And I’d say, so what?
Again, the set could be finite, but so big that we will never use all of it, or ever get to the “ends” of it.
I agree that we will never be able to empirically verify/test an infinite number of sentences, just as we cannot count to infinity. But I disagree with you when you say “the potential may exist”. My belief is that the potential certainly exists. Here’s why:
Is Existence such that the potential is there for us to access an infinite number of semantics? If yes, then we cannot deny:
The potential for an infinite number of semantics exists in Existence. This is because the potential for an infinite number of semantics cannot exist in non-existence or independently of Existence. Again, we have access to an infinite number of semantics. We recognise the potential for an infinite number of semantics exists in Existence. Put differently at the risk of repetition: We recognise Existence contains/has the potential for an infinite number of semantics. So Existence’s potential is infinite. So Existence is infinite.
That’s logically inconsistent because it amounts to saying there is an end to numbers. Like there is a biggest final number that is not infinity. It’s like saying there is an end to Existence. Which ultimately amounts to saying non-existence can exist.
Whilst there is potentially an end to us (as in we can die and turn to ashes) there is no end to Existence. We turn to ashes, we do not turn to non-existence. Non-existence does not exist. Hence Existence has always existed and will always exist.
“We exist” - nothing you can do about that.
In all various forms. From the “nothing” of quantum to star-dust to the planet beginning to chemical reactions to life (as we know and define it) to the expansion of stars in their death throws to dark holes and the faster than speed of expansion to a cold 
inertia of quantum… in this universe; perhaps the others are playing their own scenarios or the “cause” for our being “effect” has not yet occurred…
When this little dog of animated Carbon has its “game player” (lol Simulation theory) turn me “off” I will just have all those little molecules and such reabsorb into the environment, changing form, once again.
It’s actually sad that you don’t get this. You have wasted your time coming up with such nonsense. Then you waste your time by posting the bullshit. Finally you waste more of your time by attempting to defend the bullshit when it has been clearly pointed out your argument is useless. You, my friend, are a master at wasting time while pretending you are going places. You are, unfortunately, exciting the site as ignorant as you entered and you can directly attribute that to “Wasting your time while you were here.”
You seem to have ignored all three questions, again.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your claim omnipotence is possible?
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your claim that unicorns are hypothetically possible?
A lie, you already claimed that…
-
Omnipotence is possible.
-
That unicorns are hypothetically possibly.
-
That a deity exists.
I don’t care whether you think debate is a valuable use of your time, if you’re not interested in debate then you shouldn’t have come to a debate forum. That s just an utterly transparent attempt to control the context of the debate, and continue to evade answering the questions put to you about your claims.
Nonsense, you’re offering claim after claim and refusing to evidence them, that’s not a sound or rational argument, and you dishonestly shift the goalposts everytime it’s pointed out. I am not disagreeing with your claims, I’m asking you to evidence them, and you are dishonestly refusing to even acknowledge those requests.
1 Like
If you want to discuss the nature of Existence with someone (of which my goal was to discuss its omnipotence), first you should make sure that they understand why Existence is necessarily infinite. If they show no willingness to acknowledge Existence as being infinite, then leave them be. Since you made the effort with the dictionary, I will try again:
-
Existence being infinite accounts for why all semantics are meaningful. If you disagree, then go look at my last reply to you (which you just dismissed as irrelevant). It highlights why it is inconsistent to believe that a finite existence can contain an infinite number of semantics.
-
Round squares, married bachelors, non-existence existing, sitting and standing at the same time, these are all hypothetical impossibilities. What makes something a hypothetical impossibility? That it cannot exist. That it cannot be true of Existence. It cannot be true of Existence that there is a man sitting and standing at the same time. Or that there is a round square. Or that non-existence exists. Or that Existence does not exist. Or that Existence is finite.
-
If something is hypothetically impossible, then it is not meaningful or understandable. You cannot understand a round square. Round has meaning. Square has meaning. Round square has no meaning. There can be nothing that is both hypothetically impossible and understandable/meaningful at the same time.
-
Given 3, If something is meaningful or understandable, then it is certainly not hypothetically impossible. To reiterate: ALL hypothetical impossibilities are meaningless and not understandable.
-
Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of. There is nothing better than a perfect existence. If existence is imperfect, then perfection (a perfect existence) is hypothetically impossible.
-
If perfection is hypothetically impossible, then it should be meaningless and not understandable. Again, ALL hypothetical impossibilities are meaningless and not understandable.
-
Perfection is meaningful/understandable, therefore, perfection is not a hypothetical impossibility.
-
If Existence is perfect, then perfection is not hypothetically impossible. If Existence is imperfect, then perfection is hypothetically impossible. We understand perfection, therefore, perfection is not hypothetically impossible. Therefore, Existence is perfect.
-
Existence is perfect is the same as saying God exists. This is because a perfect existence logically entails that everyone gets what they truly deserve (it would be imperfect otherwise). This logically requires the omnipresent (Existence) to be omnipotent and omniscient. It logically requires: Existence = God (pantheism)
I don’t think I can make it any clearer. If you disagree with any of the premises, then say so and I will see if I can address it. If you just say I have NOT provided an argument for Existence being perfect, then given the above, I see no point in continuing our discussion.
if we were to be generous we might call #6 reasoning (it certainly seems that was the intention).
and #7 is a postulate
Why do you have reasoning before the postulates?
Is this opposite day?
Holy shit; it actually is opposite day! 
That explains everything! 
I don’t believe you. I think you’re annoyed because people here refuse to play by your rules.
Don’t let the door hit you in the arse as you leave.
Whoa 
are you saying that existence is omnipotence???
need to read further* but holy shit man, you just cut your work out for yourself…
1 Like
Jesus fuck. Do you realize you walk through infinity all the time in physical reality? Like an infinity in “one” (1) is infinite as is the infinity in .1 and .001 ad nauseam. YET I walk and move through “infinity” all the time. Translate your stuff into the real world.
But this statement isn’t true? Are you using philosophy? The fact you imagined such things means YES they do exist - in your mind - like infinity and god ideas.
BUT 3 isn’t a given. I don’t accept it.
This I agree with. I don’t accept the idea of what is presented as “perfect” depending on the meaning attached. We have ideals - not perfection.
And btw, I don’t subscribe to ideals either. They are the stuff of imagination of the “shoulds” and “oughts”…[quote=“Philosopher, post:87, topic:1124”]
perfection is hypothetically impossible, then it should be meaningless
[/quote]
Hahaha - not true. Perfection is a subjective judgement call. I may say I ate a perfect chocolate fudge sundae the night before a surgery where I expected to die (then threw it up so my stomach was empty)… it’s the use in meaning. Is an electron “perfect”?
Blahh l
Blahhh blahhhhh. Ifs are worth shit.
If I was richer. If I was younger. 
*If I only had a brain 
*
No it doesn’t. Maybe “logically” in your imagination… but fuck man, there is nothing that translates into reality.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Existence = omnipotence? Existence = infinity? Therefore god? (of a particular choice I assume?)
Please, don’t waste your time. As I said, it seems you have a bowel problem that is affecting your thought processes.
No one, not least your self has ever “logicked/reasoned” a particular or even ‘one size fits all’ “god” into existence.
No, you do not have an argument from contradiction. (hypothetical impossibilities) Jesus gawd, why not use the perfectly good word contradiction? What is it with you you tube watching pseudo intellectuals? We have, in the English (and other) language a perfectly good and growing array of words to describe most eventualities, situations, actions. Yet, you and your pretentious ilk want to change definitions, use multiple words where one perfectly sized and pronounceable word will do.
A smoke screen of verbiage does not evidence or bring forth your god.
Yes, a contradiction (hypothetical impossibility for the verbally ostentatious) can exist and be perfectly understandable. As has been demonstrated by other posters on this thread, and of course any sequence of commercial or political ads on TV. .
Nope, * manfully resisting the temptation* , not going to respond point by point.
This post is silliness piled on a dung heap of pretension. I can’t imagine the scenario where this joker actually has to buy groceries. Just reading the labels would cause mental constipation for him as so many contradictions are described together on so many labels. It must be a nightmare.
3 Likes
@Philosopher: Bullshit! Existence and infinity are based on measurements of time. An infinite regression occurs in time. Local time is a product of Big Bang cosmology. What is outside Big Bang cosmology is unknown. Your assertion is a simple infinite of the gaps fallacy,. We don’t know what is beyond Planck time so I will just insert my version of infinity there.
Wrong banana breath.
When the semantic necessarily denotes Existence, (like Infinity and Perfection do), then it’s not just existing in your mind. This is because Existence doesn’t just exist in your mind. Existence is necessarily at least as real as you are (including all traits there are necessarily associated with it)
Let’s see if 3 can be falsified. Can you give me an example of something that is hypothetically impossible, yet meaningful at the same time?
How about reality…
What comes first: cause or effect?
A cause, then an effect. Would it be impossible to offer up an effect before a cause? Holding a hot cup of coffee before you made it? Is this impossible???
Check out …
1 Like
Listen to any Political speech. Watch and commercial break. Go to QAnon, read the bible…all are full of contradictions what you call so pretentiously (as if adding import to your utterances)…hypothetical impossibilities
It has been done before: "Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things .” “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
2 Likes
Deepity. A statement that is apparently profound but actually asserts a triviality on one level and something meaningless on another.
I haven’t jumped in to this argument because from the very start Philosopher was full of it.
2 Likes
One more thing. Your logic doesn’t hold in reality and can conjure magically evidence for all sorts of things.
Time travellers regardless how far in the future should they happen to do it, time travel effects us. Man dreamt of the moon before he sat foot on it…(unless you dismiss the evidence in favor of other theories)
Aliens with advance technology linking into our minds and giving chosen ones information. Mind technology is at its baby stages here on earth, but a civilization even just a thousand years older and perhaps with an understanding of the universe different than ours based on their planet/solar system or “corner of the universe” is possible and could be argued into “reality”.
I could go on and on and on …your imagination and logical argument is soooo limited and evidence is sorely absent. My two examples above at least has a higher standing in evidence than yours.
Not high enough though to meet my standards for confidence or belief.
1 Like
You know a good clue that you are reading gobbledygook? When the document just starts shitting dubious proper nouns.
2 Likes
I’m not sure if what you are presenting is hypothetically impossible or not. It’s more of an unknown than a hypothetical impossibility. I don’t know which came first. This is an unknown. Why is it a hypothetical impossibility to you? If you said the past can occur in the future, or the future can occur in the past, then that is a clearly hypothetical impossibility. Or if you said I observed a round square, that is a clear hypothetical impossibility. But you did not say anything of that sort. See how such things cannot be understandable by definition? We cannot understand the past as being the future at the same time. We cannot understand a shape as being both round and triangular at the same time. We cannot understand Existence as being both perfect and imperfect (Existence encompasses all time and space).