation is between "existence" in the sense that things do, as a matter of fact, exist (which you're useing in #1 and the first part of #2), and the human concept of existent (which you apear to be using in the second part of #2). So either your #2 is saying "things exist only because things exist", which is tautological and would render the step superfluous, or you are saying "things exist only within our concept of existence" which is false. Things have been existing long before we and our concept of their existence came along.

[quote="Philosopher 19"\ (3) We are fully dependent on existence[/quote]
That's true in the first sense of existence: We exist and therefore are fully dependent on things existing. But it's false in the second sense of "existence" Stones, for instance, have no concept of existence, but they exist just fine without having such a concept.


You've got to be kidding, right? Our minds can behold all kinds of things that don't exist, and that existence wouldn't allow. Just go to an art gallery with surrealistic paintings in them You'll sww some.


That's false as a consequence of your #4 being false. I have no problem comprehending, understanding, or reasoning about pink unicorns farting rainbows. They just don't exist. And thus, your point #5 is refuted by demonstrating a counterexample.


Which puts its existence on exactly the same footing as pink unicorns farting rainbows.


Sure, only something that exists can know everything and do everything. But that doesn't mean anything that exists can do it, and the rest of your argument contains nothing that woulsd demonstrate that.

Thus falleth apart the rest of your fancy syllogism.

Horses exist and hornes to...now think of a line wich is neither curve nor straight dumbass....you dont pass 101 non being in a Parmenides exam...with you all we have for a read is trivial mediocrity

If this is the biting sardonicism of your native tongue then little wonder you post pictures.

By 'subjective,' I assume you mean relative. But truth is not relative. If it is, it's not truly truth.

Humans can (subjectively) perceive/understand something to be true and turn out to have been wrong. Humans are not perfect.

The reason why they can turn out to have wrong, however, is because there is something beyond understanding that can render it wrong. If truth beyond subjectivity didn't exist, then how would it ever be possible for any subjective understanding of truth to be (truly) wrong? Every assertion that something is wrong would be just as relative as the thing it is contradicting.

E.g. You could say that 2+2=5; I could respond that's wrong; and my perception/understanding it is wrong would be just as baseless ultimately as yours. That is wrong, and you know it because there is truth beyond relative assertions.

"...truly truth...."

"....there is truth beyond relative assertion." ...is only an assertion preached by absolutists and naive realists relative to their pov!

I knew a bloke who claimed to have lived in a bedsit with Shiva who he said cheated terribly at chess and got really angry when caught out. Then again he wasn't the most reliable of witnesses.

...and yet another soul that misses the point...welcome to the club of idiocy for free...

Editing with things that exist to make things that "don't exist" is not the same as speaking of things that really cannot be in any form or shape. Those are only met with metaphor as the example I gave about trying to imagine a line which is neither straight nor curved. Non-being cannot be spoken of because it is not! The same principle applies to the idiotic question about why there is something rather than nothingness (not vacuum) as absolute no thing is a self-refuting concept. It eats itself up as absence of absence. I don't expect you to understand any of this because your previous answer to my post already put you in the same category of our dear Thomas, both thick and square as bricks...that said shove your opinion back to the hole where it came from.

If your POV is that there is no truth beyond POV, then how can you argue your POV against mine except by lying and pretending you believe yours is more true?