Overview of the argument
Any given belief, theory, or statement that is contradictory (semantically inconsistent), is wrong by definition. You recognise a belief as true by showing its rejection to be contradictory, and recognise a belief as false by showing it to be contradictory.
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 both logically and semantically inconsistent). 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 God or a perfect existence (I do not want a pretend/imaginary god on my side because he cannot instantiate or sustain a perfect existence. Real good is better than pretend good, and the real God is better than all pretend or imaginary gods). When existing is the standard, nothing is better than God. It is better to be God than to exist as just an illusion/image of God (the real God is better than all humans or pretend/imaginary gods). We are meaningfully/semantically aware that something perfectly/indubitably exists, semantics dictate that this can only be God. Rejection of this is semantically inconsistent or wrong/unreasonable/contradictory.
It might be worth noting here that real evil/bad/harm is only better than pretend evil/bad/harm when one likes evil more than good. If one is such that they would like to be put in Hell, then consistency in relation to them would be such that real evil/bad/harm (Hell) is better for them than real good (Heaven). None can non-absurdly say evil is/exists better than good. None can non-absurdly want Hell instead of Heaven (or even death. Who would favour being miserable, anxious, and feeling like it is utterly meaningless to live, over being dead?). Thus, consistency is such that none deserve Hell but the corrupt/unreasonable/contradictory/unjust. How else can we consistently say it’s good for x to be good, and it’s evil for x to be evil? If punishment did not occur as a result of one being unjust, then it would not be bad/evil for people to be evil/bad/unjust. Therefore, it would not be evil for evil people to be evil. Where it is not evil for evil to be evil, then that is absurd/contradictory. Such contradictions are impossible of a perfect existence. Contradictions are not true of existence (hence why they are meaningfully classed as contradictions, much like how lies are classed as lies). Thus, it being not evil for evil to be evil, is not true of existence (that which truly exists).
Section 1: The illusion or resemblance of being, versus perfectly/truly 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? 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 doubt the Triangularity of Triangle, we cannot meaningfully doubt the Realness of Reality.
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. 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 (he cannot be unaware of the semantic of ‘Triangle’ whilst being aware of it at the same time).
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? Yes, and we have no meaningful/semantical alternative to this. It is not us who are instantiating Existence (contrary to solipsism). It is not us who Exist (contrary to the cogito). It is the Omnipresent’s or God’s Existence (as opposed to ours). Reason/semantics dictate that we are not God, but we are in Existence (or we are Sustained by the Omnipresent). Unlike Triangles, there is only one Existence because there is only one Omnipresent Being, or Perfect Being, or Being. 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 or universes or humans, are Sustained as a result of His Existence. A triangle is a not a being (provided that you define sentience as being a semantical component of being), and we are not the Being (provided that you define Being as that which truly/perfect/absolutely exists).
We are neither non-Existent (not belonging to Existence, as is the case with round-squares and married bachelors) nor Existing (we are not God). Furthermore, Reality is not non-Existent. Reason dictates that that which Exists, is Real (A perfect being or reality is better than an illusory one). Thus, God is Real (perfectly real) and God’s Existence is Reality.
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 His Existing. If we turn to ashes, we do not become non-Existent. 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). Omnipotence is a part of God’s Existence (as in it can never change. This is what I mean by a part of, here). We are not a part of God’s Existence because we can change (we exist (as opposed to Exist) because of Existence. We are belong to Existence. We are not a part of Existence). I would say we are in Existence, but we are not a part of Existence in the sense that we can turn to ashes or something else, but God cannot turn to anything else. Imagine a circle inside a triangle. If we erase the circle, the triangle semantically remains a triangle. If we erase a line that’s a part of the triangle, the triangle is no longer a triangle.
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 is being compared to a perfect triangle, and bears some resemblance to it. 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 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 a non-Euclidean or imperfect trapezium with a very narrow top half, to a non-Euclidean or imperfect triangle. At what point exactly is something an imperfect trapezium with a very narrow top half as opposed to an imperfect triangle? 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. Thus, the semantics of ‘perfectly’, ‘absolutely’, ‘objectively’, ‘completely’, ‘truly’, ‘indubitably’, ‘certainly’, ‘100%’ are all exclusive to a priori or objective truths (which I will call perfections/absolutes/truths/completes), whereas ‘imperfectly’, ‘incompletely’, ‘dubitably’, ‘not certain’, ‘not 100%’, are all 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 separate an imperfect triangle from an imperfect trapezium. An imperfect being can see imperfectly, but the perfect being cannot. It’s perfection for an imperfect being to see imperfectly, but it is not perfection for a perfect being to see imperfectly. It’s perfection for triangles to have three sides, whilst it’s not perfection for squares to be triangular. It’s perfection for God to be God, and it’s perfection for non-God beings to be non-God beings. It’s not perfection/truth for non-God beings to be treated as God. This is just the way existence is.
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/infinitely 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 and 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 (not the triangle’s triangularity). 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 (semantically inconsistent), then we are certain of Q’s Qness. 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 Qness. Thus, we have a perfect/complete/true understanding of Q’s Qness, but, an imperfect/incomplete/semi-true understanding of Q. We semi-truly understand Q as opposed to truly understand it. Where we attribute p to Q, and p is false of Q, we have an imperfect/incomplete and false understanding of Q. This does not take away from our complete/true/perfect understanding of Q’s Qness so long as p does not contradict Q’s Qness. If p contradicts Q’s Qness, then we never understood Q’s Qness 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 looks like a horizontal line (to me), then and only then am I blameworthy for “mistaking” what is objectively 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 rightfully demands/requires.
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. Only God is really perfectly real or truly perfectly existing. 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 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 when they are invited to a better existence. They would choose evil or amorality, over good and Good; falsehood or ambiguities or unknowns, over truths and Truth; themselves or their families or their nation, over God; imperfections, over perfections or Perfection. 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 (though to my interpretation, the Bible speaks of Children born or Born (depending on how you want to look at it) of God. See John 1:13-15). 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 God/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 (metaphorically speaking, the number of trees that we could eat from would be more. To my understanding, this was the case with Adam and Eve before they ate from the tree that they ought not to have). 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 ones 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 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 lies or absurdities). Similarly, whilst evil people/beings exist, evil is not true of Existence (hence why they are perfectly or meaningfully classed as evil, not Existence). 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/tree 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 (or God’s Will) is always perfectly satisfied and justified. God’s Existence (not ours) is such that we all get what we perfectly/truly/objectively deserve. 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: