The Solution to Russell’s Paradox and the Absurdity of More than One Infinity

Last updated 5/9/2021

The overlooked part of the paradox

If x, y, and z are sets that are not members of themselves, and I form a set of these three sets, to represent this, I can write something like: p = {x, y, z}. I cannot write x = {x, y, z} because x is in x, which makes x a member of itself.

If x, y, and z are sets that are members of themselves, and I form a set of these three sets, to represent this, I can write something like: p = {x, y, z}. Consistency with the previous paragraph dictates that I cannot write x = {x, y, z} because x is in x, which makes x a member of itself twice (which is contradictory as nothing is a member of itself twice, or nothing is itself twice). 

You cannot have a set of all sets that are not members of themselves because it will result in at least one set not being included in the set. In other words, x will have to be included in x, but it can’t.

You cannot have a set of all sets that are members of themselves because it will result in at least one set being a member of itself twice. In other words, x will have to not be included in x, but it can’t.

The importance of reference with regards to determining whether something is a member of itself or not

Take L to be the list of all lists, and L’ to be the list of all lists other than L. Take V to be the set of all sets, and V’ to be the set of all sets other than V. 

L is a member of itself only as a list, not as a set (and not just any list. L is only a member of itself as L. L is obviously not a member of itself as L’ because L is not L). So L is not a set, nor is it a non-L list (which makes it not a member of L’). Similarly, L’ is only a member of itself as a non-L list (more specifically, it is only a member of itself as the non-L list L’). Just as L’ is not L, V’ is not V. In the context or reference point of V, V’ should not be viewed as a member of itself (just as in the context of all lists (as opposed to just non-L lists) L’ should not be viewed as a member of itself). I will attempt to illustrate this further:

Call any set that is not a member of itself a -V. Call any set that is not the set of all sets a V’. Call any set that’s simply a set, a V (the V of all Vs = the set of all sets). 

Is the V of all -Vs a member of itself? I would say yes because the V of all -Vs contains all -Vs and it is a member of itself. However, set theorists may object to this and say “when we say “the set of all sets that are not members of themselves”, we mean to say a set that consists of all sets that are not members of themselves, and no other sets“. What such set theorists want, is contradictory. You cannot have a set of all sets that are not members of themselves that is itself not a member of itself. In other words, you cannot have a -V as a V of all -Vs. The -V of all -Vs, is not the same as the V of all -Vs. The former is necessarily contradictory whereas the latter is not necessarily contradictory.

No V, or V’, or -V, can encompass all -Vs and nothing more. But one V can encompass all -Vs and something more. The V of all Vs encompasses all -Vs as well as itself.

Do two Vs encompass all V’s? 

One V (which is a V’) encompasses all V’s and nothing more. The other V (which is not a V’) encompasses all V’s and something more. The latter is the set of all sets (the V of all Vs), the former is the V’ of all V’s (the not-the-set-of-all-sets set of all not-the-set-of-all-sets sets). Thus, only one V encompasses all Vs and nothing more (the V of all Vs). Only one V’ encompasses all V’s and nothing more (the V’ of all V’s).

Clearly, whilst there can be no -V that encompasses all -Vs, there is a V that encompasses all -Vs. Whilst there can be two Vs that encompass all –V’s, there can only be one V’ that encompasses all -V’s. -V and –V’ are semantically not the same (neither are V and V’). -V’ = any V’ that is not a member of itself. 

Interpreting Russell’s question

If Russell was suggesting that a V of all -Vs must encompass all -Vs and nothing more (which is actually demanding a -V of all -Vs), then we cannot have a V of all -Vs. Consistency would then have us accept that we cannot have a V of all V’s (because only the V’ of all V’s can encompass all V’s and nothing more. So whilst we can have a V’ of all V’s, we cannot have a V of all V’s, just as we could not have a V of all -Vs). Ultimately, this would mean we can only have a V of all Vs. The conclusion is the same: When the reference is V, only one V is a member of itself (the V of all Vs).

When the reference is V’, only one V’ is a member of itself (the V’ of all V’s). When the reference is -V, no -V is a member of itself. -V is only meaningful in the context of V (just as -V’ is only meaningful in the context of V’). It is in the definition of -V that it is not a member of itself precisely because it is a non-set-of-all-sets set (a V’) that is a member of the V of all Vs. So how can there be a -V of all -Vs? Rejecting the V of all Vs is contradictory on all fronts. It is the last thing we should be doing.

Conclusion

If we are to be absolute with our standards or reference in relation to sets, then only the V of all Vs is a member of itself as a V (which would mean no other set/V is a member of itself precisely because it is a member of the set of all sets as opposed to a member of itself). If we lowered our standards, then many Vs can be interpreted as members of themselves (the V’ of all V’s was one such example) but this has problems. As members of the V of all Vs, all V’s (this includes all -V’s as well as the only V’ that is not a -V’) are -Vs (the only V’ that is not a -V’, is the V’ of all V’s). By definition, no V that is a -V, or any other V (such as V’) that takes a hyphen before it (like -V’) can ever be a member of itself in an absolute sense. More absolutely, no V other than the V of all Vs can be a member of itself as a set (V). The V of all Vs is the pure/true/universal set because it is not a V’, or a -V, or a V”. It is simply V with no further complications or symbols such as ‘ or – added to it.

-V is only absolutely true in the context of the absolute V. Where you wrongly take V’ as your absolute in terms of sets, -V’ is absolutely true. The V of all Vs encompasses one more -V than the V’ of all V’s. This is another possible justification for saying -V is only absolutely true in the context of the absolute/true V (the V of all Vs). -V’ is only absolute in the context of the V’ of all -V’s, because only the V’ of all -V’s encompasses all -V’s and nothing more. Though I would have preferred not to have not said the V of all Vs encompasses one more -V than the V’ of all V’s (because there are no -Vs in the context of V’s, there are only -V’s in the context of V’s), I thought it appropriate to say it here to highlight a particular point of view regarding one’s approach to sets.

The universal set

Call absolutely any thing (number, shape, tree, human, dream, colour) an ‘existent’. Call the set of all existents, ‘Existence’. Note that I am not referring to how real something is/exists, just that it is an existent (a member of Existence). Numbers are numbers (which is the same as saying numbers exist as numbers in Existence). The alternative is to say numbers don’t exist in Existence, or that there is/exists no such thing as numbers, or that numbers are in non-Existence (like round squares and other absurdities. Absurd/contradictory sentences, beliefs, and people exist, but round-squares do not exist). Since all existents are a member of Existence (including Existence), only Existence is a member of itself as an existent. Existence is self-existing/self-sustaining/self-contingent, whereas all else is contingent on Existence.

By definition, Existence has no beginning and no end. Rejecting this yields contradictions:

It is hypothetically possible to have more than one galaxy, planet, or universe, but it is impossible to have more than one “Existence”. By “Existence” I mean that which all things exist because of or as a result of. Without Existence, nothing would encompass or unify all things into one Existence. This would mean that it is possible for one set of existents to be in Existent A, and another set of existents to be in Existent B, such that no Existent encompasses A and B. Since no Existent encompasses A and B, this means that non-Existence separates A from B. For non-Existence to separate A from B, it would have to at least exist. It is contradictory/absurd (semantically inconsistent) to say non-Existence separates A from B because non-Existence does not exist for it to do this. Hence the necessary existence of Existence. Semantics exist in Existence, as do imaginary unicorns (I imagined one just now). How real something is in Existence, is another matter (though nothing is more real than that which necessarily exists). In any case, if x exists, then it either belongs to Existence, or it is Existence.

Anything that is contradictory (semantically inconsistent), is wrong by definition. If we want to believe in a finite Existence, we might as well believe in a triangle with only two sides.

Existence is a meaning, so it is a member of the set of all meanings. But then again, Existence is the set of all meanings because there is no other thing, existent, set, or meaning that existentially contains all meanings. The set of all ducks is not some existing animal or shape. The set of all ducks is Existence Itself (which is an existing meaning/set/existent/truth). In other words, all ducks (imaginary, dream, or otherwise) exist in Existence. An imaginary duck exists as an imaginary duck. Dreams and imaginary ducks may not exist/be as real as us, but they are not non-existents. Since only Existence is truly infinite, Existence/Infinity is the set of all cardinalities.

Infinity versus semi-infinity

= The set of all numbers

= The set of all numbers except the number 19

It seems that both A and B encompass an endless number of numbers. I will attempt to show:

1) B is what I will call a semi-infinite set, whilst A is an infinite set.

2) Semi-infinite sets come in various sizes, but there is only one infinity (so there aren’t infinities of various sizes, nor is there more than one infinite set). 

If you tell me “there is no end to the number of numbers that B encompasses”, and I ask you “does B encompass the number 19?”, you will say “no”. To which I will say “if there’s no end to the number of numbers that B encompasses, why doesn’t B encompass 19? Had you said “excluding 19, there is no end to the number of numbers that B encompasses” I might have believed you”.

Whilst there absolutely/truly is no end to the number of numbers that A encompasses, there is an end to the number of numbers that B encompasses in an absolute sense. Having said that, the number of numbers that B encompasses is not finite in quantity (hence the term semi-infinite). Furthermore, B is one possible maximally large semi-infinite set of numbers (because it encompasses all numbers but one, and there are an endless number of semi-infinite sets that do this. A semi-infinite set that encompasses all numbers but two is smaller than the aforementioned semi-infinite set).

The True Cogito (God)

Last updated 10/11/2021

Section 1: The argument

The shape I drew without a ruler is imperfect as a triangle. Resembling a perfect triangle (being an imperfect triangle) and being a true triangle (being a perfect triangle) are two different truths.

A) Whatever’s perfectly x, is indubitably x (an imperfect triangle’s triangularity can either be rejected or doubted. A perfect triangle’s cannot).

B) Whatever’s perfectly existing, is indubitably existing (just as whatever’s perfectly triangular is indubitably triangular). 

We know what it is for x to be perfectly triangular. Do we know what it is for x to be perfectly existing? To be, is to exist (to be a dream, or an imaginary human, or a real human (real by our standards), is to exist as a dream, or an imaginary human, or a real human. Denying this would be contradictory). Thus, to be imperfect, is to exist as an imperfect being/existent. An imperfect triangle exists imperfectly as a triangle and as an existent (better triangles and existents than it can be conceived of). Nothing is better than a perfect triangle when triangularity is the reference or standard. When goodness is the standard, nothing is better than a perfect being (God) or a perfect existence (a perfect existence is impossible independently of God). This is clear because I do not want a pretend/imaginary god on my side because he cannot sustain a really perfect existence for me (neither can I if I am not a real perfect being). Real good is better than pretend good. It is also clear that real evil/bad/harm is worse than pretend or imaginary evil/harm/bad. A nightmarish thought is better than a real nightmarish experience.

When existing/being is the standard, nothing is better than a real perfect being. It is better to be a real perfect being than to exist as just an illusion/image/resemblance of a perfect being (an imaginary “perfect” being is not really a perfect being because better than it can be conceived of. Again, real good is better than imaginary good, therefore, No imaginary being can be perfect as a being). We are meaningfully/semantically aware that something indubitably exists (see A and B again if this is not clear to you), reason dictates that this can only be a perfect being or a perfect existence (see the last paragraph and the second sentence of this paragraph if this is not clear to you). Rejection of this is as contradictory as the rejection of a perfect triangle’s triangularity being indubitable.

To reiterate, if a perfect existence/being is not really existing/being, then nothing is indubitably existing (which is contradictory or rationally untenable). If a perfect triangle is not really triangular, then nothing is indubitably triangular. Furthermore, if an imperfect triangle is considered as triangular (as appears to be the case in non-Euclidean geometry), then a perfect triangle should certainly be considered as triangular. If we consider ourselves as real or existing (which we can’t do in an absolute manner given the flaws in Descartes’ cogito), then God should certainly be considered as real or existing.

No contradictions will occur if a unicorn or a perfect triangle do not exist on our planet (unicorns and perfect triangles do not have the same ontological necessity as the perfect being). Contradictions will occur if the omnipresent (omnipresence is a necessary attribute of the perfect being) does not exist in our dreams, on our planet, or anywhere else. Everything is contingent on the perfect/omnipresent being. Everything is sustained by God. Rationally speaking, the perfect being has to be absolutely real (with all lesser realities or beings sustained by God or tied to God).

Another version of B is as follows: Whatever’s completely existing is indubitably existing. An imperfect existence cannot accommodate all hypothetical possibilities or all semantics (it will at least fail to accommodate the semantic of ‘perfect’ as it would render a perfect being as hypothetically impossible. See “Existence” and “The nature of existence” for a thorough defence of this) whereas a perfect existence accommodates all possibilities as well as all semantics (a perfect existence can sustain both perfect and imperfect beings whereas an imperfect existence cannot). If an existence/being is lacking in terms of potentiality or depth and breadth, then it is an incomplete existence/being because it is lacking as an existent. Thus, that which perfectly exists and that which completely exists are the exact same thing/being/existent. Only God is omnipresent, infinite, complete, and perfect. Put in logical (or perhaps mathematical) terms, the omnipresent is the set of all existents (making it the set of all numbers, sets, shapes, trees, and so on). All existents are a member of the omnipresent one way or another. Only the omnipresent is a member of itself. Only God is self-contingent or self-sustaining. Nothing is more complete than the set of all sets. God is the set of all sets.

With regards to what was said earlier on about how of real evil being worse than pretend evil, it might be worth noting here that someone might say “I prefer an imperfect existence to a perfect existence because that way I won’t get punished for being evil”. Such a person is literally choosing evil over good. He is contradictory in what he says/chooses because it implies evil is good. Evil being good is as contradictory as triangles being circular. A circular shape is not a triangular shape, and an evil being is not a good being (you’d have to be evil/irrational to choose unhappiness over happiness, or evil over good). Similarly, an imperfect being is not a perfect being. At the risk of stating more obvious truths, contradictory beings (or beliefs) are not rational beings (or beliefs). Evil beings (or beliefs) are not good beings (or beliefs). Humans, beliefs, and sentences can be contradictory/evil. God, truth, Existence, and reality cannot be contradictory/evil.

Where our standards are not absolute, a shape can sufficiently resemble a perfect triangle and be called a triangle. Similarly, an existent can sufficiently resemble the perfect being and be called a being. Where our standards are absolute and unforgiving, then only perfect beings and triangles would qualify as beings and triangles. Descartes seemed to want to uphold absolute standards, yet he considered himself a being. It would have been closer to truth for Descartes to have said “thinking is occurring, therefore, the perfect being exists”, or, “existence is existing, therefore, a perfect being is at least as real as whoever or whatever I may be” (I will illustrate this further in the sections that follow).

Section 2: The illusion or resemblance of being versus perfectly/truly/really being

Triangle (with a capital T) = a true or perfect triangle 

triangle (with a lower case t) = an imperfect triangle (or that which only resembles a Triangle)

We can meaningfully doubt ourselves (did I take out the trash last night? Am I just the memory implants of another person? Am I a brain in a vat? Is this Real or is it just an illusion or resemblance of Reality like a really vivid dream?). But just as we cannot semantically/meaningfully or rationally doubt the Triangularity of Triangle, we cannot meaningfully or rationally doubt the Realness of Reality. I will reiterate this once more: Being able to meaningfully/rationally doubt ourselves is not the same as being able to meaningfully/rationally doubt the Triangularity of Triangles or the Realness of Reality. We cannot rationally/meaningfully doubt the Realness of Reality. Hopefully this will become clearer further on.

If our standards of Triangularity were flawed or imperfect enough, then we would describe the triangle that I drew without a ruler as being Triangular (which would be wrong). There’s nothing wrong with saying “x resembles Triangularity, therefore, x is a triangle” (provided that one sees such a resemblance). But there is something wrong with describing a triangle as being Triangular when it only resembles a Triangle. A being with imperfect vision will not be able to visually appreciate a Triangle’s Triangularity fully. Thus, visually he won’t be able to tell if he’s looking at a Triangle, or just a triangle that is very strong at resembling a Triangle. This is because he can meaningfully doubt his own vision (he cannot zoom in enough to verify the straightness of the lines). This does not mean he can meaningfully doubt being aware of what he is actually aware of. For example, one can’t meaningfully say they’re not sure what triangle means when they’re sure what triangle means. Nor can one doubt that what they’re looking at resembles a triangle to them when what they’re looking at resembles a triangle to them. If it looks like a triangle to them, then it looks like a triangle to them. Whether one is honest or dishonest about how something looks to them, is another matter.

Resemblance to something can meaningfully vary in terms of depth and breadth. Objectively speaking, the closer something is to being three-sided with its interior angles adding up to 180 degrees, the better it is at resembling Triangularity. So the triangle I drew without a ruler does resemble a Triangle, but the next triangle I drew with a ruler resembles a Triangle better. Thus, my second triangle is better than my first triangle in terms of resembling Triangularity. None can meaningfully/semantically deny this.

Can we meaningfully say that we are not Existing? Just as we cannot say a triangle is Triangular, we cannot say we are Existing. We have no meaningful/semantical or rational alternative to this. It is not us who Sustain Existence (contrary to solipsism). It is not us who Exist (contrary to the cogito). Existing is exclusively an attribute of God. Existence wholly belongs to God as only God is Omnipresent. The non-existence of an existent does not lead to any contradictions. But the non-Existence of the Existent/Being is clearly contradictory. There is nothing contradictory with regards to us having holes in us (like a pierced ear), or us ceasing to exist (perhaps we turn to ashes). But it is clearly contradictory for Existence to cease Existing, or for there to be a hole or gap in It. Somethingness cannot turn into Nothingness. Nothingness (absolute nothingness) is as absurd as a married-bachelor or a something-nothing. Non-Existence (or Nothingness) has never Existed and will never Exist (just as a round square has never existed and will never exist). This is simply because of the way Being/Existence is. It Exists, hence non-Existence does not Exist.

Unlike Triangles, there is only one Existence because there is only one Omnipresent or Perfect being (or more shortly put there is only one Being/Existence). It is contradictory to say non-Existence separates one Being from another. And to reiterate, it is irrational for us to have contradictory (semantically inconsistent) beliefs. Since it is irrational for us to have contradictory beliefs, rationally speaking, God Exists, and all worlds, and universes, and humans, are Sustained as a result of God’s Existence. A triangle is a not a being (provided that you define some level of sentience as being a semantical component of being), and we are not the Being (provided that you define Being as that which has absolute sentience, or that which is Omniscient or Omnipresent). To reiterate, reason dictates that that which Exists, is Real (a perfect being or reality is/exists better than an illusory one). Thus, God is Real (perfectly real) and God’s Existence is Reality. All lesser beings and realities are contingent on God’s Being/Existence/Realness.

You can add or take away a line from a Triangle to nullify its Triangularity, but you cannot add or take anything away from Existence to nullify Its Existing. As highlighted two paragraphs ago, if we turn to ashes, we do not become non-Existent. Rather, we become non-existent, and by this I mean we become ashes, or dust, or apes, or angels, or demons, or stars, or some other hypothetically possible thing or being that God Can Create/Produce and Sustain as a result of His Existence/Being. God’s Existence makes all possibilities possible, not ours. We access or experience dreams and hypothetical possibilities; we do not Sustain them. That which Sustains all (including God) is God. Without God being Infinite and Omnipotent, not all hypothetical possibilities would be truly hypothetically possible (a hypothetical possibility that is impossible or not truly possible, is contradictory. Thus, a finite existence would not account for the endless number of semantics that we are aware of).

Imagine a circle inside a triangle. If we erase the circle, the triangle semantically/ remains a triangle. If we erase or negate a line that’s a part of the triangle, the triangle is no longer a triangle. The negation of Infinity, Perfection, or Omnipotence means that the item in question is no longer Existence. Thus, I would say we are in Existence, but we are not Existence in the sense that we can turn to ashes or something else, but God cannot turn to anything non-God.

Section 2: Semantical ambiguity versus semantical clarity

From here onwards, instead of referring to a perfect triangle as Triangle, I will either refer to it as triangle, or perfect triangle. Also, I will refer to an imperfect triangle as either triangle (with quotation marks intended) or imperfect triangle. This will aid in conveying what I believe needs conveying in this section and the next.

An imperfect triangle is necessarily a thing that bears sufficient resemblance to a perfect triangle. The reference is triangularity, and as a triangle, it is imperfect/flawed (hence why we can meaningfully describe it as an imperfect triangle). Can we meaningfully change our reference from ‘triangularity’ to ‘imperfect triangularity’? It is clearly meaningful to say “that imperfect triangle is not a perfect triangle because it is not perfectly triangular”. But is it meaningful to say “that perfect triangle is not an imperfect triangle because it is not perfectly imperfectly triangular”? 

When we say perfectly triangular, we know exactly what we’re talking about. There is zero ambiguity, subjectivity, or controversy involved (three-sided shape with its interior angles totalling 180 degrees). So whilst it is semantically clear what constitutes a perfect triangle, it is not immediately semantically clear what constitutes a perfect imperfect triangle. Bearing in mind curvature and non-Euclidean geometry, try comparing an imperfect trapezium with a very narrow top half, to an imperfect triangle. At what point exactly is something an imperfect trapezium with a very narrow top half as opposed to an imperfect triangle? Perhaps there is no immediate clear/absolute/objective/perfect/true answer to this question because the matter is imperfect and we have not set an imperfect reference, limit, or standard to be able to perfectly/truly/objectively answer the question. Consider imperfect standard/being dependent truths. I will explain what I mean by this:  

What’s subjective for you, is objectively/truly/perfectly subjective for you (it’s not both subjective for you and not subjective for you at the same time, and given a perfect existence, it’s perfectly subjective for you in that it’s what you perfectly deserve to experience or be aware of from an objective/omniscient point of view. I will discuss what I mean by this in section 4). In any case, the truth may be such that an imperfect trapezium with a very narrow top half looks like a triangle to you (because of your imperfect vision), whilst the truth about some alien with superior vision is that it looks more like a trapezium to him. As for the being with flawless/perfect/objective vision, he can neither call it a trapezium or a triangle, because the shape in question truly/objectively/perfectly is neither. If he was omniscient, he would be able to objectively/truly/perfectly/completely/indubitably say what it looks more like to which imperfect being/subject/eye/standard. Given curvature and the infinitesimal, the matter is endlessly fluid. In truth, the shape in question is not an imperfect shape because it really/truly/perfectly is at least a shape. But as a triangle or trapezium, it is imperfect. We’d have to set an imperfect standard and stick to it, or be consistent with it to perfectly/objectively/coherently separate an imperfect triangle from an imperfect trapezium.

A perfect triangle is that which when you endlessly zoom into its sides, nothing is out of line infinitesimally/infinitely (as in no “pixel” is out of line). Its sides or lines really are perfectly/infinitely straight. As for its vertices, they are perfectly in proportion to the thickness of its lines such that given the scale of the triangle at hand, and the thickness of the perfectly straight lines involved, they are truly vertices (as opposed to very small bent lines which would semantically make the shape some other shape). 

Section 3: Addressing where we are fallible and where we are not

Since an imperfect triangle is not truly triangular, a being with flawless eyesight can fault or reject its triangularity. However, he cannot fault, doubt, or reject, a perfect triangle’s triangularity visually or semantically. None can fault a perfect triangle’s triangularity visually or semantically. They can only meaningfully fault or doubt their own vision if it is flawed/imperfect. If x cannot see as far as possible, or zoom in as much as possible, then x’s vision is imperfect. I know that my vision is imperfect because I cannot see far enough.

If one does not understand what a triangle is, or if one is unaware of the semantic of triangle, then one has not meaningfully doubted the triangularity of a triangle. Even if he has openly said “I doubt triangles have three sides”, then he is either unaware of the semantic of triangle, or he is a liar who is insincere to the semantics that he is aware of. Being aware of the semantic ‘triangle’, is as far as it goes in terms of being aware of the semantic of triangle. There is no “zooming” further into this. Never will you view the semantic of triangle, as another semantic. You are either aware of the semantic of God, or you are not. Choosing to unbiasedly, appropriately, and adequately pay attention to it, is another matter.

If I mistake a trapezium with a sufficiently narrow top half in relation to my eyesight for a triangle, then my eyesight is flawed (not my semantical awareness of ‘triangle = a three-sided shape’). My understanding of triangles was (and still is) objective, because even before I was taught geometry in school, I had recognised that triangles are at the very least three-sided shapes. This understanding can never change but could have been added to back then, and it was added to. In school I found out that the angles in a triangle always add up to 180 degrees. Thus, my objective understanding of triangles increased and I was able to appreciate triangles more (if I liked geometry). My understanding of existence is objective because I recognise that all things considered, existence is at the very least perfectly existing (which means that at the very least, everyone is getting what they deserve). This understanding can never change, but it can be added to. Not knowing all there is to know about something, doesn’t mean we know nothing about it.

For any Q, so long as we recognise that rejecting Q is absurd/contradictory (semantically inconsistent), then we are certain of Q’s Q-ness. We may not be certain that we know everything about Q, or, we may be certain that there are things about Q that we are not certain about, but, we are certain of Q’s Q-ness. Thus, we have a perfect/complete/true understanding of Q’s Q-ness, but, an imperfect/incomplete/semi-true understanding of Q. Where we attribute p to Q, and p is false of Q, we have an imperfect/incomplete and semi-false understanding of Q. This does not take away from our complete/true/perfect understanding of Q’s Q-ness. If we come across some q such that q contradicts Q’s Q-ness, then we never understood/recognised Q’s Q-ness in the first place, and if we say that we did, then we were either lying, or just not focused on what we were saying. It is impossible for us to genuinely understand something as being indubitable (like triangles having three sides), and then later find out that we were wrong. See my first blog post for a full defence of this.

If I was asked does x look more like a triangle or a trapezium, I should answer triangle because to my eyes, the top horizontal line of the trapezium, strongly looks like a vertex. The moment it sufficiently looks like a horizontal line to me, then and only then am I blameworthy for “mistaking” what is a trapezium, for a triangle (it’s not a mistake, it’s a lie. It’s insincerity to truth). Where it is not clear, I should speak with sincerity to what I’m genuinely visually experiencing. So I should say something along the lines of “it’s not clear to me as to whether x looks more like a triangle or a trapezium, but right now, it looks a little bit more like a triangle”. Where I fail to do this and instead say “that’s definitely a triangle”, I’m inherently biased, lacking in truthfulness, lacking in goodness, lacking in sincerity to truth, or not wholly innocent of evil. Where I act as though right now it doesn’t look at all more like a triangle to me (even though it does a little bit) and say “I have no idea whatsoever”, then I’m somewhat lazy regarding truth here. There’s being “overly confident” or “arrogant”, and then there’s being “deficient in confidence” or “pathetic”. All four are bad (with arrogance and patheticness being the worst). Sincerity to truth is good because that is what a truly perfect existence (or God) rightfully dictates as being good.

If we mistake an imperfect triangle for a perfect triangle, or an imperfect existence for that which truly perfectly exists, then that is down to our lack of vision or reasoning. Those who believe that the universe had a beginning and consider it to be representative of existence (the omnipresent), have not reasoned sufficiently/sincerely but have acted as though they have. The same is true of those who believe Zeus to be a truly perfect being. If such people had reasoned better or were sincerer in their dedication towards truth (not lazy/suppressive nor arrogant/oppressive in its pursuit), they would see that their belief is semantically inconsistent, and therefore absurd/unreasonable/wrong.

Section 4: Additional notes

If t is an imperfect triangle, then that is because existence is such that t resembles triangularity to Jack without t actually being a perfect triangle. If u is an imperfect existent/being or imperfect reality, then that is because existence/reality/perfection is such that u resembles existing/reality to John without u actually being perfectly real or perfectly existent. Triangles really are triangles, but they are not really real. Nothing is more real than God. Everything else is contingent on His reality, or being, or existence (one way or another). 

A rational person with understanding on what it is to exist as a triangle, would know that being a perfect triangle is as good as it gets in terms of triangularity, not in terms of existing/being. A rational person with vision on what it is to exist well or meaningfully would want to be god-like; not triangular-like, or pig-like, or safjogunknown-like. An irrational person would choose a lesser existence/being when they are invited to a better existence/being. They would choose evil or amorality, over good and Good/God; falsehood or ambiguities or unknowns, over truths and Truth/God; themselves or their families or their nation, over God; imperfections, over perfections or Perfection/God. God does not want/will such people to exist as well as those who are sincerer to Him. In other words, such people are not as good or close to resembling Good/God as those who are more committed to Truth and Perfection. Or put differently, Existence Is such that insincere people are not as good as sincere people and this is a perfection/truth which is rooted in Perfection/Truth/God’s Existence

“Why do you call me Good?” Jesus replied. “No one is Good except God alone. (Mark 10:18)

An imperfect triangle can be perfected in light of Triangularity to become a Triangle. An imperfect being cannot be or become God. Despite this, an imperfect being can be improved in light of God to become a better existent/being (just as an imperfect triangle can be improved in light of Triangularity to become a better triangle). One can become closer and closer to God/Good in resemblance, but none can be truly/perfectly/really good other than God.

Only God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, thus, that we are Free is an illusion. We are free but only God Is Free. If our will or existing increased in resemblance to God’s Will and Existing, then we would be freer. We do not Provide; God Provides, and we resemble this when we feed ourselves, our children, or the needy. God Loves Good (and God is the greatest good). The more one loves Good (or a truly perfect existence), the better one is. And the better one is, the better off one is. None are as Well off as God. None are as Loveable as God. 

“…you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)

Then God Said, “Let Us Make adam/man in Our image, after Our likeness. (Genesis 1:26)

So God Created man/adam in His image, in the image of God He Created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27)

Image = בְּצֶ֥לֶם – Preposition-b | Noun – masculine singular construct | first person common plural Strong’s Hebrew 6754: A phantom, illusion, resemblance, a representative figure, an idol

Likeness = כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ – Preposition-k | Noun – feminine singular construct | first person common plural Strong’s Hebrew 1823: Resemblance, model, shape, like

Scripture can appear vague, unreasonable, childish, and paradoxical/contradictory to us at times, but so can our sincerity to God/Goodness/Truth/Reality. We do not truly know how good or evil we are (we are not fully self-aware or omniscient). God neither wrongs us, nor Himself. Whilst absurd statements exist, absurdity is not true of Existence (hence why they are meaningfully or perfectly classed as absurdities). Similarly, whilst evil people/beings exist, evil is not true of Existence (hence why they (not Existence) are perfectly or meaningfully classed as evil). I just harmed a good person (or so I conjecture). To embrace what is false or evil (that which is not true of God or His Existence), is to be unreasonable and evil. The root of all evil is insincerity to God/Truth/Goodness/Perfection. The greater this insincerity, the greater the evil. God is wholly innocent of evil and perfectly sincere to God/Good. If we want to be better, we must increase in sincerity to God/Truth/Goodness.

We said, “…and do not approach this tree, else you will be of those who did wrong. So, the devil tricked both and he brought both of them out from what they were in, and We said, “Descend, some of you to others as enemies…” (Quran 2:35-36)

Descend = ha-Ba-Tay = to go forth, descend, cause to come down, descend from a high state to a low one, move from one place to another, enter into, change in condition, come forth from, become low, degraded.

Whether we visually see this or not (or how well we visually/existentially see this), Perfection is always perfectly satisfied and justified. God’s Existence (not ours) is such that we all get what we perfectly/truly/objectively deserve all things considered. We can be sincere or insincere to God. If we are of the latter, God punishes us (perfection). If we are of the former, God rewards us (perfection). Existence is such that triangles have three sides (perfection). If there was no such thing as triangles, Existence would be imperfect/incomplete/inconsistent. For a defence on the attributes of God, I recommend the following:

Why it is impossible for God’s attributes to be contradictory