Possible Omniscient knows about Himself, thus He exists!

[joinfree]

Write 100 times on the blackboard "God of Theism exists, god of atheism doesn't exist." By this way you get the energy and momentum to go through the proof of God:

A) God is omniscient, so He is the perfect specialist to ask His opinion. His opinion is always true and right.
B) Ask Him, does He exist or not. He will certainly answer "Yes, the God of Theism is existent." Proof ends.

In short: The All-Knowing knows everything, and that the Omniscient exists. Therefore the Omniscient exists. Now, if this proof is not true, then it is not true to the All-Knowing. And if so, the Omniscient exists. "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil" John 8:43-44.

For those who do not understand: The All-knowing (if it turns out that such exists) knows everything, knows that the Omniscient exists. Hence, among all knowledge there is knowledge about the existence of the All-Knowing. Therefore the Omniscient really does exist.

Atheists just bringing us down. Atheists do not come from Existent One, so they do not Exist. The Atheism as well as any sickness is not Existent, because the Source of Existence is not sick, is not godless. The sinners have atheism in their subconscious, however the atheists have atheism throughout their psychics. Therefore, the sinners exist, but their sin doesn't exist. However the atheists are so full of sins and lies, that they do not exist. To repent an atheist is to remake him through divine wonder: "you must born again" (to my memory, Bible).

 

[Par5]

Write 100 times on the blackboard "God of Theism exists, god of atheism doesn't exist." By this way you get the energy and momentum to go through the proof of God:

A) God is omniscient, so He is the perfect specialist to ask His opinion. His opinion is always true and right.
B) Ask Him, does He exist or not. He will certainly answer "Yes, the God of Theism is existent." Proof ends.

In short: The All-Knowing knows everything, and that the Omniscient exists. Therefore the Omniscient exists. Now, if this proof is not true, then it is not true to the All-Knowing. And if so, the Omniscient exists. "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil" John 8:43-44.

For those who do not understand: The All-knowing (if it turns out that such exists) knows everything, knows that the Omniscient exists. Hence, among all knowledge there is knowledge about the existence of the All-Knowing. Therefore the Omniscient really does exist.

What??

 

[Freodin]

For those who do not understand: The All-knowing (if it turns out that such exists) knows everything, knows that the Omniscient exists. Hence, among all knowledge there is knowledge about the existence of the All-Knowing. Therefore the Omniscient really does exist.

Oh, come on! You even spelled it out yourself. Do the other half of this equation.

You don't understand what I am talking about?

Look no further:
"...if it turns out that such exists..."

So...
IF an omniscient being exists, THEN it knows everything, including that it exists.
ELSE IF an omniscient being does not exist, THEN it doesn't know anything.

Do you think we were born yesterday? Do you think we never heard of logic at all?

 

[joinfree]

Oh, come on! You even spelled it out yourself. Do the other half of this equation.

You don't understand what I am talking about?

Look no further:
"...if it turns out that such exists..."

So...
IF an omniscient being exists, THEN it knows everything, including that it exists.
ELSE IF an omniscient being does not exist, THEN it doesn't know anything.

Do you think we were born yesterday? Do you think we never heard of logic at all?

Do not modify my text. Can you do it? Please use my words.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Write 100 times on the blackboard "God of Theism exists, god of atheism doesn't exist." By this way you get the energy and momentum to go through the proof of God:

A) God is omniscient, so He is the perfect specialist to ask His opinion. His opinion is always true and right.
B) Ask Him, does He exist or not. He will certainly answer "Yes, the God of Theism is existent." Proof ends.

In short: The All-Knowing knows everything, and that the Omniscient exists. Therefore the Omniscient exists. Now, if this proof is not true, then it is not true to the All-Knowing. And if so, the Omniscient exists. "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil" John 8:43-44.

For those who do not understand: The All-knowing (if it turns out that such exists) knows everything, knows that the Omniscient exists. Hence, among all knowledge there is knowledge about the existence of the All-Knowing. Therefore the Omniscient really does exist.

This is actual a big philosophical deal. Conscious thought is not a given of reality; we joke about how some people do not think consciously as an allusion to their intellectual history. However, existentialism does not assume one is conscious, or thinking. In fact, one needs to very vigorously prove one's existence before one proves one is conscious, or thinking.

Some philosophers tried to get away with the complexity by claiming that if they think, then that is proof enough that they exist. But that begs the question of thought, proof and knowledge.

An entity that is all-knowing does not "get away" with that complexity. The very fact that it knows everything is the definition of Full Consciousness. To consider the rest of everything around one's consciousnesses with respect to the one's individuality would be thought. The combination of this would produce a conscious, thought-form. Depending on the existentialist, that is enough for existence. It would follow, then, that an all-knowing [thought-form] itself exists.

You can take it a step further, and say that a conscious thought-form that is all knowing, and capable of dynamic thought (i.e. the thought-form can change) while maintaining individuality, then that defines existence. Of course, that begs the question of individuality.

Either way, all-knowing exists. This is why the Most High's name - the one He gave Moses - translates to "I Exist [because I exist]" (Hayah [asher hayah]). He is the definition of existence for which all creation, as it were, is scaled and measured against.

 

[Freodin]

Do not modify my text. Can you do it?

Tell me why you think my "modification" of your text changes the content of it, and I will adjust it.

But I don't think this really is your objection. I didn't change the meaning of what you wrote... I only added the part that you - conveniently - left out. It still is part of the original reasoning... or what part of "IF" is it that you don't understand.

So either address my post or lose the last tiny shred of credibility that you still might have here.

Please use my words.

I don't mean to brag. As yourself, I am not a native english speaker, but I dare say that my command of the English language is a little better than yours.

So why would I change that and use your worse version?

 

[Freodin]

This is actual a big philosophical deal. Conscious thought is not a given of reality; we joke about how some people do not think consciously as an allusion to their intellectual history. However, existentialism does not assume one is conscious, or thinking. In fact, one needs to very vigorously prove one's existence before one proves one is conscious, or thinking.

Some philosophers tried to get away with the complexity by claiming that if they think, then that is proof enough that they exist. But that begs the question of thought, proof and knowledge.

An entity that is all-knowing does not "get away" with that complexity. The very fact that it knows everything is the definition of Full Consciousness. To consider the rest of everything around one's consciousnesses with respect to the one's individuality would be thought. The combination of this would produce a conscious, thought-form. Depending on the existentialist, that is enough for existence. It would follow, then, that an all-knowing [thought-form] itself exists.

You can take it a step further, and say that a conscious thought-form that is all knowing, and capable of dynamic thought (i.e. the thought-form can change) while maintaining individuality, then that defines existence. Of course, that begs the question of individuality.

Either way, all-knowing exists. This is why the Most High's name - the one He gave Moses - translates to "I Exist [because I exist]" (Hayah [asher hayah]). He is the definition of existence for which all creation, as it were, is scaled and measured against.

Omniscience is a logical impossibility.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Omniscience is a logical impossibility.

Absolutely nothing is impossible. Logic, as it were, is flawed.

When you are talking about "all knowing" entities, the logic of humanity is a poor excuse for a thought-form.

To bring the comparatively obsolete application of knowledge into a discussion about complete consciousness and existentialism is foolishness.


Logic is for people comfortable about the superficial projection of life put in front of them. Logic tells those in [The Allegory of] the Cave that the images they see on the wall are real, while an illogical thought would have one seek out the source.

It is illogical to seek out the source when it was a perfect application of intellect to assume the images seen on the wall were real. Once the paradigm shifted, and more learned that there is an entire world beyond the opening of the cave, then it became logical to seek out beyond what has been put in front. But, only within an acceptable social intellect. Otherwise, you become illogical again, until someone or a lot introduce another new paradigm.

 

[Freodin]

Absolutely nothing is impossible. Logic, as it were, is flawed.

When you are talking about "all knowing" entities, the logic of humanity is a poor excuse for a thought-form.

To bring the comparatively obsolete application of knowledge into a discussion about complete consciousness and existentialism is foolishness.


Logic is for people comfortable about the superficial projection of life put in front of them. Logic tells those in [The Allegory of] the Cave that the images they see on the wall are real, while an illogical thought would have one seek out the source.

It is illogical to seek out the source when it was a perfect application of intellect to assume the images seen on the wall were real. Once the paradigm shifted, and more learned that there is an entire world beyond the opening of the cave, then it became logical to seek out beyond what has been put in front. But, only within an acceptable social intellect. Otherwise, you become illogical again, until someone or a lot introduce another new paradigm.

Oh, I would agree that absolutely nothing is impossible. But these "possible" things are not of a kind that we can fill with meaning. Logic is quite useful to do that... even required. You need it to make sense of a term like "omniscience".

If you discard it, you can still claim that it is "possible". But it does no longer mean anything.


But what you are talking about in your post isn't "logic" at all. You are talking about "reason". Nothing about the Cave Allegory is "logical" or "illogical". It is, at most "reasonable" or "unreasonable".

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Oh, I would agree that absolutely nothing is impossible. But these "possible" things are not of a kind that we can fill with meaning. Logic is quite useful to do that... even required. You need it to make sense of a term like "omniscience".

If you discard it, you can still claim that it is "possible". But it does no longer mean anything.

Logic fails, and then there is a paradigm shift, and thus new logic.

Logic, at best, is axiomatic, but not an actual vector for truth itself. Logic is not required to understand omniscience. In fact, human logic would likely retard any understanding of any paradigm beyond human conception. That is categorical.

It is the reason why science is logical, yet it cannot explain simple issues of the alleged "supernatural" world using scientific logic. That is because scientific logical processes do not take into account the supernatural. It, therefore, cannot approach it logically - and anyone who tries to approach a supernatural concept using the standard method, it would be considered illogical, and the scientist would be considered a quack... until the paradigm shifts.

But what you are talking about in your post isn't "logic" at all. You are talking about "reason". Nothing about the Cave Allegory is "logical" or "illogical". It is, at most "reasonable" or "unreasonable".

Logic is the correct application of reason. The Allegory of the Cave is a Platonic literary work on formal logic at the most basic level.

 

[joinfree]

Absolutely nothing is impossible. Logic, as it were, is flawed.......

Atheists just bringing us down. Atheists do not come from Existent One, so they do not Exist.

 

[Freodin]

Logic fails, and then there is a paradigm shift, and thus new logic.

And new logic fails, and then there is a paradigm shift, and thus old logic. And old logic is both better and worse than new logic, and no logic at all.

There is nothing you can do to refute this, once you have discarded logic itself.

Logic, at best, is axiomatic, but not an actual vector for truth itself. Logic is not required to understand omniscience. In fact, human logic would likely retard any understanding of any paradigm beyond human conception. That is categorical.

I guess you need another paradigm shift. Logic is the basis of understanding.
Without a basic, fundamental set of logic, there is nothing to understand. Without logic, there aren't any paradigmata. Without logic, the very definition of "paradigma" dissolves.

It is the reason why science is logical, yet it cannot explain simple issues of the alleged "supernatural" world using scientific logic. That is because scientific logical processes do not take into account the supernatural. It, therefore, cannot approach it logically - and anyone who tries to approach a supernatural concept using the standard method, it would be considered illogical, and the scientist would be considered a quack... until the paradigm shifts.

This isn't a question of logic, but of systematics. You are a mathematician, or so you claimed. You should know how that works.
If you cannot find an answer within a given system, the response is to expand the system... not to discard all systems.

Logic is the correct application of reason. The Allegory of the Cave is a Platonic literary work on formal logic at the most basic level.

Exactly the opposite: reason is the consistent application of logic.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

And new logic fails, and then there is a paradigm shift, and thus old logic. And old logic is both better and worse than new logic, and no logic at all.

There is nothing you can do to refute this, once you have discarded logic itself.


I guess you need another paradigm shift. Logic is the basis of understanding.
Without a basic, fundamental set of logic, there is nothing to understand. Without logic, there aren't any paradigmata. Without logic, the very definition of "paradigma" dissolves.


This isn't a question of logic, but of systematics. You are a mathematician, or so you claimed. You should know how that works.
If you cannot find an answer within a given system, the response is to expand the system... not to discard all systems.


Exactly the opposite: reason is the consistent application of logic.

Ok.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Atheists just bringing us down. Atheists do not come from Existent One, so they do not Exist.

I would say it is defiant ignorance. Things solved or verified using a dictionary/textbook/encyclopedia turn into conspiracy through ignorance, and denial.

It is an expected agency.

 

[joinfree]

I would say it is defiant ignorance. Things solved or verified using a dictionary/textbook/encyclopedia turn into conspiracy through ignorance, and denial.

It is an expected agency.

The Atheism as well any sickness is not Existent, because the Source of Existence is not sick, is not godless. The sinners have atheism in their subconscious, however the atheists have atheism throughout their psychics. Therefore, the sinners exist, but their sin doesn't exist. However the atheists are so full of sins and lies, that they do not exist. To repent an atheist is to remake him through divine wonder: "you must born again" (to my memory, Bible).

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Atheists just bringing us down. Atheists do not come from Existent One, so they do not Exist.

But blue sleeps faster than Wednesday, so the taste of dirt shines brighter than toothpaste.

 

[Freodin]

The Atheism as well any sickness is not Existent, because the Source of Existence is not sick, is not godless. The sinners have atheism in their subconscious, however the atheists have atheism throughout their psychics. Therefore, the sinners exist, but their sin doesn't exist. However the atheists are so full of sins and lies, that they do not exist. To repent an atheist is to remake him through divine wonder: "you must born again" (to my memory, Bible).

So atheists and sickness does not exist, because the "Source of Existence" is not godless or sick.
But sinners exist... so the "Source of Existence" would be sinful?

Sinners are sinners because... they don't do anything with "sin"... which doesn't exist?

Atheists don't exist, but they are so full of sins and lies... which also do not exist?


I would say that you should really really reconsider your idea of "existence"... as well as anything else.

But I guess badmouthing people who disagree with you is simply easier that to consider something outside of your dogma.

 

[Freodin]

I would say it is defiant ignorance. Things solved or verified using a dictionary/textbook/encyclopedia turn into conspiracy through ignorance, and denial.

It is an expected agency.

Do you have any idea how dictionaries/textbooks/encyclopedias came into existence?

 

[Larniavc]

A) God is omniscient, so He is the perfect specialist to ask His opinion. His opinion is always true and right.
B) Ask Him, does He exist or not. He will certainly answer "Yes, the God of Theism is existent." Proof ends.

This is incoherent.

 

[bhsmte]

Atheists just bringing us down. Atheists do not come from Existent One, so they do not Exist.

Don't tell me, only people who agree with your personal faith belief exist?