I don’t know that it is a violation. It might be a violation of some logical principle I’m unaware of, built about of the basic 3 (or some other system). But I’m not taking your word on the matter; and it seems your word is all I have.
For myself… what exists “exists”. What doesn’t “doesn’t”.
Things that exist for me are things that are evidenced to exist. The more impactful it is on my life, the higher standard for evidence.
Things with no evidence of their existence I do not believe to exist. Does not mean that “they” don’t BUT there is no reason to have confidence that they do.
I could say purple alien slime on Zeber in the Watrioka quantrant of space exist.
BUT without evidence of this claim, could you reasonably have confidence in their existence based on “my word”?
Now I could say purple alien slime=white glue, and we all know white glue exists - so obviously 
so do my purple alien slimers…
It’s the other way around.
It was once “reasonable” to believe the Earth was flat.
Reasonable or not, that is wrong.
It was once “reasonable” to believe that time is a straight line, consistent, steady, and universal.
Reasonable or not, that is wrong.
If we find evidence that something we think is reasonable is in fact wrong, it is our responsibility to alter what we think is reasonable. The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us, it is our job to make sense of it. Two different things. That’s where philosophy and science diverge. You can “think” all you want, but eventually you need to be able to demonstrate it. If you can’t demonstrate it, then you’re left with an opinion, or a “best guess” scenario.
2 Likes
Re-read my post, as you seem to be deliberately missing the point, that I deliberately used premises that were unevidenced assumptions, LIKE YOURS. To illustrate the flaw in your rationale, and your dishonesty in ignoring multiple requests for you to demonstrate any objective evidence for multiple claims in premises your opening argument was based on.
Making unevidenced assumptions in an argument about the thing your arguing for is a logical fallacy called begging the question, your argument is therefore irrational by definition.
Instead you seem to think my example was genuine. I think that says it all really.
Which brings me neatly to those questions that you have dishonestly refused to answer.
The rest of your post is simply doubling down, and at this point I’m not prepared to delve into the minutiae of your irrational and dishonest semantics. I think I’ve been more than patient on that front.
No it does not necessarily. ‘Good/real’ science adheres to the evidence.
You’ve already been told with at least one example, that logic is an unreliable tool for for arriving at a truth. That’s philosophy 101.
You call yourself a philosopher. I’m curious; where did you study philosophy? For how long? Because you call yourself a philosopher on a platform such as this, I’d expect an undergraduate degree at the very least. Your posts do not imply formal education in philosophy. I am not being snide or sarcastic, simply honest.
1 Like
Can a god exist, one that is both just and merciful?
Can a perfect agent create anything?
And is that not worthy of consideration? Because you can blather all day on hypothetical things, but the acid test is proof of their existence. If not, then it is all blah blah blah.
Round squares cannot be postulated to exist. Unicorns are postulated to at least exist/be hypothetically possible beings. Whether there are unicorns in our galaxy or not, is a matter of probability and empirical observation. Whether they are meaningful or not, is a matter of semantics and pure reason. Pure reason says they are meaningful/understandable. Rejection of pure reason says they are meaningless (not understandable).
Any possible thing is possible precisely because Existence is Infinite. This literally means that all possibilities are possible. How can all possibilities exist, how can all possibilities be what they are (possiblities), if Existence was not Infinite? An existence that is finite in potential, or a potentially finite existence, cannot make an infinity of possibilities, truly possible. If x is not truly a possibility, then x is not a possibility.
Existence is such that all potentialities/possibilities truly exist. Which ones are truly real or will attain reality in relation to us, is another matter. Hypothetical impossibilities do not exist in any way shape or form. This is purely because of the nature of Existence.
So you think reason adheres to science and not the other way round. And is there any ‘reasoning’ to what you are saying? Do not mistake poor empirical standards for being reasonable. If they once had poor empirical standards and science was that which improved those empirical standards, it does not mean that reason adhered to science, it means that science was closer to adhering to reason than before.
When the rejection of something always leads to contradictions (as in the semantics/meanings don’t add up), then the reasonable, non-contradictory, meaningful, understandable position to take is to acknowledge it.
For example:
Existence is infinite (Infinity or the Infinite = Existence. Infinity denotes Existence). Rejection of this leads to the contradiction of Existence coming from non-existence. Or that non-existence can exist. Or that something meaningful and understandable (Infinity) can come from non-existence.
Existence is perfect (Perfection or the Perfect = Existence. Perfection denotes Existence). Rejection of this leads to the contradiction of something meaningful and understandable (Perfection) coming from non-existence. It leads to the contradiction of something meaningful and understandable, as being hypothetically impossible. Or that meaning can come from something other than Existence. Or that meaningfulness and understandability can come from non-existence.
I did not claim Existence/God to be supernatural. Nor I did I claim the Infinite to be super-inifnite or the Perfect to be super-perfect.
Essentially, what you’ve done is fail to address any of the premises in my argument (which completely addresses your request of proof of God), and instead suggested that I proposed a premise that I never did. And then you accused me of dishonesty amongst other things.
If you think you are being sincere to truth, reason, or even to a genuine sense of what is good or Perfect, then persist. That’s exactly what’s good for you given the nature of Existence (Perfect). But if you think you are not being sincere to the aforementioned, then I advise you to stop. I am giving you good advice because in a perfect existence, losers (those that lose what is good for them at the cost of what is bad/evil for them) are those that are insincere to truth, reason, and a genuine sense of good. Losers are those that are in opposition to Perfection (a perfect existence). Losers are those that do not strive in the cause of Perfection. They’re the kind of people, whom if you knew the full truth about them, you would not feel sorry for them or pity them at all.
In my experience, losers have always been ugly in the way they converse, the way they look, and, the way they look at Existence. Yet, if my interpretation of them is correct, they act like they are innocent victims who have been wronged by Existence, but have done no wrong. They irrationally fault Existence, and when good/reasonable/rational advice is given to them, they turn away acting as though they are not losers in need of an increase in goodness or good advice. They respond to evil/irrationality/falsehood/lies, they do not respond to good/truth/reason. Hence why they are losers.
Long story short, it takes evil/absurdity/madness/insincerity to view that which is Perfect as imperfect. It takes evil to sacrifice good in the name of evil (it SHOULD be the other way round. Per the dictates of pure reason, it IS the other way round). Where those who are in opposition to Perfection are not punished (via a loss of what’s good for them and a gain of what’s bad/evil for them) then existence is imperfect and evil. Per the dictates of pure reason, Existence is Perfect. Again, I am giving you good advice. It’s up to you to acknowledge or reject. Though I don’t know the future, as far as the appearance of things go (the manner in which you debate or the avoidance of it by not addressing the premises put to you), I don’t think you’ll acknowledge. To me, you appear to be someone who just wants to believe what he wants to believe, irrespective of the contradictions in his beliefs. I’m happy to leave you to it. You shouldn’t be happy to accept this for yourself (if my interpretation of you is correct). Again, in a perfect existence, the irrational, the evil, they are the true losers because they do not acknowledge what it is to exist well. Losers should not be happy with what they are, but, they try so hard to justify themselves at the cost of reason, goodness, and consistency. They passionately strive in opposition to any notion of Perfection. They only have themselves to blame.
If you honestly/genuinely think you are being sincere to truth, reason, or even to a genuine sense of what is good or Perfect, then persist in existing the way that you do. If not, then be/exist better.
If that’s what you believe, then I cannot reason with you. How can I reason with someone who does not see the logical inconsistency in denying logic as a necessary tool for arriving at truth? I cannot.
Yes to both the above. So you’ve gone straight to determining whether Perfection/God is meaningful and non-contradictory or not. Does that mean you agree with the rest of the premises?
Of course, the empirical observations matter. But just as the appearance of things matter, so does truth. Obviously, truth is more important. How can a theory look good if it is absurd and inconsistent? If a belief or statement or any thing or person is contradictory, then it/they must be rejected. I’ve shown that saying Existence is imperfect is contradictory.
I think the appropriate thing for me to do, is to highlight the following to you again (which you seem to describe as blah blah blah):
There’s a reason why hypothetical impossibilities are hypothetical impossibilities.
Round squares cannot be postulated to exist because it is not true of Existence that round squares can exist in any way shape or form. Unicorns are postulated to at least exist/be hypothetically possible beings. Whether there are unicorns in our galaxy or not, is a matter of probability and empirical observation. Whether they are meaningful or not, is a matter of semantics and pure reason. Pure reason says they are meaningful/understandable. Rejection of pure reason says they are meaningless (not understandable).
Any possible thing is possible precisely because Existence is Infinite. This literally means that all possibilities are possible. How can all possibilities exist, how can all possibilities be what they are (possiblities), if Existence was not Infinite? An existence that is finite in potential, or a potentially finite existence, cannot make an infinity of possibilities, truly possible. If x is not truly a possibility, then x is not a possibility.
Existence is such that all potentialities/possibilities truly exist. Which ones are truly real or will attain reality in relation to us, is another matter. Hypothetical impossibilities do not exist in any way shape or form. This is purely because of the nature of Existence.
Again, look to the argument I presented, you will see that rejecting Existence as being Infinite and Perfect, is contradictory. It is hypothetically impossible for Existence to be finite or imperfect.
Justice and mercy are contradictory.
A perfect agent does not require anything added or removed. If anything was added or removed from a perfect agent, then it would no longer be perfect.
I reject your proposition. There are not examples of anything being infinite or perfect, thus no basis for comparison. You can blah blah blah all day, but in the end, when all the blah blah is done, proof or evidence is required.
Hence why you cannot add or take away from Existence.
No they are not. See how this works? Until you say why they are contradictory, I cannot respond to you other than to just disagree with you without saying why.
If you don’t see the proof, despite how clearly it has been presented, then it’s not my concern. If you think something is unclear then say so. If you think it’s all blah blah blah, then I’ll leave you to your beliefs.
It may be a simple as missing the meaning in some of the words used (language or not precise enough?)
For me existence means basically the fact or state of living or having objective reality.. Exist again “have objective reality or being.“
Now has objective reality existed before humans? Sure… but only observed by us as we define it in the time we’ve been here on earth to the degree we can define and observe it - with more discoveries and knowledge being added as we advance that knowledge, technology and stretch out to our little place in “our” solar system (or pictures and measurements from satellites).
NOW… perhaps you are just arguing for the possibility of god(s) or deity. OK - just as I had argued purple alien slimers 
You “lose” me when you say “existence is infinite”. Energy is. Changing forms (from one thing to another) is what this universe “does” from quantum to black holes. As was pointed out “time/space” began to exist with Planck time.
Quantum physics is perhaps where you get the whole “all potential/possibilities”??? But have you switched out the word?
And then you’re back to a quality of “existence” (see above) - like you have it perfection and now a “nature”… and I don’t know if you’re trying to do a play on words, or what you mean by it.
As an atheist I withhold belief in a god/s.
I don’t say “hey it’s impossible OR hey, they don’t” - I SAY I HAVE NO VALID REASON TO BELIEVE they do. It is a big claim that has NO DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE.
You state things like it’s a given, is that pre-supposition? To me, it doesn’t make sense and could be used for all sorts.
I think I explained myself simply.
1 Like
And again - I was reading your response to David… “proofs” lay in maths. And Einstein wasn’t fully accepted (e=mc2) until, what a decade or more later when it was demonstrated (evidenced).
Maybe brush up on differences in meaning or standards for evidence. In a court of law, your “argument” wouldn’t hold up as “proof” especially without evidence (depending on the court level and claim brought forward).
What an arrogant piece of writing. That’s it. This guy is a poisonous, presuppositional fathead.
1 Like
They exist in your posts. You’ve repeatedly mentioned a round square as an example. Clearly it has some form of existence, on this website/forum if nothing else!