The True Religion

This post consists of the following sections: ” God, duty, and consequence”, “lucky versus unlucky”, “sincerity to God”, “good versus evil (part 1)”, “good versus evil (part 2)” and “further reading”. If I capitalise a particular term, it is to signify the absoluteness of that term. For example, when I write Triangle, I am referring to a perfect triangle (or that which is absolutely triangular). When I write triangle, I am referring to an imperfect triangle (or that which is not absolute in its triangularity).

God, duty, and consequence

Consequentialist ethics or consequentialism is the ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether the consequences of that action are good or bad. Deontological ethics or deontology is the ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether the action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules. At best, consequentialists are right to prioritise maximally good consequences, but they are wrong in their belief that such a thing is possible independently of God. They are wrong because Perfection is impossible in imperfection, and if x is not perfect, then x is not as good as possible from an objective point of view. Thus, objectively speaking, without God/Perfection there would be no maximally good moments (let alone outcomes/consequences) because without God, perfection is impossible (making a maximally good moment or consequence impossible).

At best, deontologists are right to view good intent as being actually good, but wrong to believe that this can hold true independently of God. Good intent is only good when existence is Perfect. What good is good intent if it results in what is negative all things considered? And how is good intent always good if it is not always rewarded at least in proportion to how good it is? If my “good” intentions would lead me to hell, I’d be a loser in terms of goodness to persist with such intentions. I’d be unreasonable/evil. It’s not good to have “good” intent if the consequences of “good” intentions are negative/bad/evil. Given Existence (or God‘s existence), this is never the case. An existence that fails to reward good intent (even if it is an atom’s weight worth of good intent) is not Perfect because it lacks in its appreciation/love of good. It is not Perfect because it is neither Appreciative nor Loveable.

Being Appreciative of Goodness is a semantical component of being truly/absolutely good. Thus, it’s always good to have good intent, and never good to have any intent other than good. The greater/maturer and sincerer this good intent, the greater/maturer and more real/true/genuine/sincere the good. The Omnipotence and Omniscience is exclusively God’s. This means that every millisecond (or less, or more) we are at the mercy of God’s providence to the very last detail or atom’s weight (or less, or more). If you enjoyed x, or felt y, or looked at z, or thought about q, it was not done independently of the will of God. Whatever you willed, God willed you to will it. Whatever you did unwillingly, God willed you to do it unwillingly. Any truthful statement or proposition is true, because Existence/God/Truth makes it true. Any false statement or proposition is false, because it is in opposition to truth (or because Truth/Existence is such that it is false). Any false statement or proposition is false, because God willed (or is) other than what it describes. Any evil statement or person is evil, because it is in opposition to God/Goodness/Truth. God is never in opposition to God because God is Perfect and it is impossible for the Perfect to want to do imperfectly or to be imperfect. This does not mean that God never wills for others to will to be in opposition to Him. Evil is true of some imperfect beings, therefore, God has willed some beings to will to be evil (just as God wills for some beings to make contradictory statements willingly or unwillingly. Again, God does not make any contradictory statements, and God does not commit any evil. Such actions are only possible of imperfect beings. Such actions only harm the relevant imperfect beings (because the relevant imperfect beings get what they genuinely deserve and Justice is Good. This is Natural and that which is Natural is Good).

To me, when Perfection/God is not factored into deontology, then deontology is a naive theory at best, and a self-righteous theory at worst. It does not satisfy those seeking what is truly objectively good (God/Perfection or a truly perfect existence). It settles for something that is deficient in good by definition/objectivity. When Perfection is not factored into consequentialism, then consequentialism is a self-righteous theory at worst, or a naive theory at best. It does not satisfy those seeking the greatest good objectively.

Lucky versus unlucky

There are those whom God favours and those whom God doesn’t favour. Given God’s intent/will, might, and knowledge, the following is indubitably true:

Any good that befalls you is from God, and any evil that befalls you is from yourself… (Quran 4:79)

All things considered, the evil that befalls you, is from God/Truth determining that you are evil. You are evil (or qualify as evil) because you (not God or anyone else) chose/choose/would choose falsehood at the cost of Truth or truth; insincerity to God/Goodness or goodness, at the cost of sincerity to God/Goodness or goodness. Thus, objectively speaking, it’s good/just for harm, or a loss of good, to befall you. Thus, anything good (the punishment of evil included) is from God, and anything evil (insincerity to God/Goodness/Truth) is from ourselves. God is never insincere to God/Goodness/Truth in any way. This is only possible of imperfect beings.

…If any good befalls them, they say: “This is from God,” and if any evil befalls them, they say: “This is from you!” Say: “All is from God;”… (Quran 4:78)

If unrepentant evil was left unpunished or ignored, then it’s as if it isn’t wrong/evil/harmful/bad to be evil (what’s evil about evil if it doesn’t result in harm or a taking away from the maximum good?). Thus, it would be evil/irrational to leave unrepentant evil unpunished, and worse to reward it. This (rewarding unrepentant evil) is true of those who allow themselves to love or fawn after tyrants or disgracefully weak-willed individuals (like a slave to his evil master, or a mother to her unappreciative son, and by unappreciative, I mean he has the potential to reciprocate good, but wills not to. He recognises that he can, but won’t) because they praise, or love, or embrace, or accept evil . It is also true of those who allow themselves to harm/misguide others unjustly, precisely because they seek reward for evil intent (in this case their evil intent). They seek satisfaction or happiness via evil. They do not do or abstain from doing out of a fear/love of God/Justice. Rather, they do or abstain from doing because they are willing (with sufficient weight) to sacrifice a truly perfect existence for themselves. They are willing to embrace inconsistency/evil just so they can justify their evil/imperfections as opposed to reconcile them in line with perfection/goodness. There are also those who sit back taking everything whilst giving nothing in return when they are called on to reciprocate (because they knowingly take more from others than they are willing to give in return. Such people do not think consistency or justice to be goods/truths that ought to be adhered to and acknowledged. Evil strives in opposition to a truly perfect existence. Evil is rejecting and unappreciative of God/Goodness).

What would God do/gain with your punishment if you appreciated and acknowledged? God is Appreciative, Knowledgeable. (Quran 4:147)

He is the One who made you successors on the earth. So, whoever rejects, then to him is his rejection. And the rejection of the rejecters only increases the hatred of their Lord towards them. The rejection of the rejecters only increases their loss. (Quran 35:39)

It is good for evil to suffer or be sacrificed for good (because evil would sacrifice good for evil). Thus, if x chooses to hold onto his evil intent or his determination/persistence in sacrificing good for evil (see Genesis 4:7), and ignores all calls towards repenting/reforming by seeking Forgiveness and Mercy (which entails reconciling in line with a truly perfect existence, or reconsidering what it is to exist well in a sincere to goodness/truth manner), then objectively speaking, it’s good for him to suffer or be sacrificed for good. If the truth about a man is such that he would unjustly harm a woman for all eternity against her will whilst never reconciling under reasonable circumstances, then is it not just for him to be harmed by God for all eternity against his will? An eye for an eye, intent for intent, self-gratification/satisfication via harming others for self-gratification/satisfaction via harming others, genuine forgiveness for genuine forgiveness.

Those who had rejected will be conveyed to them: “God’s hatred towards you is greater than your hatred towards yourselves, for you were invited to acknowledge, but you chose to reject.” (Quran 40:10)

Let not those amongst you who have been blessed with abundance refuse to give to the relatives, the needy, and those who have immigrated in the cause of God. Let them pardon and forgive. Would you not like God to forgive you? God is Forgiving, Compassionate. (Quran 24:22)

…the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlements, a debtor was brought to him owing ten thousand talents. Since the man was unable to pay, the master ordered that he be sold to pay his debt, along with his wife and children and everything he owned. Then the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Have patience with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ So his fellow servant fell down and begged him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you back.’ But he refused. Instead, he went and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay his debt. When his fellow servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed, and they went and recounted all of this to their master. Then the master summoned him and declared, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave all your debt because you begged me. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had on you?’ In anger his master turned him over to the jailers/torturers, until he should repay all that he owed. (Matthew 18:23-34)

God’s domination over evil is absolute. Our domination over evil (as opposed to our embrace of it, or succumbing to it) ought to be with as much depth and breadth as possible. Of course, this is provided that we want goodness with as much depth and breadth as possible (which we would do if we are rational). There is no end to the depth and breadth of this possibility (just as there is no end to Infinity), but how much we are sincerely willing, is another matter (can/possibility and will are not the same thing). The more willing we are, the morally better we are. The morally better we are, the better off we are (or the better we exist).

And We said: “O Adam, reside you and your mate in the paradise, and eat from it bountifully as you both wish, and do not come near this tree, else you will be of those who have wronged.” (Quran 2:35)

Wronged = Za-Lam-Miim = wrong, iniquity, injustice, oppression, tyranny, suppression, repression, unfairness,

To my understanding, irrationality, insincerity to Truth/God/Goodness, and evil, are all from the same tree. They are the cause of all instances of meaninglessness, death, oppression, rape, repression, dementia , depression, anxiety, AIDS, cancer, unwanted headaches, Ponzi schemes, and so on. One should not willingly take good from God and give/be evil/wrongful or unappreciative in return. If one thinks they are better or better off as a result of this, they are wrong/evil/irrational. A being that is in opposition to God, may or may not be forgiven (has Forgiveness been sincerely sought? Has one truly repented?). To my understanding, the descriptions of hell in scripture are metaphorical. That we are not lacking in imagination of the horrors that can be inflicted upon us, or upon another, is perhaps an indication of how evil some beings can choose/consent to be, and in correspondence to this, how far God’s wrath can go. To be on the receiving end of Wrath, is to be in hell.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)

Hell = γεέννῃ (geennē)
Noun – Dative Feminine Singular
Strong’s Greek 1067: Of Hebrew origin; valley of Hinnom; ge-henna, a valley of Jerusalem, used as a name for the place of everlasting punishment.

If one is evil in any way or on any level, then this is ultimately rooted in one’s insincerity to Being/Truth/God. Such insincerity is only possible of imperfect beings, and it is rooted in falsehood or the rejection of Truth/Goodness. Statements such as “I am better off committing injustice”, “I am better off being evil”, “it’s good and wise to be bad/evil”, “triangles have six sides”, are all from the forbidden tree (to my interpretation of scripture). Such thoughts are inconsistent/evil/wrong and they are in opposition to Truth/Perfection/God.

He (Satan) swore to them: “I am giving good advice.” So he misled them with deception; and when they tasted the tree, their evil became apparent to them… (Quran 7:22)

It would be wrong/unreasonable/immoral/evil of x to view or treat that which he believes to be good, as being less good than he genuinely believes it to be. If I believe x to be good for/to me all things considered (by all things considered I mean I have considered all premises and semantics that I have access to), then it would be wrong of me to deny or deprive myself of x. If I believe my father to be morally good, it would be evil/wrong/irrational/immoral of me to view him or treat him as though he is morally evil/bad/wrong/corrupt. We know Existence is Perfect (just as we know triangles are triangular). This is not an interpretation that can turn out to be wrong (as is the case with people we interpret as being evil/good). Once understood, this is an understanding that can only be denied via insincerity to reason/semantics, or insincerity to Truth. There doesn’t seem to be a need to tell people to have faith in triangles being triangular (most people accept this and act like they believe that triangles have three sides). But there does seem to be a need in telling people to be faithful/true and fair to God/Goodness (as opposed to evil, treacherous, and unappreciative towards Him).

A triangle cannot be four-sided, and God cannot be imperfect. It would be objectively evil for us, and of us, to view/treat God as evil or imperfect relative to our sincerest conception of Goodness or Perfection (call our sincerest conception of Goodness/Perfection “P”). In other words, if I genuinely think that true perfection = P, and I do not view P as my true god/ideal (by god/ideal here I mean that which one worships and prioritises above everything else), then I’m evil. You do not sacrifice or compromise service/commitment to P for anything or anyone when you are fair/good/reasonable/sincere to God. Clearly, a priori speaking, rejecting God’s Godliness/Perfection (or rejecting the goodness of the truly good) is the root of all evil.

And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. (Mark 10:18)

Sincerity to God

We are aware of the semantic of Omniscience. We are also aware of experiments such as the double slit experiment or the delayed choice quantum eraser. If you are unaware of theses experiments, I recommend the following YouTube videos:

Double slit experiment

Delayed choice quantum eraser

Though I’m not a scientist, my very brief research into this matter suggests that the above two videos are accurate in conveying what was observed with regards to these experiments (which to my interpretation implies Existence knows what we are going to choose before we choose it).

Your god is God; whom there is no god but He. His Knowledge encompasses all things. (Quran 20:98)

With God’s omniscience/knowledge in mind, consider the following verses:

And your Lord said to the angels: “I am placing a successor on earth.” They said: “Will You place in it he who would make corruption in it, and spill blood; while we glorify/celebrate by Your Glory, and exalt/sanctify to You?” He said: “I know what you do not know.” And He taught Adam the names, all of them, then, He presented/exposed them to the angels and said: “Inform Me of the names of these if you had been ones who are sincere.” (Quran 2:30-31)

They (the angels) said, “Glory be to You, we have no knowledge except what You have taught us, You are the Knowledgeable, the Wise.” He said, “O Adam, inform them of their names.” When he informed them of their names, He said, “Did I not tell you that I know the unseen of the heavens and the earth, and that I know what you reveal and what you conceal?” (Quran 2:32-33)

And We said to the angels: “Yield/prostrate to Adam,” so they yielded except for Iblees, he refused and was arrogant, and became of the disbelievers/rejecters. (Quran 2:34)

IbleesBa-Lam-Siin = despair, give up hope, become broken (in spirit), mournful, become silent/confounded/perplexed, unable to see right way or course, repent/grieve.

RefusedAlif-Ba-Ya = refuse/refrain/abstain voluntarily, held back, disagree/reject/dislike/disapprove/hate, incompliant/unyielding/resistant

Rejector/disbelieverKaf-Fa-Ra = to conceal, to cover, to reject, to disbelieve, to be thankless, unthankful, ungrateful, to disown, deny, faithless, black horse, dark night, tiller/farmer

Arrogant = Kaf-Ba-Ra = dispute/contend with someone for superiority in greatness, to self-magnify, behave proudly/haughtily/insolently, consider oneself excellent, to exceed the actions of others, to boast

One can only reject something after being meaningfully aware of it, not before. One can only reject x with active/conscious intent. From this, is born: to reject/disbelieve because this is a conscious decision made by a person (source PRL, root Ka-Fa-Ra).

Good versus evil (part 1)

As seen in the previous section, verses 2:30-34 of the Quran highlight what was said in the first two sections of this post: Objectively speaking, the greater one’s sincerity to God, the morally better one is. Objectively speaking, the morally better one is, the better off one is (or the better one exists).

Then God said, “Let Us make Adam in Our image, after Our likeness (Genesis 1:26)

We created you, We shaped you, and then We said to the angels: “Yield to Adam;” so they yielded except for Iblees, he was not of those who yielded. He (God/Perfection) said: “What has prevented you from yielding when I have ordered you?” He (Iblees) said: “I am better than him, You created me from fire and created him from clay!” He said: “Descend from it, for it is not for you to be arrogant here; depart, for you are disgraced.” He said: “Grant me respite until the day they are resurrected?” He said “You are of the ones granted respite”. He said: “Because You have misled me, I will stalk for them on Your straight path. Then I will come to them from between their hands, and from behind them, and from their right, and from their left; You will not find most of them to be appreciative.” He said, “Get out from this, you are despised and banished. As for those among them who follow you, I will fill hell with you all” “Adam, reside with your mate/pair in the paradise, and eat from wherever you please; but do not approach this tree or you will be of the wicked/unjust.” (Quran 7:11-19)

To go against God/Goodness/Truth, is to be insincere to God. To be insincere to God, is to be genuinely/sincerely evil. None should disobey God or go against Perfection unless they genuinely want to be harmed against their will and against their best interest. None should go against God unless they want to wrong themselves. It is absurd/evil/bad/wrong/inconsistent/corrupt for any one to want such a thing, and it is only hypothetically possible of imperfect beings. God does not will/allow any one to wrong Him (including Himself), but wills/allows others to wrong themselves. Satan and Adam are two such examples. The former wronged on two layers (did not prostrate to Adam, and misled Adam) whilst the latter wronged on one layer (ate from the forbidden tree). Whilst Adam disobeyed God and then sought forgiveness and mercy, Satan disobeyed God and then sought respite from God instead of forgiveness. There is no mention of Satan seeking forgiveness from God in the Quran. I doubt that there is any such mention in the Bible, or in any other credible religious scripture.

Abraham said to his father, Azar: “Will you take idols as gods? I see you and your people clearly misguided.” Thus We showed Abraham the kingdom of heavens and earth, so that he will be of those who have certainty. When the night covered him, he saw a planet, and he said, “This is my Lord.” But when it disappeared he said, “I do not like those that disappear.” So when he saw the moon rising, he said, “This is my Lord.” But when it disappeared he said, “If my Lord will not guide me, then I will be amongst the wicked people!” So when he saw the sun rising, he said, “This is my Lord, this is greater/bigger.” But when it disappeared he said, “My people, I am innocent of what you have set up.” “I shall turn my face to the One who created the heavens and the earth, as a monotheist, and I am not of the polytheists (those who set up partners or imperfects as equals with God).” (Quran 6:74-79)

“And how can I possibly fear what you have set up; yet you do not fear that you have set up partners with God, for which He has not sent down upon you any authority! So which of our two groups is more worthy of security/faith if you know?” (Quran 6:81)

Security/faith = ا م نAlif-Meem-Nun = become/feel safe/secure, state of security/safety, trust, become quiet/tranquil in heart/mind, become free of expectation of evil or free of an object of dislike/hatred, promise/assurance of security/safety, become trustful/faithful/confident, to believe/acknowledge it, manifestation of humility/submission.

And We said to the angels: “Yield to Adam.” They all yielded except for Iblees, he refused. So We said: “O Adam, this is an enemy to you and your mate/pair. So do not let him take you out from the paradise, else you will have hardship…” But Satan whispered to him, he said: “O Adam, shall I lead you to the tree of immortality and a kingdom which will not waste away?” (Quran 20:116-120)

Immortality = Kh-Lam-Dal = To remain/stay/dwell/abode, to remain or continue incessantly/always/endlessly/forever/perpetually, to adorn another with ornaments, to be slow in becoming hoary (when advanced in age), endowed with perpetual vigour.

Waste away = Ba-Lam-Waw = Try, prove or test by good or evil. To become old and worn out, wear and tear, withered, decayed. Not caring, minding, heeding, regarding or paying attention. Conferring favors, benefits or blessings. Swearing oaths, covenants. Informing, acquainting, revealing, manifesting, making apparent, evident, clear or plain. Competing, striving or hastening.

But Satan whispered to them, to reveal to them what was not apparent to them of their bodies; and he said: “Your Lord did not prohibit you from this tree except that you would become angels, or you would be immortal.” (Quran 7:20)

Kingdom/Angel = Miim-Lam-Kaf = to rule/command/reign, be capable, to control, power/authority, king, kingdom.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband/man, who was with her, and he ate it. (Genesis 3:1-6)

He (Satan) swore to them: “I am giving good advice.” So he misled them with deception; and when they tasted the tree, their bodies became apparent to them, and they rushed to cover themselves with the leaves of the paradise; and their Lord called to them: “Did I not prohibit you from that tree, and tell you that Satan is your clear enemy?” They said: “Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves and if You do not Forgive us and have Mercy on us, then we will be of the losers” (Quran 7:21-23)

Deception = Gh-Ra-Ra = deceived, beguiled, inexperienced or ignorant in affairs, act childish, exposed to perdition or destruction without knowing, danger, hazard; deficiency of, imperfect performance of; vain things, vanities

Tasted = Thal-Waw-Qaf = to taste/experience/try/perceive. One who tastes, cause to taste.

Bodies = Siin-Waw-Alif = to treat badly, do evil to disgrace, be evil/wicked/vicious, ill, anything that makes a person sad and sorrowful, bad action, mischief and corruption, sin, evil doer, wretched or grievous, vex, annoy. su’atun (pl. suat) – corpse, external portion of both sexes, shame, abominable, foul, unseemly, ugly.

…He Said, “Did I not tell you that I know the unseen of the heavens and the earth, and that I know what you reveal and what you were hiding?” (Quran 2:33)

…she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her man who was with her, and he ate. And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed together fig leaves and made loin coverings for themselves. (Genesis 3:6-7)

O Children of Adam, We have sent down for you garments to cover your bodies, and as an ornament; and the garment of awareness is the best. That is from God’s signs, perhaps they will remember/revere. (Quran 7:26)

Ornament = Ra-Ya-Shiin = to fit feathers (to an arrow), do or attain good, to rectify/aid/strengthen his condition. rishun – adornment, feather, fine clothing, source of elegance and protection, plumage, ornament, beauty.

Awareness = Waw-Qaf-Ya = to protect, save, preserve, ward off, guard against evil and calamity, be secure, take as a shield, regard the duty. muttaqii – one who guards against evil and against that which harms and injures and is regardful of his duty towards human beings and God.

Ittaqaina (prt. f. plu. vb. VIII): Take as shield.
Muttaquun/Muttaqiin (acc./ plu. of Muttaqii): Atqaa (elative): Most dutiful and guarding against evils.
Taqiyyann (act. plc. m. sing. acc.): One who carefully guarded against evils.
Taqaatun (v. n.): Observing duty.
Taqwaa (n.): Protection; Warding off evil; Observing duty; Abstinent; Observing the Divine ordinances in every walk of life.

Then the man and his wife heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the breeze of the day, and they hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. The Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?” “I heard Your voice in the garden,” he replied, “and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.” “Who told you that you were naked?” asked the Lord God. “Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” And the man said, the woman whom You gave me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate it. Then the Lord God asked the woman, “What is this you have done?” “The serpent deceived me,” she replied. “and I ate.” (Genesis 3:8-13)

They said: “Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves and if You do not forgive us and have mercy on us, then we will be of the losers!” He Said: “Descend some of you to some others as enemy; and on the earth you will have residence and provisions until the appointed time.” He Said: “In it you will live and in it you will die, and from it you will be brought forth.” (Quran 7:23-25)

O Children of Adam, do not let Satan tempt/test you as he evicted your parents from the paradise; he removes from them their garments to show them their bodies. He and his tribe see you from where you do not see them. We have made the devils as allies for those who do not believe. (Quran 7:27)

And if they commit immorality, they say: “We found our fathers doing such, and God ordered us to it.” Say: “God does not order immorality! Do you say about God what you do not know?” (Quran 7:28)

Good versus evil (part 2)

Clearly then, being morally good is rooted in being sincere to Truth/God/Goodness, whilst being morally evil is being insincere to God/Truth/Goodness. Put differently, to be good is to do in line with a truly perfect existence or being, and to be evil is to do in opposition to it (or to reject its value). Your god is God; whom there is no god but He. His Knowledge encompasses all things (Quran 20:98). To reject His value, is to be semantically/objectively inconsistent/evil/unreasonable/corrupt/disordered.

To my understanding, there are two primary layers of acknowledgement (or rejection). One is the a posteriori (empirical matters), the other is the a priori (matters of pure reason). There is nothing wrong with doing unto others as you would truly do unto yourself. This is consistent. If you are willing to lie, or deceive, or withhold information because you genuinely think it’s beneficial to the person you are doing it to and your intent is good (and by this I mean you are not trying to benefit evil people. For example, you don’t fully tell the four year old how he came to be in this world), then consistency would have you not complain when you are deceived in proportion. If you are deceived, and the person who deceived you says “I was trying to benefit you”, then you have to assess whether they’re telling you the truth or not. Again, this is where you’d have to be consistent. If the evidence they give to you is the sort of evidence you’d expect someone else to accept from you (or if you have had experiences where you’ve given this sort of evidence to someone else and you accepted that they accepted this evidence from you), then you should accept their claim. Suppose you still choose to punish them because you think they harmed you despite you believing them to have had good intent. Doing so would mean that you do not value good intent, and such an attitude is irrational/evil. Either you think all acts of deception, lies, or the withholding of information as being only done with evil in mind, or you think that sometimes they are done with good in mind. If you believe in the former, then you should never deceive, lie, or withhold information. What you can never rationally afford to do is to reject the goodness of good intent (no matter how large or small the good intent at hand).

Why have good intent towards someone who does not value good intent? Would you want goodness or happiness for one who does not value goodness or happiness? Should you feed someone who does not want to be fed (despite it looking like they’re starving)? Would you have good intent towards one who values evil intent? Wouldn’t it be good intent on your part for you to have evil intent towards those who value evil intent? Clearly, it’s good to treat evil like it’s evil (which means harming it), and it’s good to treat good like it’s good (which means benefitting it). It would be inconsistent/evil of you to try and benefit someone whom you know does not (and will not) appreciate good intent. Where you were harmed by another who lied to you (despite it being the case that the liar had good intent), then you being harmed is simply the will of God (because God is Omnipotent and Omniscient), but not the will of the liar because the liar wanted to benefit you. And if you would punish the liar whilst believing him to have had good intent, then you are surely evil for doing so. How would God treat your good intent towards yourself when you punished another for his good intent towards you?

If it is the case that one has been wronged by another, then he should perhaps punish the one who wronged him (unless of course the one who was wronged has been forgiven by another for committing a more serious sin (if not equally serious) as the one committed against him and he accepted the forgiveness of this other. If he would accept forgiveness for himself of proportion/standard x, then consistency would have him forgive the sins of another against him of at least equal or lesser proportions). Of course, underlying all this is whether he genuinely thinks forgiveness to be a good thing here or not. If the one who wronged him is not seeking forgiveness, but is instead threatening to cause further harm, then punishment is clearly warranted. If it seems that he is repentant but is not explicitly asking for forgiveness because he is ashamed, then forgiveness is good (genuine repentance means the sinner is no longer evil. If he is no longer evil, then he no longer deserves punishment. With some people they have to have the punishment before genuine repentance clicks into place and holds). If he is profusely begging for mercy because the just retribution for his transgression would utterly ruin him, then forgiveness is good provided that he would genuinely appreciate being forgiven (despite him coming across as pathetic. One can be pathetic but pitiable. One can also be pathetic but not pitiable). It would be evil for him not to appreciate being forgiven. Again, why have good intent towards someone who does not and will not appreciate your good intent towards them?

Even if the wronged is such that he would never forgive himself had he committed a sin like the one committed against him, if he thinks it good to forgive the sinner (perhaps because he thinks the sinner as morally inexperienced, and he interprets that the sinner’s valuing of goodness and seeking of forgiveness is sincere), then he should forgive. It would be a generous act on his part, and if he is generous, then God appreciates generosity towards any level of genuine resemblance to Goodness (and we are all dependent on God’s generosity for our well/good-being). It’s the sort of action that would help the “wronged” individual in this case increase with regards to moral worth (or resemblance to Goodness). I say “wronged” in quotation marks because the “wronged” individual was never objectively wronged because what had happened to him was the will of God. This does not mean that the wrongdoer who has sought forgiveness for his wrongdoing didn’t do wrong. If a man harms you for no good reason, then he has done wrong. You recognising this are then responsible to find him and make him pay (unless of course you think it good to forgive him for reasons already outlined, or unless of course you don’t care that much about justice or goodness). If you do not try and make him pay, then you have not valued justice as much as you could have. Which means you have not prioritised good over evil as much as you could have. How much you should prioritise good over evil, depends on how well you want to exist (or how good you want to be). Some are not as passionate about being good as others. Can they be blamed for this when they have no complaints or regrets about being less well off than others? Is it possible for them to have no regrets about being less well off than others? Is it possible for them to have no desire for being better or better off? Anything that results in a loss of good is bad/evil for us. Anything that results in the failure to gain a potential good is bad/evil for us provided that our failure to gain/attain it causes us negative feelings such as regret (if what you want is good all things considered but you do not output the appropriate and adequate amount of sincerity to God/Goodness to attain it, then you will not attain it).

Since it is guaranteed that we are better off genuinely believing in Existence being Perfect in all possible circumstances, it is evil/bad/harmful for us to view Existence as evil. Put differently, it is harmful for us to take anyone other than God as our god. Furthermore, it is disgraceful to put ourselves ahead of that which is Perfect. If we were to be better off by favouring a lesser good over a greater good, an imperfect over the Perfect, or by viewing Existence as imperfect, then this would be a case of Existence/God being unjust. It would be a case of us being better off by being unfair to someone (in this case God). It would be an objective instance of evil occurring in Existence (which would amount to Existence being both imperfect and evil/absurd/contradictory). It would be a case of God rewarding that which is unfair to Him. A case of evil being good and good being evil. A case of imperfection being closer to Perfection than God. A case of God being imperfect (non-God). It is we who are imperfect whilst God is the one who is Perfect. Thus, if you think non-God being x is generous, or merciful, or honourable, or beautiful, or good, then pure reason dictates that x is not that which no greater than can be conceived of objectively in terms of goodness, generosity, mercy, honour, or beauty precisely because x is not God. This means that had you been such that you sufficiently understood, or tasted, or witnessed, the goodness of God, you would clearly feel/see/recognise/understand the non-God being x that you witnessed as being good/beautiful as lesser in goodness/beauty than God. This is a matter of pure reason. Whether it’s perfection for one to be blessed/privileged to have experiences that colour in this matter of pure reason or not, is another matter. The closer one can get to being absolutely in awe of Existence, the better off they are.

The good attributes mentioned in the previous paragraph are only truly maximal (or absolutely true) of God. If you show mercy to all at all times (including to those who don’t truly deserve it), then this is not being truly maximally merciful because it lessens the maximum mercifulness of mercy in the following way: Mercy is supposed to be beneficial, but showing mercy to that which does not deserve it would mean perfection is nullified. The deprivation or loss of perfection is the opposite of beneficial (meaning that mercy is not maximally beneficial, and by extension not as merciful as hypothetically possible). Again, showing mercy to that which has not genuinely repented or sought mercy, is evil/unreasonable/wrong. It undervalues good by overvaluing evil. It undervalues benefit or well-being by overvaluing harm or being evil.

Perhaps some people hate themselves more than they ought to (because they undervalue their own goodness, or they overestimate the good they ought to have achieved). Some hate themselves far less than they ought to (or like themselves more than they ought to).

Those who had rejected will be told: “The hatred of God towards you is greater than your hatred of yourselves, for you were invited to believe, but you chose to reject.” (Quran 40:10)

They seek to deceive God and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves without noticing. In their hearts is a disease, so God increases their disease, and they will have a painful retribution for what they have denied. (Quran 2:9-10)

So whoever does an atom’s weight of good will see it. Whoever does an atom’s weight of evil will see it. (Quran 99:7-8)

Who will lend God a loan of righteousness/goodness that He may multiply it for him many times over? God collects and He distributes, and to Him you will return. (Quran 2:245)

Whoever comes with a good deed, he will receive ten times the like of it, and whoever comes with a sin, he will only be recompensed its like; they will not be wronged. (Quran 6:160)

And they swore by God in their strongest oaths, that if a warner came to them, they would be the most guided of all nations, but when a warner came to them, it only increased their aversion! Arrogance on the earth, and evil scheming. But not encompass the evil scheming except its own people… (Quran 35:42-43)

If we or God want to be better off by being unfair to someone, then we’re absurd/irrational/evil. God does not wrong anyone (including Himself). God does not allow q to be unfair to p without q suffering some grief (provided that q knows he was being unfair). If we are q and God is P, it would be imperfection and evil on P’s part to wrong Himself, just as it would be imperfection and evil on q’s part to wrong himself. Where q is wholly innocent of evil (like P), God/Existence is such that no harm or loss of potential good can touch him. This is right/righteous/fair/beautiful/consistent/honourable/loveable/perfect. It’s evil for P to be unfair to q just as it’s evil for q to be unfair to P, purely because it is evil/bad/wrong/irrational/inconsistent/disordered/unfair of either P or q to view God/Existence/P as imperfect. It is semantically/meaningfully inconsistent/contradictory.

P can never view God/Existence as imperfect because God is Perfect and P is God. Us being unfair to P, or q, or anyone else, is exclusively evil/bad of us and bad/evil for us, because us being unfair in relation to P does not result in P suffering a loss of good against His will and against His best interest (being Perfect). It does not result in Perfection being compromised or unsatisfied:

Do not be saddened by those who rush into rejection. They will not harm God in the least… (Quran 3:176)

It only results in us suffering a loss of good or being deprived of a potential greater good because that is what’s truly/rightfully/rationally required to satisfy P/Perfection/Justice/God.

If any good befalls you it grieves them, and if any bad befalls you they rejoice with it. If you are patient and God-conscious, their planning will not harm you at all. Over all they do God is Encompassing. (Quran 3:120)

Where we are suffering or unhappy/unfulfilled in any way, then either we are being deservedly tested and struggling with the test (to look at it somewhat positively in relation to ourselves) or we are being deservedly punished (to look at it negatively in relation to ourselves). The former is somewhat positive in that it can lead to something good for us (though because we are suffering to get to this something good, it entails we are being punished. I think this is true of Adam (see 2:30-39, 7:11-14, 15:27-41, and 17:61-65). To have gotten something good without suffering is to have passed the test without difficulty (I think this is true of the angels who prostrated to Adam at 2:34), or to have not been tested at all because no test was necessary to instantiate improvement or solidify goodness/evil in the being at hand). The latter is negative in that it is pure punishment (as in no good will come to us from our suffering. If my suffering satisfies another, then good/benefit has come to the other, whilst evil/harm has come to me). Given Perfection/Truth/Reality, where the other who draws pleasure from my suffering is sincere to God and I am insincere to God, then I have wronged myself and the one who draws satisfaction/pleasure from my suffering has not wronged himself. Where we are both insincere to God but ultimately I am less evil than the other, then my suffering that satisfies the other will not alter the fact that all things considered, I am less of a loser in goodness than this other. The other has exploited my evil (insincerity to God) and has drawn benefit from this, but ultimately, whether by my hands or by the hand of another, he will suffer more than me and I will enjoy being/existing more than him because ultimately, I am better than him in the eyes of Goodness/Truth/God/Reality. To recall scripture, Satan exploited Adam’s potential insincerity to God instead of trying to be Adam’s supporter towards sincerity to God.

So when Jesus sensed their rejection, he said, “Who are my supporters towards God?” The disciples said, “We are God’s supporters, we acknowledge God and we bear witness that we have peacefully surrendered.” (Quran 3:52)

O you who acknowledge, be God’s supporters, as Jesus the son of Mary said to his disciples: “Who are my supporters towards God?” The disciples said, “We are God’s supporters.” Thus, a group from the Children of Israel acknowledged, and another group rejected. So, We supported those who acknowledged against their enemy, and they were successful. (Quran 61:14)

Satan refused God’s command to prostrate to Adam even after Adam informed all the angels (of which Iblees/Shaytan/Satan was one of them) of that which he was supposed to inform them of per God’s command. Satan got his reason for why God had chosen Adam to be the successor on earth (as did all the other angels) instead of him.

Whoever desires the harvest of the Hereafter, We will increase for him his harvest. And whoever seeks the harvest of this world, We will give him therefrom, and he will have no share in the Hereafter. (Quran 42:20)

Let those who seek to purchase the Hereafter rather than this world fight in the cause of God. And whoever fights in the cause of God and is killed or attains victory, then We will grant him a great recompense. (Quran 4:74)

…But when fighting was decreed for them, a group of them feared the people as much as they feared God or even more so. They said, “Our Lord, why did You decree fighting for us? If only You would delay for us till another time.” Say, “The enjoyment of this world is little, and the Hereafter is far better for those who are God-conscious; you will not be wronged in the least.” (Quran 4:77)

…From among the people is he who says: “Our Lord, give us from this world!” But in the Hereafter he has no part. And some of them say: “Our Lord, give us good in this world, and good in the Hereafter, and spare us from the retribution of the Fire.” (Quran 2:200-201)

God is Almighty, therefore, for one to be irrational/evil in Existence is for one to wrong oneself and no other. Yes, we can be unfair to others (including God), but we can only harm others if God wills others to be harmed. The Omnipotence is God’s and God’s alone. Not an atom’s weight (or more or less) occurs independently of His Will or Preference. We do not possess an atom’s weight in relation to Him. Whatever God does/wills is perfection. We cannot will anything independently of God. If I decide to torment another and succeed in doing this, then this is God testing/punishing the one I am tormenting. If I am reasonably under the impression that the one I’m tormenting does not deserve to be tormented (or I cannot determine whether he deserves to be tormented or not), then I am choosing to be evil/irrational. This means that God is punishing/testing evil (the one I’m tormenting) whilst allowing/willing me to more firmly/genuinely/sincerely/determinedly consent to what I want (being evil). This of course means that when the time is right, I will suffer the wrath of God for choosing/consenting to be this way. It is unwise for one to allow themselves to entertain absurdity/evil, worse for one to commit to the absurdity/evil they are entertaining.

So in the course of time, Cain brought some of the fruit of the soil as an offering to the Lord, while Abel brought the best portions of the firstborn of his flock. And the Lord looked with favour on Abel and his offering, but He had no regard for Cain and his offering. So Cain became very angry, and his countenance fell. “Why are you angry,” said the Lord to Cain, “and why has your countenance fallen? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you refuse to do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires you, but you must master it.” Then Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out to the field.” And while they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. (Genesis 4:3-8)

Recite for them the news of Adam’s two sons in truth. They had both made an offering, and it was accepted from one of them, and not accepted from the other. He said, “I will kill you!”; he (the other) said, “God only accepts from the God-conscious. If you stretch your hand to kill me, I will not stretch my hand to kill you, for I fear God, the Lord of the worlds. I want you to have both my sin as well as your own sin, and you will then be among the dwellers of the fire. Such is the reward of the wicked.” So he found it in himself to kill his brother, and he killed him. He thus became one of the losers. (Quran 5:27-30)

Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear.” (Genesis 4:13) … Lamech (a descendent of Cain) said to his wives…”I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me. If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times.” (Genesis 4:23-24)

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a Jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on their children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me (Exodus 20:5)

Now then, why do you test/tempt God by placing on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? (Acts 15:10)

Say: “He is able to send retribution from above you or from below your feet, or He will make you belong to opposing factions, then He will let you taste the might of each other.” See how We dispatch the signs, perhaps they may understand. (Quran 6:65)

You cannot will anything except if it is also willed by God, the Lord of the worlds. (Quran 81:29)

Compare a man who loves giving away things, to a man who loves stealing things. Both do what they do because doing what they do gets them high (like a drug addict). The giver gives to the rich, the poor, the tyrant, the oppressed, the good, the evil, and so on. He does not discriminate. His desire/addiction is to give away as much as possible. The same is true of the stealer in that he does not discriminate between who he steals from. Clearly, neither do what they do for the sake of a truly perfect existence.

When the stealer successfully steals from those who are evil/insincere towards Goodness/God, he is doing in line with Goodness, but he is not good. This is because he did not have God/Goodness in mind when he stole. Rather, he had himself in mind mostly independent of Good. This does not mean that what he did didn’t benefit him at all. He still got high. This is a cheap gain in comparison to what he could have gained had he been more ambitious in serving Existence/Being/God/Goodness willingly. In other words, he could have gained more had he been more ambitious in being good or resembling Goodness. Had he prioritised God or Goodness less cheaply, then God would not have been satisfied with only granting him a cheap gain.

To some imperfect beings, being good may only be about them getting a cheap high. Their view of good is subjective whilst not objective because their view is objectively inadequate in relation to what it is to exist well in relation to themselves. A truly perfect existence semantically/rationally entails Goodness/God being committed to or devoted to with as much depth and breadth as possible. To serve other than God or to strive for other than a truly perfect existence, is to be worthy of a lesser state of being (nervousness, anxiety, meaninglessness, depression, humiliation, crippling pain, seeing your child suffer etc.) the worst of which is hell.

The addict stealer that I discussed two paragraphs ago is perhaps not worthy of being hated like Satan or the Pharaoh that oppressed the Children of Israel. To my understanding, both Satan and Pharaoh came to be completely unappreciative and rejecting of God (the latter of which claimed himself to be god). Pharaoh is perhaps more controversial because despite him rejecting all the signs prior to being drowned, the following happened:

We helped the Children of Israel cross the sea, and Pharaoh and his soldiers followed them out of hatred and animosity. But when drowning overtook him, he said, “I acknowledge that there is no god except the One in whom the Children of Israel acknowledge, and I am of those who have peacefully surrendered.” (Quran 10:90)

Let’s shift our focus from the addict stealer to the addict giver. When the giver gives to those who are fair/sincere/rational towards Goodness, then he is doing in line with Goodness. Perhaps we can ascribe more goodness to the giver than the ATM machine on the grounds that the giver was at least intentionally benevolent towards himself, whereas the ATM machine had no intent whatsoever. In any case, the ATM machine is doing what God wants it to do (as does a sincere to God man who gives money to the morally good because he loves financially supporting those who are fair/sincere/rational towards Goodness. The difference is that the man gives money willingly, whereas the ATM machine does not have any will). The giver is also doing what God wants him to do. Both the ATM and the giver are serving God/Goodness; but unlike God and the man, they are not serving God willingly because their intention was not to serve God (the ATM had no intention at all, and the giver’s intention was more about serving his imperfect addict self than the serving of God). Of course, neither the ATM nor the giver are oppressed (unless of course God had cursed the giver to give against his will. The ATM machine is insentient, therefore it is not susceptible to being oppressed). If one truly serves God, then one would not be oppressed. But if one chooses to serve a tyrant like Pharoah at the cost serving God, then the will of God is that such a one be oppressed by Pharoah. Without God, there is no good (anything good is from God). With God, goodness is full, extensive, and constant.

Now consider a man named x who only loves willingly giving away money to y, but y only loves willingly stealing money from x. Neither will ever be fully satisfied until one fully sacrifices their habit for the other. y would deprive x of his potential to be fully satisfied because x cannot fully willingly give due to the fact that a part of what he could have willingly given to y has been willingly stolen from him by y. Where a giver (such as x) is such that he loves depriving all stealers (such as y) of his wealth and he is able to enforce this, then in this equation he is fully satisfied (provided of course he enforces against the stealers and gives to those who willingly seek from him). Once the stealers change to seekers, then they too can be fully satisfied in this equation (provided that their full satisfaction is contingent on their receiving from the giver). If this giver is exposed to a rejector (someone who politely rejects the giver’s providence because he doesn’t value what the giver is giving, or simply because he doesn’t respect the giver), then either the giver is full satisfied to not provide this rejector from his wealth, or he is not. Where he is fully satisfied, he remains fully satisfied in this equation (because he loves not giving money to rejectors as much as he loves giving money to seekers). The rejector is also happy too because he was sincere to truth when he stated he doesn’t want what the giver’s giving. Obviously, if the rejector is lying to himself, then it is his loss until he changes from a rejector to a seeker. Since this giver does not care if the seekers or rejectors are good or evil, this giver is either amoral or self-righteous.

Except whom your Lord has mercy upon; and for that He has created them. And the word of your Lord came true: “I will fill Hell with the jinn and the people together!” (Quran 11:119)

Say, “My Lord would not care about you except for your imploring. But you have denied, so it will be your destiny.” (Quran 25:77)

imploring = Dal-Ayn-Waw = to seek, desire, ask, demand, call upon, invoke, ascribe, cry out, call out to, pray, supplicate, petition, require, need, summon, invite, assert, succour. (e.g. ‘daAAa‘ in phonetic search engine).
Adopted son (adiya, pl. of daiy).

Only God is Self-Sufficient, therefore, only God can truly afford to be Self-Righteous. There’s righteousness (where one does not worship getting high, their culture, or their nation at the cost of worshipping/serving God), and then there’s self-righteousness (where one thinks truth and goodness are meaningfully possible independently of God. Or where one thinks “I’m generous, whilst the Existence/Being that has given me the means to be generous to others, is not generous. Or where one thinks “my nation is better than nation x because my nation has more wealth and technological accomplishments than nation x). As clearly implied in the Quran (and highlighted by pure reason), we do not know what each nation reveals or hides. A nation that we consider as being lesser than us (because as far as we can see, they seem less sincere to God/Goodness/Truth than we are), may be better than us. In any case, the love of God is the source of righteousness, truth, goodness, happiness, love, and more (if your love of God is genuine, then so is God’s love of you. If your love of God is cheap or deceptive, then so is God’s love of you). The hatred of God is the source of unrighteousness/evil/falsehood/corruption, misery, hatred, and more.

The hypocrites seek to deceive God, while He is deceiving them; and if they stand/rise to uphold salat, they do so lazily, only to show the people; they do not remember God except very little. (Quran 4:142)

Did you not see those who were told: “Restrain your hands, and hold the salat, and give zakat.” But when fighting was decreed for them, a group of them were concerned towards the people as they would have been concerned towards God or even more so. And they said: “Our Lord, why did You decree fighting for us? If only You would delay for us until another time.” Say: “The enjoyment of this world is little, and the Hereafter is far better for those who are God-conscious; you will not be wronged in the least.” (Quran 4:77)

Hatred is not a negative attribute if it can be satisfied. If I hate x whilst being justified in my hatred for x, and I make x suffer, then I am satisfied purely because I hate x and have made him suffer. Justified self-satisfaction is good. Inversely, love is not a positive attribute if it can’t be satisfied. If you love x but find that you cannot access x, or attain x, or be with x, and find your deprivation of x to cause you sadness or grief, then it would have been better for you to have not loved x. Also, if you love that which harms you (such as an abusive husband/father/government or any other thing/being that causes you losses in terms of goodness), then love is not a positive attribute. Both love and hatred could be good or evil. It is all dependent on what one loves and hates. The love of God is righteous/good/reasonable/fair, whereas the hatred of God is unrighteous/evil/irrational/unfair. If you or God were to put you ahead of God in any way whilst you are sufficiently aware of God, then both you and God would be necessarily imperfect and necessarily evil. If you were not aware of God, then you would be necessarily imperfect, but not necessarily evil.

When you have completed your rites, then remember God as you remember your fathers or even greater. From among the people is he who says: “Our Lord, give us from this world!” But in the Hereafter he has no part. (Quran 2:200)

“Our Lord, and let us submit to You and from our progeny a nation submitting to You, and show us our rites, and forgive us; You are the Forgiver, the Merciful.” (Quran 2:128)

RitesNun-Siin-Kaf = to lead a devout life, be pious, be godly, worship/serve God, sacrifice, slaughter an animal by way of sacrifice, act of worship/servitude, performers/observers of such acts, rite of devotion, to wash and purify, to apply oneself.

It is unacceptable for q to put himself, his family, his friends, his nation, his culture, or his “religion” ahead of a truly perfect existence/being (God). It is unacceptable for him to settle for an imperfect existence at the cost of a perfect existence. Unacceptable in the sense that he deserves to suffer some loss of goodness, or to be deprived of potential greater goodness. Obviously not all imperfect beings should be deprived of all goodness. Some men and women are better than others. Them not being God makes them imperfect; it does not make them evil all things considered. It does not make them unworthy of being appreciative and in awe of Existence. It does not make them unworthy of being satisfied, fulfilled, and happy. If one being is less in awe of Existence than another, then that being is less blessed and privileged than the other. This does not mean that that being is not blessed or privileged at all. All things considered, q is happy. All things considered, q’s happiness is not as comprehensive or durable as the more blessed, but it is still happiness nonetheless. q is happy with Existence to some degree, and God is happy for q to be happy to the degree that He has determined for q (which was/is/will be contingent on what q knowingly and willingly consents to and commits to by way of goodness; which is dependent on how sincere q was/is/will be to Goodness/Truth/God).

…God is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him. These are the party of God. Most assuredly, the party of God are the winners. (Quran 58:22)

If x has not and is not committing to absurdity/inconsistency/irrationality, then x is not evil. And if x is not evil, then x is not suffering. As implied in the previous paragraph, it takes absurdity/evil to choose a lesser good ahead of a greater good. Faced between being granted a happy mortal life, or a happier immortal life, a rational person would choose the latter whilst an irrational person would choose the former. Worded this way, it may not seem crystal clear to all as to whether the irrational person committed evil or not. Again, it takes evil to sacrifice a greater good for a lesser good. In this sense, the irrational person is evil in that he thought existence or existing to be such that less happiness is better for him than more happiness (though it may seem nobody would be this stupid/irrational, it is not hypothetically impossible for an imperfect being to be this irrational). His punishment will come in the form of him not being better off all things considered (though calling it punishment is controversial when no negative feelings are experienced by this being who is unaware of what he has missed out on) and may also come in the form of him being on the receiving end of negative feelings such as regret and powerlessness to get what he wants when his life draws near to its end (this is punishment because it is a negative feeling or state that is experienced).

Let’s look at a clearer and more potent example of evil. A rapist who rapes a woman in order to satisfy himself, prioritises himself (an imperfect being) ahead of God (the truly perfect being/existence) and ahead of the woman whom he does not believe himself to be morally superior to, but does believe himself to be physically superior to. He obviously did not have God sufficiently in mind when he raped (otherwise either the fear of God would have stopped him or the love of God would have prevented him), nor did he have the woman’s best interest at heart (he believed this would result in the woman being on the receiving end of what she did not want and was not good for her). He sought to satisfy himself by harming another against her will. Clearly, it can be perfection for him to be harmed against his will. It can be perfection for him to be raped. Where he is unrepentant, it is perfection for him to be harmed against his will. He sought to satisfy himself at the cost/sacrifice of Perfection. Where he does not repent or feel bad about this, one should not feel bad about seeing him suffer (including himself, but he is evil and unreasonable, so he will feel bad about seeing himself suffer). Should one feel good about seeing him suffer? Yes. If the rapist genuinely felt good about seeing himself “suffer”, you’d think ending his suffering enjoyment would be a good thing. How are you going to exact vengeance on that which wants what you’re putting it on the receiving end of?

Individuals who view themselves as ‘smart’ or ‘wise’ or ‘right’ for not sufficiently committing to a truly perfect existence, are self-righteous on some level. The worst of these are in open enmity to God. They somehow want to balance a horrible view of existing and Existence, with existing well. Their naiveté and misguidance is not equal to that of a child whom you may feel inclined to forgive or be patient with; it is evil of the unforgivable sort. Naive is not the right word to describe such men given that they are fully aware of how evil their view of existing and Existence is. Such men are firm or heavy/weighty in their commitment to sacrificing a truly perfect existence for themselves, or their forefathers, or their nations, or their “religious” beliefs, or their “scientific” beliefs. They actively and passionately pursue this sacrifice and try to present it as reasonable/wise/right/good/true/perfection. Such men would betray God/Truth/Good and reason, whilst claiming to have done so in the name of God/Truth/Good and reason. Such individuals treat/present what is good as evil, and what is evil as good. Evil/falsehood is what they preach, and evil/liars/hypocrites is what they attract. Put differently, insincere to God is what they preach, and the insincere to God is who they attract. They knowingly serve imperfection whilst claiming it is perfection. They are of similar form to the following whom Jesus spoke of:

Further reading

‘Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let enter those who are trying to. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. Woe to you blind guides! You say, “If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.” You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, “If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath. You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, “If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.” Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?’ (Matthew 13-33)

He said: “Descend from it, for it is not for you to be arrogant here; depart, for you are disgraced.” (Quran 7:13)

Arrogant = Kaf-Ba-Ra = dispute/contend with someone for superiority in greatness, to self-magnify, behave proudly/haughtily/insolently, to hold oneself above a thing.

Disgraced = Sad-Gh-Ra = to be small/little. saaghirun – one who is small/little/subdued/abject or in a state of subjection. saghiir – small. asghar – smaller. saghaar – vileness, contempt, humiliation. sagurat – he felt inferior and humble, became discouraged and meek, to make small(er), or little(r), lessen, minimise, reduce, diminish, decrease, belittle, deride, ridicule, debase, demean

He said: “Grant me respite until the day they are resurrected?” (Quran 7:14)

Respite = Nun-Za-Ra = to see, look at, glance, gaze, observe, behold, consider, regard, listen to, be patient towards, wait, contemplate, grant respite, put off, scrutinise, show kindness, examine, search, reflect. nazara – the look with affection, to perplex, dazzle.

ResurrectedBa-Ayn-Tha = Removal of that which restrains one from free action. Anything that is sent. Rousing, exciting, putting in motion, or motion. Incited, urged, instigated or awoke. Raising/rousing (e.g. of the dead to life). Sleepless or wakeful. Hastening, quick, swift in going, impelled or propelled.

He said, “You are granted respite.” (Quran 7:15)

He said: “Because You have misled me, I will stalk for them on Your straight path.” (Quran 7:16)

Misled = Gh-Waw-Ya = to err, deviate or go astray, unmindful, neglectful, inattentive, inadvertent, inconsiderate, heedless, forgetful; be misled/seduced, disappointed, journey in the darkness, went far away therein; darkness, intensely black, the deepest black; the first part or state of youth; the belly

StalkQaf-Ayn-Dal = to sit down, remain behind, to hold back, to tarry, lie in wait, sit still, remain unmoved, desist, abstain, refrain, lurk in ambush, set snares, neglect, act of sitting, foundations/bases, women who are past child bearing age, elderly spinsters past child bearing age, one who sits at home, one who sits still, seat or place of sitting, station, encampment.

StraightQaf-Waw-Miim = stand still or firm, rose/stand up, managed/conducted/ordered/regulated/superintended, established, made it straight/right, maintain/erect/observe/perform, set up, people/community/company, abode, stature/dignity/rank. aqama – to keep a thing or an affair in a right state.

Path = Sad-Ra-Tay = a path which is even, wide enough and can be trodden without difficulty. A road/way/path, long sword.

“Then I will come to them from between their hands, and from behind them, and from their right, and from their left; You will not find most of them to be appreciative.” (Quran 7:17)

He said, “Get out from this, you are despised and banished. As for those among them who follow you, I will fill hell with you all!” (Quran 7:18)

Despised = Thal-Alif-Miim = to drive off, banish, blame, despise, disgrace, scorned, repay/requite, frighten/terrify, vice/fault/defect.

Banished = Dal-Ha-Ra = To drive away, repel, to remove, turn off, discard, banish.

So he (Satan) misled them (Adam and his pair) with deception; and when they tasted the tree, their bodies became apparent to them, and they began to cover themselves with the leaves of the paradise; and their Lord called to them: “Did I not forbid you from that tree, and tell you that the devil is your clear enemy?” (Quran 7:22)

Began = Tay-Fa-Qaf = begin/start to do something, to take to doing something, to set about, commence/initiate, continue uninterruptedly.

Cover = Kh-Sad-Fa = Adjoin or put together, to men, make a thing double putting one piece upon another, cover with a thing, have two colors, to lie (as though to sew one saying upon another, and thus, embellish it).

Leaves = Waw-Ra-Qaf = to put forth leaves. waraqun is both sing. and pl. and is substantive noun from the verb waraqa. auraaq al-rajulu – the man became rich. warqun – leaves, foliage, sheet of paper, sheet of metal, coinage, wealth, prime and freshness of a thing, young lads of a community, beauty of a thing.

ParadiseJiim-Nun-Nun (root of jinn) = veiled/concealed/covered/hid/protected (e.g. cloth, armour, grave, shield), invisible, become dark/posessed, darkness of night, bereft of reason, mad/insane/unsound in mind/intellect, confusedness. Become thick/full-grown/blossom, herbage, garden. Spiritual beings that conceal themselves from the senses (including angels), become weak and abject, greater part of mankind, devil/demon, people who are peerless having no match or equal, a being who is highly potent, sometimes refers to kings because they are concealed from the common folk

They said, “Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves and if You do not forgive us and have mercy on us, then we will be of the losers!” (Quran 7:23)

Losers = Kh-Siin-Ra = To suffer loss or diminution, to be deceived/cheated/beguiled/circumvented, to err/go astray/deviate from/miss the right way, to perish or die, make a thing defective or deficient, destroy or cause to perish, remove/alienate/estrange someone, to be treacherous/ignoble/mean, to be unfaithful, ungenerous, small/little/weak (among mankind), refuse invitation from another.

He said, “Descend some of you to some others as an enemy; on earth you will have residence and provisions until the appointed time.” (Quran 7:24)

He said, “In it you will live and in it you will die, and from it you will be brought forth.” (Quran 7:25)

Note that in Genesis 2:23 Adam called his mate/pair “woman”, then, after the serpent deceived her and she gave Adam of the fruit, he called her “Eve” (Genesis 3:20). Also note the following verses that imply God’s messenger as being the exact opposite of the devil:

He is the One who sent His messenger with the guidance and the system/religion of truth, so that it will manifest it above all other systems/religions, even if those who set up partners (with God) dislike it. “O you who acknowledge, shall I lead you to a trade that will save you from painful retribution?” “That you acknowledge God and His messenger and strive in the cause of God with your money and your lives/souls. This is best for you, if only you knew.”

But the devil whispered to him, he said, “O Adam, shall I lead you to the tree of immortality and a kingdom which will not waste away?” (Quran 20:120)

It’s almost as if the devil/serpent was like a false prophet to Adam and his mate/pair. See Quran 25:20, 25:31, and 6:112.

Also, note that when Adam and his pair were in paradise, there is no indication that they had rivers flowing beneath them. Further note that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (see Genesis 1), and that hell was not mentioned as being created in the beginning.

Other things that might be worth noting include the angels describing Mary as the woman whom God chose over the women of the worlds (Quran 3:42), and her being the only one described by name as having a river flow beneath her (Quran 19:24), and that this was conveyed to her by “Our” spirit that was sent to her that had taken the form of a man in all similarities (Quran 19:16-19, 19:24). Further note that Israel is described as being God’s first born child (Exodus 4:22) and in the Quran, the Children of Israel are described as having being God’s most favoured people (Quran 2:122). Finally, to my understanding, only two people have been explicitly described as being messiahs: Jesus son of Mary (Quran 9:31) and King Cyrus of Persia (Isaiah 45:1).

He will then forgive your sins, and admit you into paradises with rivers flowing beneath, and beautiful mansions in the gardens of Eden. This is the greatest triumph. (Quran 61:12)

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

Why it is Impossible for God’s Attributes to be Contradictory

Updated 15/10/2021

In this post, when I refer to the objectively perfect version of a thing, I will usually capitalise it. So if I write Triangle, then I am referring to a truly/objectively perfect triangle (it might be worth highlighting here that what may look completely/perfectly/absolutely triangular to my imperfect subjective eyes, may not objectively be a perfect triangle. It may be that if I zoom in enough with a magnifier, I will realise that the sides of the triangle I’m looking at are not perfectly straight). If I write triangle, then I am referring to an imperfect triangle. There will be times where I will not capitalise (for example, instead of writing Omnipotence/Might, I will either write objectively perfect might, or His might).

The primary goal of this post is to show that it is impossible for Omniscience, Omnipotence, Perfection, and Infinity to ever be contradictory. At the end of the post I will demonstrate how Forgiveness and Mercy are true of God without it amounting to Justice being contradicted or sacrificed in any way.

Omnipotence

Omnipotence = being able to do all that is doable in an absolute sense. That which is Omnipotent cannot be expected to “create a round square” because creating a round square cannot be classified as a doable thing. Since it is not a doable thing, it is irrelevant to Omnipotence. For something to be meaningfully classed as being doable (and therefore expected of an Omnipotent being to be able to do), it must at least be meaningful. A round square is not a meaningful thing, therefore, creating one is an absurd/contradictory proposition. If one absurdly insists that the Omnipotent should be able to do absurd things like create something from nothing, or create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift, or be omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time, or move forwards and backwards at the same time, then the absurd answer of “yes He can” can be given. Maintaining such absurd standards one can then go on to insist that they have made sense of “an Omnipresent rock”, or “a rock so heavy that the Omnipotent/Omnipresent cannot lift”, or “round squares”, or “1 + 1 = 3” and then use them in “rational” discourse as though they are meaningful objections.

Consider the following objection to Omnipotence:

I can climb a mountain. That which is Omnipresent cannot climb a mountain. If the Omnipresent cannot climb a mountain, then He is not Omnipotent. 

Suppose a cripple had the ability to take full control of another person’s body. He takes control of a professional rock climber’s body and makes it (the rock climber’s body) climb a mountain. The rock climber was unconscious during this process and the cripple never left his own body. Who climbed the mountain?

Whilst the cripple can’t make his own body climb a mountain, he can make the rock climber’s body climb a mountain. The rock climber can make his own body climb a mountain, but he can’t make the cripple’s body climb a mountain. So whilst both the cripple and the rock climber can make the rock climber’s body climb a mountain, neither of them can get the cripple’s body to climb a mountain. God on the other hand can get the cripple’s body to climb a mountain. God can do what both the cripple and the rock climber can’t do (make the cripple’s body climb a mountain), as well as what the cripple and the rock climber can do (make the rock climber’s body climb a mountain). Let’s look at another similar objection:

I can certainly kill myself. God can’t kill Himself, therefore, God is not Omnipotent.

In truth, perhaps I can kill myself (I can’t kill myself if God renders me invincible to all but Himself. Or if He wills it to be such that my hands are tied because I am in some hospital for the mentally ill that won’t allow me to kill myself. Also, the rock climber from the previous example can’t have any control over his body if God cripples him). God can certainly kill me. I can’t kill God. God can’t kill God either. Therefore, God not being able to kill Himself is not an instance of me being able to do what God can’t do. Let’s look at another possible objection:

I can exist non-Omnipresently (as in I can be present in a non-Omnipresent manner). God can’t exist non-Omnipresently. I can do what God can’t do.

God Exists. I exist because of Existence (or more specifically, I exist because of God’s Existence). God created me and sustains me (He is the Creator, the Sustainer). God is Omnipresent, whereas I am non-Omnipresent. God can’t be other than Himself, but I can be other than myself. I can perhaps change my identity, personality, gender, or turn into ashes. But then again, God can certainly change my identity, personality, gender, or turn me into ashes too. Whilst it is true that I can be what God cannot, this is not the same as saying I can do what God cannot. If it is argued that I can make myself exist non-Omnipresently (which I can’t because I didn’t create me, and I don’t sustain me), then God can make me exist non-Omnipresently too. Clearly, there’s nothing that I or anyone else can do that God can’t do. Let’s move onto another style of objection to Omnipotence:

If God is Omniscient, then God knows what every free-willed being He created will choose to do before they actually do it. This brings God’s Omnipotence into question. How can God create free-willed beings if He knows what they are going to do in advance? If God cannot create free-willed beings, then God is not Omnipotent. 

For God, it is determined/known that I’m going to choose y in circumstance qxS. If circumstance qxS is brought about, I choose y. I literally choose. It is absurd to claim that God’s knowledge of what I would choose has resulted in me not choosing y. Either there’s no such thing as free-will (in which case it is irrelevant to Omnipotence) or there is such a thing as free-will (in which case it is relevant to Omnipotence, and God’s Omniscience takes nothing away from it).

Denying free-will is absurd. If I willingly eat food, then that is surely different to someone feeding me food against my will. If someone restrains me and injects me with poison, then that is surely different to me willingly injecting myself with poison. If I’m determined to always choose the good option (because I’m always reasonable and sufficiently knowledgable with regards to the options that I will be presented with, or, because I’m always reasonable and have good enough instincts with regards to what’s good and what’s not of the options that I will be presented with) and I am presented with ten equally good options, then I can choose to reject all options, or I can choose to choose an option. Barring all other considerations (such as God making me pass out before I can choose, or God impairing my judgement/disposition via some drug), given my disposition, it is guaranteed that I will choose an option. Which option I choose will be completely random.

Even if I am given a choice between food that I like and food that I dislike, it cannot be said that I have not been given a choice. If I am determined to usually choose the food that I like, then that’s still me choosing, except here, my choice is not completely random. It was expected of me to choose the food that I liked, whereas before, it was known of me to choose an option out of the ten available options (again, this was barring any sudden changes to my internal nature, or any external factors influencing me or denying me the ability to choose). There was zero expectation with regards to which of the ten options I would have chosen. This is because it was expected known that my choice would be completely random.

Another objection to Omnipotence:

1) If a being exists, then he must have some active tendency.

2) If a being has some active tendency, then he has some power to resist his creator (his creator in a truly absolute sense is God, not his parents. Some people seem to think they (or their bodies) can make a baby. This is not necessarily false, but it is not absolutely true either. The absolute truth is that God created the baby. The baby’s parents were a non-absolute part of the mechanism of his creation (by this I mean beings can be created without parents, but they cannot be created without God). The absolute truth encompasses absolutely all premises tied to the making of the baby because God absolutely encompasses all meaningful things/premises. The parents of the baby only encompass some premises whilst they and the premises they encompass are all contingent on and encompassed by God.

3) If a being has the power to resist his creator, then the creator does not have absolute power.

A child can resist the will of his parents (he is not absolutely contingent on them), but he cannot resist the will of God because he is wholly dependent on God (as are his parents). The above objection logically implies that a non-God being can will something without God willing it or fully wanting it. This is absurd. I believe the proceeding six paragraphs will conclusively show that none can resist the will of God (thereby refuting the above objection) whilst dealing with another objection at the same time.  

There is nothing knowable that God doesn’t account for or know (Knowledgeable/Omniscient). Also, He is Free (Able/Omnipotent), therefore, there is absolutely nothing that is done outside of His calculation and independently of His will. Both I and God know that God will not will imperfectly (God’s will is not imperfect because God is not imperfect). What God would will between two or more equally perfect possibilities, is either not knowledge to be had (therefore it’s not relevant to Omniscience), or it is knowledge to be had (in which case the Omniscient has this knowledge). If it is not knowledge to be had, then it can be said that the matter is unknown/random/undetermined. So in this case, despite God knowing that whatever He wills/chooses will be perfection, He does not know what He is going to will (as in He does not know which of the equally perfect possibilities He is going to will/choose). Consider the following objection:

I can predict things and make mistakes. How can that which is Omniscient predict things or make mistakes? He cannot. So how can He be Omnipotent if He cannot predict things or make mistakes?

The short answer: Just as you can predict things or make mistakes (whether intentional or unintentional), God can make you predict things or make mistakes too. God can make you do this intentionally or unintentionally on your part. Neither you nor God can make God make mistakes. Now for the long answer:

If your friend asks you to predict something but you pass out before you have a chance to do so, then both you and your friend wanted you to predict something, but God willed otherwise. It is God who gave you access to semantics and made you sentient enough to understand hypothetical possibilities. If this holds true of you now (and by this I mean something like you are able to predict because you are not unconscious or dead right now), then that is because God is choosing to continue to sustain you as a being that is able to predict things. If God wanted/willed you to be so unfocused that you are unable to meaningfully predict, then you would not be able to predict until God wills for this condition to be removed from you. You can want/will to become focused from an unfocused state, but your will cannot override the will/want of God (you do not have any active tendency such that it can resist the will of God). So long as God wills for you to be unfocused, you will remain unfocused no matter how hard you try/will to be focused. Thus, the only reason you can predict, is because God wants/wills you to be able to predict. Call this the first layer of God’s will in relation to you. The next layer is when does God want/will you to predict? That’s something you find out when you successfully predict something. If you willingly predicted something on Sunday in the kitchen, then God willed/wanted you to willingly predict something on Sunday in the kitchen. Another layer is how does God want you to predict? If you “unwillingly” predicted something because you had a gun to your head, then that’s certainly how God willed/wanted you to predict. It is also possibly/potentially how the one holding the gun to your head willed/wanted you to predict, but this is unknown to you because you don’t know the will of the one holding the gun. As in you don’t know which possibility/potentiality is real with regards to the one holding the gun. It is worth noting that by real here, I mean real in terms of the quality of that which you are experiencing. So although you don’t know the will of the gun-holder (you don’t even know for sure that he’s human), you do know that the will of God is for you to have a gun (or at least something that looks like a gun) held to your head, precisely because it’s actually really happening to you (dream or otherwise).

If a muscle spasm forces your hand to be raised without you raising it (or worse, it being raised against your will because it causes you pain/harm when it is raised), then it cannot be said that you raised your hand. You had absolutely no choice in the matter because despite you outputting your absolute/utmost willpower to prevent your hand from being raised, it was still raised. Just as there’s absolutely no way for 5kg to outweigh 6kg (until the 5kg weight weighs more than 6kg), there was absolutely no way for you to not have your hand raised because at that moment in time, your maximum willpower or state of being was insufficient in relation to what you wanted to not happen (thereby rendering you as absolutely without a choice in the matter).

If you chose to do as the criminal told you to do because he had a gun to your head, then it cannot be said you had absolutely no choice in the matter. Perhaps it can be said that you were put in a situation were none of the choices you could make were easy (or that you had no good choices to make). That depends on your character. You may find such a situation difficult, whereas another person might find it not difficult at all. Someone who doesn’t care about being shot may not find it difficult at all. Someone who sufficiently acknowledges that whatever happens will be objectively perfect, will definitely not find it difficult at all. Nor would someone who’s faith/trust or love in God is of sufficient quality (or genuine enough); nor someone who prioritises God ahead of everyone and everything else. Such people will definitely not find it difficult for the following reason: It is contradictory/impossible for one to genuinely prioritise God/Goodness ahead of everyone and everything else, and yet suffer on any level (note that prioritising Zeus or any other imperfect being or imperfect good that one might call “God” or wrongly view as God/Good, is not a case of genuinely prioritising God/Goodness ahead of everyone and everything else. A parent trying to save her child that she assumes to be innocent is doing the right thing, but if she finds this task grievous in any way, then this is because she lacks faith and trust in God’s Goodness and/or Might. This lack of faith and trust will be a product of her own lack of passion for truth, goodness, or God (which will have been a product of her excessive attachment to herself, her child, her nation, her culture, her inadequate belief system, her inadequate religion, or some other thing that amounts to being unfair to God). It will be a product of an inconsistency she would have had in relation to herself and God that she would have had failed to reconcile until it became perfection/just for her to be on the receiving end of such a hardship).

How can someone suffer when they genuinely view what’s happening as perfect? And how could they be evil if they genuinely prioritise Goodness ahead of everyone and everything else? If they are not evil, then it is absurd/contradictory/evil of God to will for them to suffer or be deprived on any level. Since God is Perfect, such people will definitely find a gun-to-the-head situation (or any other situation) not difficult at all. Of course, this does not mean God is unable to expose them to a situation that is difficult for them (perhaps God would inflict the most potent form of amnesia on them to the point of them no longer having the same instincts and standards that would have made them immune to suffering a gun-to-the-head situation, and then expose them to a gun-to-the-head-situation), it just means God wouldn’t because God’s will/intent is Good. God does not waste good intent. God appreciates/rewards good intent/will (or good faith) because God is Good. God is unfair to nobody. It is the people who are unfair to God or themselves. The willing betrayal/sacrifice of Good for evil is not without negative consequences (all things considered).

Whatever happens, happens because God wants/wills it to happen. Whatever doesn’t happen, fails to happen because God wants/wills different to it. How can it be other than this when it is God who creates and sustains in an Omniscient and Omnipotent manner? If something happens such that God thinks ‘I did not fully want this to the last atom’s weight’, then God is imperfect. God being imperfect is absurd (it contradicts the semantic of God/Good and Being/Existence).

To sum up Omnipotence, God knows what we will or won’t do under every possible circumstance, and chooses which possible circumstance comes to pass in relation to us. This encompasses saying God chooses what we choose to do (this is not the same as God choosing instead of us or in place of us. God chooses in place of God. We choose in place of us. I will discuss this further when discussing the attribute of Perfection).

With what has been said so far, how can one possibly do something that God cannot? How can one possibly conceive of something that is doable, yet at the same time, conceive the Omnipotent as not being able to do it? How can one conceive of a hypothetical possibility that is hypothetically impossible? If one cannot conceive of Omnipresence being contradictory, then how can one possibly coherently conceive of Omnipotence and Omniscience being contradictory?

Omniscience

Omniscience = knowing all that is knowable in an absolute sense. The Omniscient cannot be expected to “know what it’s like to sit and stand at the same time” because sitting and standing at the same time is an absurdity (which means it is not a knowable thing). Similarly, the Omniscient cannot be expected to “know what non-Existence or round-squares look like”. All such expectations or objections are absurd/contradictory, thus, they are not meaningful objections to Omniscience. Consider the following:

Does God know what it’s like to be me? Does God know what it’s like to be depressed, anxious, or in pain? Does God know what it’s like to be ignorant?

Nobody can attain consciousness or self-awareness independently of Existence (because everyone is wholly contingent/dependent on Existence). This entails that what it’s like to be me can be wholly broken down and explained, felt, understood, or known as a result of Existence being the way that It is. In other words, some relevant existing thing or things give rise to the knowledge and feeling of what it’s like to be me. All that’s required is to have appropriate and adequate access to those relevant existing thing or things. If I know what it’s like to be me, then I have sufficient access to those things. That which is Omnipresent has full reach and access to all existing things. This means that God has full access to those relevant existing thing or things. Thus, God fully knows what it’s like to be me. God also fully knows what it’s like to be depressed, anxious, ignorant, or in pain (He’d be imperfect if He didn’t). It might be worth highlighting here that God knows me better than I know myself (God is omniscient with regards to me because He is Omniscient. I am not omniscient with regards to me because I know there are knowable things about myself that I don’t know).

It might be objected that it is better to not feel depressed, anxious, or pain than it is to feel those feelings. Therefore, if God feels those feelings, how can He be Perfect? And if He doesn’t feel those feelings, how can He be Omniscient?

Omniscience does not require that one fully feels those feelings, just that one fully knows what those feelings feel like. I know what it’s like to feel anxious despite not feeling anxious right now. Is it necessarily the case that I needed to experience anxiety before knowing what it’s like to be anxious? Couldn’t a memory implant of someone else feeling anxious make me know what it’s like to feel anxious without ever having felt it? At this moment in time, I know what it’s like to feel anxious because I have a memory of it, not because I’m feeling it. Again, some existing thing or things give rise to me remembering what it feels like for me to be anxious, and the Omnipresent has full access to these things. Thus, God fully knows what it feels like for me to be anxious without Him ever having felt it. The same applies to any other feeling, state, emotion, sensation, and so on. 

Objectively speaking, it’s not unjust/evil for one to be inflicted with the feeling of being evil (unless one is not evil). Objectively speaking, it’s just/good to feel (and experience) evil, provided that one is evil. It’s not evil/unjust to suffer, unless one is not evil. God does not feel evil (because God is Good). God does not suffer (because God is Good). But God knows how to cause/create suffering for someone (not wholly unlike how He knows how to create earth and fire), or to make them feel evil. God only causes one to suffer or feel evil when it’s perfection (truly/perfectly deserved). Evil and suffering are aspects/attributes that belong to God’s creation (not wholly unlike how the attribute of roundness belongs to some shapes), they are not aspects/attributes of God Himself (God is not a planet; God is not round; God is not imperfect; God is not evil; God does not suffer). Similarly, finiteness and imperfectness are not aspects/attributes of God Himself (because God is Perfect and Infinite), they are aspects/attributes of some of the beings/things that God creates (though God does not create/sustain imperfectly. I will discuss this when I come to discuss the attribute of Perfection).  

With God having full reach/access to all existing things (or fully encompassing all things), how can there possibly be something knowable that He does not know? If something is knowable, then the information exists or is rooted in Existence, and is wholly sustained by Existence. If the information needs the right tool or mechanism to decipher/understand it, then God has access to both the information and the tool/mechanism needed to know/understand it. How can He not when He is the one who creates and sustains all tools, mechanisms, and information? He created us and sustains us complete with the tools or mechanisms we use to decipher/understand/know/feel/see/hear everything. From what a triangle is, to what it’s like to be evil or anxious. How can the Omniscient/Omnipresent not completely/perfectly/really/truly/100% know what He created and sustains? No part of us is independent of Existence. The impossibility/absurdity is in us fully knowing what it’s like to be God, not in God fully knowing what it’s like to be us. Not wholly knowing what it’s like to be God is necessarily an unknown to all non-God beings. The more a being resembles God/Being, the more a being is better able to understand/feel/see what it’s like to be God (but this understanding will never become truly complete, just as counting forever to Infinity will never result in reaching Infinity).

Knowns such as ‘Perfection = a truly perfect existence/being’ or ‘Omniscience = truly knowing all that is knowable’ should be treated as knowns. Unknowns to us such as ‘what it’s like to be Omniscient’ or ‘how many dimensions the Omnipresent has/is’, should be treated as unknowns. Absurdities such as “Omniscience and Perfection are absurd, meaningless, and irrelevant to Existence” or “Perfection = something other than a truly perfect existence/being” or even “perfection = something independent of a truly perfect existence/being” should be treated as absurdities in the same way that “triangles don’t have three sides” should be treated as an absurdity.

Perfection

One might object to Existence being Perfect by saying “an existence that has more than three dimensions is better than one that has only three. Since Existence has only three dimensions, it is imperfect”.

It may well be that Existence/Being has more dimensions to It than we can currently perceive, but that’s unknown to us. If it’s unknown to us, then we have no rational/meaningful right to bring it into rational discourse. What we do have rational/meaningful authority to say, is this: If it’s possible for existing or existence to have more dimensions than we can currently perceive, then Existence actually Has more dimensions, and we are simply unaware. Whilst it is true that we don’t have full knowledge of Existence, we have a priori outlines that cannot be meaningfully/rationally contradicted. Examples of such outlines include ‘triangles have three sides’ and ‘Existence is Perfect (or exists truly perfectly)’. Unknowns do not render such outlines as false, contradictory, or meaningless (though some absurdly choose to think they do). Some absurdly choose to think absurdity is true of Reality. Such way of thinking requires some bias towards evil, or a cheap view of truth/goodness, or just a lack of focus or thought on what Reality is. Absurdity can be true of beliefs, or sentences, or what people choose, but it cannot be true of Existence. The only reason x is absurd is because x is in contradiction to Existence/Truth. A falsehood is a falsehood precisely because it is not true of Existence. A liar is a liar precisely because he says what he believes to be not true of Reality. Jack can say he believes God is Good, but whether he really/genuinely believes this is or not (or whether he really wants to believe this) is another matter. I would not be surprised if there are some who absurdly think that ignoring truths or embracing absurdity is a way to genuinely/really believe that God is Good. It’s impossible/contradictory for you to think God is Good whilst lying to yourself (or others) in this way. You have not sufficiently seen/understood Good if you are doing this (which will have been down to your lack of sincerity to Goodness/God/Truth).

The problem of evil is another attempt at describing Existence as being imperfect. Simply put, if Existence is Perfect, then there should be no evil/injustice within It. There is evil in Existence, therefore, Existence is imperfect.

The short answer to this problem is that there is no evil in Existence because all beings (good or evil) exist perfectly in Existence. As in they all get what they perfectly deserve every millisecond to the last atom’s weight. It may not look that way to us because we are imperfect beings with imperfect vision/knowledge, but it certainly is that way because pure reason dictates it. You may think your father is an honourable man because your empirical observations oblige you to assume this, but your self awareness also obliges you to acknowledge that you do not know that he is an honourable man because you know/recognise/acknowledge that you lack omniscience with regards to him. What you do know is that a triangle has three sides, and that Existence is Perfect (provided that you’re appropriately and adequately focused on or aware of the semantic of God/Perfect or Existence/Being).

It’s perfection for good to be rewarded and for evil to be punished. I will attempt to show that the denial of this amounts to the contradictory position of “it being good to be evil”, or “it not being good to be good”, or “it not being evil to be evil”. 

An existence where triangles are impossibilities (like round-squares), or an existence where triangles are not three-sided, is an absurd existence (which makes it not Existence). An existence that does not accommodate the semantic of triangle, is an incomplete and imperfect existence/existent/being/thing. Thus, triangles being triangular is a perfection (as well as a truth. It’s also what I will call an “infinitive” because this truth can never change). It’s perfection for good to be good (or it’s truth/infinitive that goodness is good). It’s perfection for evil to be evil (or it’s truth that evil is evil). It’s perfection for triangles to be triangles. It’s Perfection for God to be God (or it’s Truth that God is God. It’s Truth with a capital T because absolutely all truths are contingent on God. The Omnipresent encompasses all things. The Truth encompasses all truths). Such is the nature of Existence/Being.

Again, the Subject (God) determines absolutely all truths (all truths are contingent on His nature or His will). Thus, only God is Self-existing or Self-contingent. I will attempt to further illustrate what I mean by this with the following sentence: It’s good for people to be good. This sentence is subjectively true as well as Subjectively/objectively true. It’s subjectively/objectively true in that it’s good for me and all other non-God beings to be good because Existence is Perfect, which entails we get what we perfectly deserve. In the case of good, what is deserved is happiness, joy, fulfilment, excitement, awe, and so on because all these states of being are good. It is Subjectively/objectively true in that it’s only good for people to be good because it’s perfection for good to be good (as in it’s an instance of what God/Truth/Perfection/Infinity/Good wills. Or it’s simply the nature of God that goodness or being good is good). Now consider the following:

It’s evil for people to be evil. Again, this is subjectively true and objectively true. It is subjectively true in that it’s evil for me and all other non-God beings to be evil because Existence is Perfect. In the case of evil, what is deserved is suffering, anxiety, depression, meaninglessness, and so on because all these states of being are evil/bad/harmful. It’s Subjectively/objectively true in that it’s only evil for people to be evil because it’s perfection for evil to be evil. It’s not perfection for evil to be good because it’s absurd for evil to be good (not true of Existence. Not rooted in Truth. Not what God wants/wills/intends). This is similar to saying it’s absurd for squares to be round (or for impossibilities to be possibilities). An existence where evil is better off and good is worse off, logically implies that it’s good to be evil, and evil to be good. It is literally a case of evil being good. Like roundness being triangular. Such an existence/existent/being/thing is clearly absurd/imperfect/evil/false/corrupt, or not truly/perfectly/consistently/rationally/coherently existing in relation to itself.

How can an imperfect existence/being accommodate the semantics of Perfect and Perfection, independently of God/Perfect or Existence/Being? Without God, an imperfect existence/being cannot accommodate the semantics of good and evil in a determined/logical/consistent manner, let alone Perfect and Perfection. There’s no such thing as an imperfect Existence similarly to how there’s no such a thing as a triangular Triangle. Having said that, there are imperfect beings/existents that exist perfectly purely as a result of that which Exists. That which Exists is God, not us. We are sustained by Existence, we are not Existence/Being. It would have been closer to Truth for Descartes to have said: I (whatever or whoever I may be) think, therefore God Exists. See my post “The true cogito” for more on this.

Given all that has been said so far, I can see someone arguing that since I cannot will anything except if God also wills it, then God willed me to be evil. Therefore, just as I am to blame for being evil, God is also to blame too.

Whilst God willed/chose that you choose to be evil, God did not choose for you, nor did He choose for Himself to be evil. Only that which chooses to be evil is to blame for being evil. God could not have willed for you to be evil if you had no meaningful/genuine choice in the matter, because then, by definition, you are not evil. Being free-willed is a necessary semantical component of being evil (as is being good). To reiterate what was said earlier when discussing Omnipotence: God chooses what we choose to do because God is the Chooser, the Free. This is not the same as God choosing instead of us or in place of us. God chooses in place of God. We choose in place of us.

Another matter that needs to be addressed, is hatred for evil. It’s perfection to hate genuine potent evil (the alternative is that it’s perfection to love evil, or that it’s good to have neutral feelings towards that which is willingly, knowingly, and unrepentantly potently evil). Since we are all created by God, this amounts to God hating some of his creation. Wouldn’t Existence be better if God did not hate?

Seeing evil suffer in proportion to its evil is satisfying for those who sufficiently love Good/Justice/God (it is impossible for you to fully love good but not fully hate evil at the same time. If you care for evil on any level, then this necessarily takes away from your love of good in equal proportion to the amount you care for evil. To leave unrepentant evil unpunished, is to not care for justice/goodness in proportion to the unrepentant evil left unpunished because evil is that which is in enmity to good. The greater the enmity, the greater the evil). God only hates that which hates Him (or that which fails to appreciate/acknowledge Him). So long as this hatred is perfectly satisfied, there is no imperfection in relation to His being/existence. Being perfectly satisfied is a good thing. It is a perfection. Any omission of perfection is an imperfection. Again, Existence is necessarily Perfect, Complete, and Existing. And again, p cannot be evil without p genuinely choosing to be evil (this entails that p be sufficiently aware that he is choosing evil or choosing to be evil/contradictory/unreasonable. If it’s not sufficiently clear to p that he is being evil, then p is not at fault for choosing to continue as is. Of course, one can be evil by failing to do something just as one can be evil by doing something. If p is trying hard to avoid getting clarity on whether he is being evil or not, then p is being evil for doing so).

Ultimately, one cannot love oneself as much if one views oneself as being imperfect. On the other hand, one cannot love oneself anymore if one genuinely and non-absurdly views oneself as being Perfect/Good/God. Clearly, absolute perfect love (call this Worship) for oneself only requires for one to be Perfect. It does not matter how this being Perfect is achieved, just that it be true to Perfection. Per the dictates of pure reason, only God is worthy of Worship.

I believe there is rich food for thought in scripture that I would like to highlight to the reader. Thus, from here on out I will quote scripture where I feel it good to do so. Consider the following verse from the Bible:

You shall not prostrate to them or worship/serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the inequity of the fathers on their sons to the third and fourth (generations) of those who hate Me (Exodus 20:5)

God = אֱלֹהֶ֙יךָ֙ (’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā) Noun – masculine plural construct | second person masculine singular – Strong’s Hebrew 430: gods — the supreme God, magistrates, a superlative

God = אֵ֣ל (’êl) Noun – masculine singular, Strong’s Hebrew 410: Strength — as adjective, mighty, the Almighty

visiting = פֹּ֠קֵד (pō·qêḏ) Verb – Qal – Participle – masculine singular, Strong’s Hebrew 6485: To visit, to oversee, muster, charge, care for, miss, deposit

inequity = עֲוֺ֨ן (‘ă·wōn) Noun – common singular construct Strong’s Hebrew 5771: Iniquity, guilt, punishment for iniquity

Also, as highlighted earlier, per the dictates of pure reason, only God is Good:

And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me Good? No one is Good except God alone. (Mark 10:18)

Another objection that focuses on the coherence of Perfection when taken together with Omnipotence is as follows: I can harm myself. God can never harm Himself, therefore, God is not Omnipotent.

God can certainly harm me. I can perhaps harm myself. I can’t harm God. God can’t harm Himself (because it’s impossible/absurd for Him to want/will this, not because he lacks the power to bring about imperfection by harming good and rewarding evil). Keeping in mind the previous two verses quoted from the Bible (with particular focus on the relationship between fathers and sons highlighted in Exodus 20:5), consider the following verse:

God is not a man, that He should lie, or a son of adam/man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and not act? Does He promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19)

Another objection is as follows: I can commit evil. God can never commit evil. I can do something that God can’t do.

You cannot commit evil because God won’t will/allow you to. Any evil that you think you have committed, if you find out all the premises in relation to it, you will conclude that it was perfection (unless of course you are not impartial and rational in how you judge/conclude). This does not mean that you are free from blame or that you are not evil. What you did amounted to perfection as a result of God’s positioning of free-willed beings in relation to one another, and/or, as a result of God’s handling of affairs regarding you and all who were involved. It did not amount to perfection as a result of your evil intent. It amounted to perfection as a result of God’s perfect intent. Your evil intent was just a part of the equation that satisfied perfection. You can contribute to Perfection happily/willingly, or unhappily/unwillingly; knowingly, or unknowingly. You can contribute to Perfection in a manner that’s good for you, or in a manner that’s bad/evil for you. What you can’t do, is compromise Perfection/Justice.

Regardless of how things look, you only harm or benefit those whom it was perfection to be harmed or benefitted (including yourself). If you successfully steal from someone, then you haven’t wronged the one whom you stole from because God wanted the person you stole from to be on the receiving end of you stealing from them. You wronged yourself, or chose wrongly/absurdly (provided that you were aware that what you were doing was evil/unjust. And provided that you wanted to be better off as opposed to worse off) because you are now worthy of punishment. Perhaps you’ll suffer some fear, shame, or regret. Perhaps you’ll be stolen from, go to jail, or be misguided to become further evil to the point of becoming worthy of hell (which you will have willingly chosen or knowingly consented to) so that it becomes perfection for you to suffer with maximum potency. Some people recognise that they are worthy of hell, but they do not believe in hell.

Whether at cost/harm to you, or at gain/benefit to you, God is always satisfied. If He hates you, then His satisfaction is derived from Him punishing you. If He loves you, then His satisfaction is derived from Him rewarding you. How much God loves or hates a particular being (and in what way), or how much God rewards or punishes a particular being (and in what way), depends on the being. 

There being an instance of objective imperfection or evil in “our” universe (or anywhere else in Existence) all things considered, is absurd. By objective imperfection or evil all things considered, I mean an objective instance of someone getting what they don’t truly deserve, or something existing imperfectly all things considered. Absurdities, lies, and evil exist, but what they describe is not true of Existence. By this I mean an absurd sentence is an absurd sentence because what it describes is not true of Existence. A liar is a liar because he says what he believes to be not true of Existence. An evil person is an evil person because he does what he believes to be evil/contradictory/unreasonable. Such a person would be willing to harm another against their will and against their best interest, but not be willing to be harmed against his will and against his best interest if the same standards applied. If you would punish/reward someone for something, but not punish/reward yourself for the same thing, then you are evil/contradictory in this regard. If you think evil intent should be rewarded, then consistency would have you reward those who have evil intent towards you. It is absurd/evil for anyone to want evil intent to be rewarded.

The appearance of things to some is such that they might say there’s a 99.9% chance that not everyone’s getting what they deserve. They might even say that it’s 100% certain that not everyone gets what they deserve. Neither claims are rational. Perfection is Omnipresent. This is 100%. Thus, there being people who don’t get what they deserve in our world is just the appearance of things to beings with imperfect vision/knowledge (or to beings that have not truly considered all things). It’s what they deserve to see or believe, until they don’t. One cannot should not sacrifice pure reason for the appearance of things (it is impossible to do this rationally but not impossible to do this impulsively, emotionally, or unreasonably). This is literally insanity/absurdity/madness/irrationality/evil. That which is 100% is always superior to that which is less than 100%. Do we want to be reasonable or unreasonable? Good or evil? Our choice is required in this equation. At the risk of stating the very obvious, Good is good for us, and evil is bad/evil for us. Only an idiot would strive against a truly perfect existence. Only a dumb or weak-willed person would fail to strive in Its cause. Only evil would betray God/Good for a non-God being. This does not harm God (God does not betray God), it harms the betrayer.   

Infinity

The final concept to discuss is Infinity. As with anything, if it is semantically inconsistent (contradictory all semantics considered), it must be rejected as being true of Existence. If it is meaningful and not absurd, then it must be acknowledged as being true of Existence. Removing some and still having the same amount remaining, is something that appears to be a characteristic of what they call “infinity” in mainstream maths. Can this be a characteristic of the Omnipresent? It cannot because you cannot remove anything from Existence. Existence is such that things can be destroyed, die, be given life to, etc. but none of these acts amount to something being added or taken away from Existence. Of course, this doesn’t show that Infinity is semantically inconsistent (Existence has to be Infinite in order to avoid clear and distinct semantical inconsistencies), it only shows that adding or taking away from Existence/Infinity is semantically inconsistent. For more on Infinity, consider the following: The solution to Russell’s paradox and the absurdity of more than one infinity.

In conclusion, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Perfection, and Infinity are all meaningful/rational concepts. Those who have argued against the meaningfulness of these concepts, have done so by treating unknowns or absurdities as though they are meaningful objections. Unknowns or absurdities should not be presented as rational/meaningful objections. They should not be attributed to God or Existence. We should not think that we have meaningfully (as opposed to unknowingly/meaninglessly) found a way wherein which Existence could be more Omnipresent when we are dealing with an unknown (such as a 10th sense), or, that we have meaningfully (as opposed to absurdly/meaninglessly) found a way for God to be more Omnipotent when we are dealing with an absurdity (such as creating round squares). What it’s like to be Omniscient or Omnipresent (an unknown to all non-Omnipresent beings), should not have any effect on the clear meaningfulness of Omniscience. Should one disregard the clear meaningfulness of Omnipresence just because there are things one does not know about the Omnipresent (such as does the Omnipresent accommodate a 10th sense)? Of course not. So why would one do this with Omniscience?

The compatibility of Justice, Forgiveness, and Mercy

If God is Just, then how can He be Forgiving and Merciful?

If x is evil in relation to you, then you either:

p) Punish him

f) Forgive him

If you commit to p, then that’s an eye for an eye (intent to harm and committing to this, for intent to harm and committing to this). If you commit to f, then you may have done in an unjust manner. Whether you did or not, depends on the following:

If you forgiving x results in you suffering a loss of good or being harmed/wronged in any way, then you should not forgive him because that would be a case of injustice. That would be a case of you sacrificing the innocent (in this case yourself) for x’s past evil in relation to you. That would be a case of sacrificing good for evil. It should be x who should be willing to sacrifice for you. It should be evil that should be willingly sacrificed for good.

If you forgiving him results in you not being harmed or wronged at all, then it is not necessarily unjust for you to forgive him. Assuming that he was genuinely sorry such that he was no longer evil in relation to you (so intent to harm, rape, oppress or cheat had genuinely subsided/ended in him), and that his past evil was not responsible for harming you in any way, then it can be said that x wronged/harmed nobody. So by you forgiving him, you show him forgiveness whilst not being unjust. Again, you were not wronged/harmed, and x is no longer evil in relation to you (so it is not a case of treating evil as though it is ok to be evil).

It might be objected here that x was evil, therefore, to not punish him is to treat x as though it was ok to be evil. If it was ok for x to be evil then it would not have been necessary for him to genuinely repent to avoid being punished (it might be worth noting here that some find it humiliating or shameful seeing themselves as evil (which is in itself a punishment), and some are so evil that they will not genuinely repent until they have tasted some retribution for willing to be evil at the cost of willing to be good. For emphasis, by genuine repentance I mean that which has taken place internally, not just what the “repenter” says. What he says could be inaccurate with regards to him and his soul). So this is not a case of treating x as though it was ok to be evil.

Suppose the quality of x’s repentance was such that for some good reason he was genuinely willing to suffer for you or die for you. Such self-sacrifice for another is usually found in people who love someone else deeply (like a parent in relation to their child). It’s not primarily the consequences of the actions of a person that should make you love or hate them. It’s the person/intent that has outputted the actions you should love or hate. What happens when the present person you are dealing with has good intent in relation to you? By good intent I mean that which is in line with serving God. If an individual is willing to suffer for another or kill for this other because they worship this other at the cost of worshiping/serving God/Goodness, then they are evil. It’s hard to picture such an individual as being loveable or good to have a relationship with (even if they are your parent, child, or partner. Even if they are willing to die for you). Of course, there are also those who love being treated like a god. Such individuals are also hard to picture as loveable or good to have a relationship with. They want to be treated like that which they are not (God), and those who are willing to treat them this way treat God like He is not God. Forgiveness should be exercised for the love of Good/God. If the quality of x’s soul is such that he is good, then you should treat him as such. Treating him as such potentially includes forgiving him for his past evil. I discuss this in more detail in the following post: The true religion.

Had x harmed you, and you thought him to be still evil, but you forgave him purely because you liked his appearance, then you would have done wrongly/unjustly. You would have embraced evil in the name of “forgiveness” (perhaps like a drug addict taking drugs in the name of a “meaningful and fulfilling life”) and you would have made yourself worthy of less good. You would have been cheap in your goodness. It takes evil to embrace evil. It takes evil to reject Good as opposed to acknowledge or appreciate It. You either sell yourself to God as much as possible, or you sacrifice selling yourself to God at the cost of selling yourself to what is cheaper/lesser than God. The quality of your sincerity to God/Goodness/Truth, determines the quality of your being. This is because only God is Good and Almighty.

God has purchased from those who acknowledge their very lives and their wealth; that they will have paradise. (Quran 9:111)

O mankind, what has deceived/deluded you concerning your Lord, the Generous? (Quran 82:6)

deception = Gh-Ra-Ra = deceived, beguiled, inexperienced or ignorant in affairs, act childish, exposed to perdition or destruction without knowing, danger, hazard; deficiency of, imperfect performance of; vain things, vanities

Generous = Kaf-Ra-Miim = To be productive, generous, precious, valuable, honourable, noble, All-Generous, Most Generous

To Him is what is in the heavens and what is in the earth, and what is in between… (Quran 20:6)

“The Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them. So serve Him and be patient in His service. (Quran 19:65)

serve = Ayn-Ba-Dal = serve, worship, adore, venerate, accept the impression of a thing, obey with submissiveness or humility, approve, apply, devote, obedience, slave, keep to inseparably, subdue, assemble together, enslave.

heavens = Siin-Miim-Waw = to be high/lofty, raised, name, attribute. samawat – heights/heavens/rain, raining clouds. ismun – mark of identification by which one is recognised. It is a derivation of wsm (pl. asma). ism – stands for a distinguishing mark of a thing, sometimes said to signify its reality.

He created seven heavens in tabaqah. You do not see/perceive/know any flaw/imperfection in the creation by The gracious/Alrahman. Keep looking/perceiving; do you see/perceive any flaw/imperfection/oversight? (Quran 67:3)

tabaqah = Tay-Ba-Qaf = to cover/overwhelm, to make a thing match/conform/suit/correspond/agree with another thing, to hit/get right, become accustomed/habituated, a thing that is equal of another thing of any kind in its measure so that it covers the whole extent of the latter like the lid, tibaqun – fittings, adapting, in order one above another, stages, layers, stories, series, plane, floors, stratum.

The gracious/Alrahman = Ra-Ha-Miim = Rahima – He favored, benefited, pardoned, or forgave him. To love, have tenderness, mercy, pity, forgiveness, have all that is required for exercising beneficence. Tarhamu – He had mercy, pity, or compassion on him; he pitied or compassionated him much. Arham – Wombs (singular) womb, i.e. place of origin. The receptacle of the young in the belly. Ruhmun – Relationship, i.e. nearness of kin, connection by birth; relationship connecting with an ancestor. A connection or tie of relationship. Rahman – it is active participle noun in the measure of fa’lan which conveys the idea of fullness and extensiveness. Rahim – it is in the measure of fa’il which denotes the idea of constant repetition and giving.

If you are evil and unrepentant, God is just and unforgiving in relation to you. This is what’s perfection in relation to unrepentant evil. If you were evil but then you genuinely/sincerely repented, then God is just and forgiving in relation to you. This is what’s perfection in relation to that which has sought God’s forgiveness (to not be punished) and mercy (to increase in goodness) with sincerity. God can always afford to be forgiving and merciful to genuinely/truly repentant individuals without being unjust to Himself or undervaluing Himself because God is Infinite. The mercy of God is at its most potent when it is genuinely appreciated because the one on the receiving end of it is more appreciative of Existence.

God does not forgive that partners be set up with Him, and He forgives other than that for whom He pleases. Whoever sets up partners with God has indeed strayed a far straying. (Quran 4:116)

You would have to serve other than God (or set up partners with God) to fail to genuinely seek His forgiveness and mercy. If reason tells you to do x (because that is what would be in line with a truly perfect existence), but you refuse to do so because you fear or favour some imperfect being more than you favour or fear God, then you have not sought, prioritised, or cared about a truly perfect existence. You have not sought God, therefore, you have not sought God’s forgiveness or mercy. Injustice or the loss of good should terrify you, and your clearest refuge from such thoughts should be God because God does not waste good in any way, shape, or form. He knows what we reveal and what we hide, and He handles all affairs to the last atom’s weight (or less or more) or millisecond (or less or more). The greatest protagonist you can conceive of will not be as morally good as God. None care about goodness as comprehensively and constantly as God.

So he (Satan) caused them to fall with deception; and when they tasted the tree, their shame became apparent to them, and they began to fasten over themselves from the leaves of the paradise; and their Lord called to them: “Did I not prohibit you from that tree, and tell you that Satan is your clear enemy?” (Quran 7:22)

caused them to fall = Dal-Lam-Waw (Dal-Lam-Alif) = To let down (e.g. a bucket into a well), to lower, a bucket, offer a bribe, convey.

tasted = Thal-Waw-Qaf to taste/experience/try/perceive. One who tastes, cause to taste.

shame = Siin-Waw-Alif = to treat badly, do evil to disgrace, be evil/wicked/vicious, ill, anything that makes a person sad and sorrowful, bad action, mischief and corruption, sin, evil doer, wretched or grievous, vex, annoy. su’atun (pl. suat) – corpse, external portion of both sexes, shame.

began = Tay-Fa-Qaf = begin/start to do something, to take to doing something, to set about, commence/initiate, continue uninterruptedly.

fasten = Kh-Sad-Fa = Adjoin or put together, to men, make a thing double putting one piece upon another, cover with a thing, have two colors, to lie (as though to sew one saying upon another, and thus, embellish it).

leaves = Waw-Ra-Qaf = to put forth leaves. waraqun is both sing. and pl. and is substantive noun from the verb waraqa. auraaq al-rajulu – the man became rich. warqun – leaves, foliage, sheet of paper, sheet of metal, coinage, wealth, prime and freshness of a thing, young lads of a community, beauty of a thing.

They said, “Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves/souls and if You do not forgive us and have mercy on us, then we will be of the losers!” (Quran 7:23)

wronged = Za-Lam-Miim = Zalama – To do wrong or evil, treat unjustly, ill-treat, oppress, harm, suppress, tyrannize, misuse, act wrongfully, deprive anyone of a right, misplace, injure, be oppressive, be guilty of injustice, act wickedly, be wanting in or fail.

It will be neither by what you desire, nor by what the people of the book desire. Whoever works evil, he will be paid by it; and he will not find for himself besides God any Patron or Protector. Whoever works good whether male or female, and is an acknowledger, then these will be admitted to paradise, and they will not be wronged in the least. (Quran 4:123-124)

desire = Miim-Nun-Ya = To try or to prove someone, to mediate, to wish or desire.

Wrongly Embracing Absurdities in the Name of Unknowns, and the Indubitable Nature of Semantics and Reason

(Last updated on 22/8/2021)

This post consists of four parts: “Meaningfully distinguishing between what is meaningful and what is meaningless”, “Scepticism”, “Our fallibility”, and “Meaningfully distinguishing between truth and falsehood”.

Meaningfully distinguishing between what is meaningful and what is meaningless

Suppose I said to you I saw a round square and you refused to believe me. Can I then meaningfully say to you “just because you haven’t seen round squares, doesn’t mean they don’t exist”? Further suppose I said to you that I have a tenth sense and you refused to believe me. Can I then meaningfully say to you “just because you don’t have a tenth sense, doesn’t mean such a thing is impossible”?

As far as I know, something like a tenth sense is either possible (like a unicorn or a tree) or impossible (like a square that’s triangular, or a possibility that’s impossible). Unlike a tenth sense, I know that a round square is certainly impossible. I (whoever or whatever I may be) am certainly aware of this regardless of the fact that I am not certain of who or what I really am. I can meaningfully doubt myself, but I cannot meaningfully doubt the triangularity of an actual triangle. This is what “I” am aware of. It is absurd for me to say I am unaware of that which I am aware of and vice versa.

Despite there being a clear meaningful categorical distinction between something like a tenth sense (an unknown to us) and a round square (a known absurdity), some fail to acknowledge this distinction. As a result of this, they go on to say absurd things. On one end of the spectrum you have those that will say it is absurd/impossible for you to have a tenth sense. On the other end of the spectrum you have those that will say it is possible for you to see a round square (perhaps courtesy of an evil demon). The former fail to treat unknowns as unknowns whilst the latter fail to treat absurdities as absurdities. Instead, the former treat unknowns as absurdities whilst the latter treat absurdities as unknowns. Consider the following:

1) What is the difference between “married” and “bachelor”? They both have different letter formations (hence why they are two different words). Also, they both have different meanings.

2) What is the difference between “sdnjkasdnkj” and “gngnrnjgsjnk”? They both have different letter formations. They are both meaningless to us.

3) What is the difference between “married man” and “single woman”? They both have different word formations. They both have different meanings.

4) What is the difference between “married bachelor” and “round square”? They both have different word formations. They are both absurd. Do we say they both have different meanings?

With 1, there is both a difference in how meaning is instantiated (different letter formations) and in the meaning the words generate (as in we can meaningfully distinguish between two words and two meanings). With 2, there is a difference in how meaninglessness is instantiated (different letter formations) but the meaninglessness the words generate is the same (as in we can meaningfully distinguish between two words, but not two meanings). With 4, there is a difference in how absurdity is instantiated (different meaningful word formations) but the absurdness the phrases generate is the same. If we say there is an intelligible or understandable difference between a “married bachelor” and a “round square”, then this difference is in the combination of words used to reach absurdity, not in the absurdness that the phrases generate. By this I mean a “round square” is about as understandable as a “married bachelor” (which is not understandable at all. As highlighted in 2, “sdnjkasdnkj” and “gngnrnjgsjnk” are not understandable to us at all). Contrasting 4 is the use of meaningful words to reach something meaningful (as is the case with 3).

Is there any difference between that which is meaningless (such “assdnjkasdnkj” or “ajkalg fnjadnjkf”) and that which is absurd? That which is absurd is made up of meaningful words whereas that which is meaningless is not made up of meaningful words. Despite this difference, both are meaningless. This difference may make it harder to see the meaninglessness of absurdity than it is to see the meaninglessness of pure gibberish. More importantly, it may also make the meaninglessness (or non-understandability) of one feel different to the meaninglessness of the other, despite the meaninglessness of both being the same. There is another category to consider:

5) What is the difference between ‘tenth sense’ and ‘tenth dimension’? They both have different word formations. They are both unknowns (at least to us me). Do we say they both have different meanings?

Despite being made up of different meaningful words, we cannot say they both have different meanings. We can make meaningful sense of ‘sense’ and ‘dimension’, or even ‘third sense’ and ‘third dimension’, but we cannot meaningfully make sense of ‘tenth sense’ or ‘tenth dimension’. If we cannot make meaningful sense of them, then we cannot describe them as being meaningful to us. We must therefore describe them as being meaningless to us. Absurdities, unknowns, and gibberish are all meaningless to us. We should treat all meaninglessnesses as being equally meaningless. So that which is meaningless as a result of being absurd, is no more or less meaningless than that which is meaningless to us as a result of being unknown or gibberish.

Absurdity is that which is meaningless to all and not just us. No alien or god could ever make sense of what it is to sit and stand at the same time. I do not deny that it is unknown to me whether or not they possess senses that could help them make sense of things that I cannot, but this only applies to unknowns (see 5), not absurdities (see 4). Unlike unknowns, absurdities aren’t meaningless because we don’t understand or make sense of them. They are absurd because we understand a truth and recognise that its rejection is absurd/contradictory. For example, nothing can be two different things at the same time (like a square that’s triangular). We understand this as truth, therefore, we understand round squares as absurd precisely because they reject this truth (not because they don’t make sense to us like a tenth sense).

Round squares and married bachelors are examples of easily identifiable absurdities. They consist of just two words or semantics. There are absurd philosophical arguments wherein which absurdity is not as immediately identifiable. Before looking at one such example, it is worth reiterating an obvious truth: Whenever something is identified as being absurd, it must not be treated as an unknown, it must not be treated as something meaningful, and it must not be treated as though it is nothing. It must be treated as an absurdity. To do otherwise is to be absurd/irrational or semantically inconsistent.

Since absurdity is the rejection or contradiction of truth, if there are 0 absurdities (as in if round squares are not absurd), then there are 0 truths. Pyrrhonian sceptics adopt this view but for different reasons. Some would describe Pyrrhonian scepticism as the most extreme form of scepticism. But for something to be meaningfully described as ‘the most extreme form of scepticism’, must it not be at least meaningful? Must it be not be semantically consistent?

Scepticism

Accepting Pyrrhonian scepticism as a form of scepticism, is like accepting multishapism geometry (which deals with the study of round squares and triangular pentagons) as a form of geometry. Or it would be like accepting a round square as an actual shape. It is viewing something absurd as other than absurd. I will further illustrate why Pyrrhonian scepticism is meaningfully absurd/unjustified/wrong/contradictory

Let’s label that which is always true (for example triangles having three sides) as a basic belief. The Pyrrhonian sceptic asks “If basic beliefs are justified but not by other beliefs, then how are they justified? What else besides beliefs is there that can justify beliefs?”. There can be nothing besides basic beliefs to justify beliefs. This answers the sceptic’s latter question (which I will attempt to justify in further detail). As for his former question, some respond with “our experiences”. But this is a mistake. If someone asks us “how are triangles three sided?”, we should not tell them “our experience makes triangles three sided” or that “our being makes triangles three sided”. Rather, we should tell them “it’s just the way Existence is” or “triangles are three sided because being three-sided is a necessary semantical component of triangle”. So if someone asks “how are basic beliefs justified?”, we should not tell them “our experience makes basic beliefs justified”. We should tell them “basic beliefs just are justified just as triangles just are three-sided shapes” or “it’s just the way Existence is”. The Pyrrhonian sceptic will then say that this sort of reasoning is circular. Either ‘triangles are triangular because they just are’ is not a case of circular reasoning, or it is a case of circular reasoning. If it is to be viewed as a case of circular reasoning, then I will proceed to show that circular reasoning is sometimes meaningfully right/justified/rational, and sometimes meaningfully wrong/irrational/absurd/contradictory. 

Consider the following cases of circular reasoning:

1) Jack is smiling because he is happy.

2) Triangles are justified as being understood as shapes because being a shape is a necessary semantical component of being a triangle.

Smiling is not a semantical component of happiness. In other words, it is not absurd for someone to be happy without smiling. If 1 implies smiling is a semantical component of happiness, then 1 is circular but absurd. Being a shape is a necessary semantical component of triangles. In other words, it is absurd for something to be triangular without being a shape. If 2 amounts to saying this, then 2 is circular but true. Now consider the following:

3) Basic beliefs are justified as being understood as always true because being always true is a necessary semantical component of being a basic belief.

4) That is a basic belief because it is always true.

As already highlighted, if there are no basic beliefs then there are no truths. So where 3 is not true, 1-4 are neither true, false, nor meaningful. Rejection of 4 logically implies nothing is truly meaningful or that semantics are fallible or amenable to change. This is the equivalent of saying that the semantic of ‘triangle’ can be changed to the semantic of ‘square’. Whilst we can change the word or label we ascribe to a given semantic, we cannot change the semantic itself. This is why we meaningfully have different languages. It is also why one language can be meaningfully translated to another.

How can we reject our own awareness of the semantic of triangle? And how can triangles be considered meaningful when it is not true or absurd that triangles have three sides? Triangles have always been meaningful and they have always meant the same thing (despite there being variations of them and an increase in understanding of them; you do not normally learn about the angles in a triangle until you do maths in school) because semantics are neither meaningfully dubitable nor meaningfully/semantically susceptible to change. You cannot meaningfully doubt the triangularity of triangle. You cannot meaningfully doubt the semantic of triangle as meaning what it means. To say that you can or have, is to say that you can or have seen a round square. Whilst you may have a 10th sense, you have certainly not seen a round square. Similarly, you have certainly not doubted the semantic of triangle as meaning what it means.

The previous two paragraphs show that if we accept 2 to be true (which we must do if we are semantically-aware of the semantic of triangle), then we must also accept 3 to be true as well. This means that we accept at least two instances of 4 to be true. The Pyrrhonian sceptic rejects 4 but denies any rejection has occurred on his part. What the Pyrrhonian sceptic wants is to refuse to commit to anything (this includes the commitment of refusing to commit to anything, which of course is impossible/absurd for a semantically-aware being to do). The position the Pyrrhonian sceptic takes of truly knowing nothing (or being aware of no semantic), can only hold true of insentient objects like rocks. I can say a truly insentient rock truly knows nothing because it is insentient. A self-aware semantically-aware subject cannot believe he knows nothing whilst being aware of semantics. Pyrrhonian scepticism is clearly absurd, therefore, it should not be treated as being meaningful, unknown, or gibberish. It should also not be treated as though it is nothing (which is what the most extreme nihilist would have us do), it should be treated as absurd. But what about our fallibility?

Our fallibility

Some will argue that our fallibility is such that we may understand something as being absurd, without that thing actually being absurd. Also, we may understand something as being true, without that thing actually being true. I will proceed to show that this is impossible/absurd.

The notion that an evil demon is capable of manipulating me into understanding ‘something coming from nothing’ is false because such a thing (something coming from nothing) is not understandable/meaningful. Me looking as though I’ve been deceived into believing something can come from nothing, is because I have not thought about “nothingness” sufficiently. Perhaps the evil demon has made me mistake a vacuum for “nothingness”. Therefore, whilst I say I believe “something can come from nothing”, what I’m actually understanding/believing/thinking is that something can come from a vacuum. But then how can one understand/believe a vacuum with zero potential as having the potential to produce something? One cannot. Therefore, if I really/meaningfully/truly understand or believe anything, it is that something can come from a vacuum with potential. Me labelling the semantic of ‘vacuum with potential’ as “nothing”, does not mean I actually semantically/meaningfully understand something coming from nothing. Alternatively, I’m not really/meaningfully understanding anything. I’m just uttering words without really knowing what I mean and saying that I believe in them (a robot can be programmed to do this too). 

As long as I understand what ‘somethingness’ and “nothingness” mean, no matter how hard the evil demon tries (or even God for that matter), he will never be able to get me to meaningfully believe something can come from “nothing”. How can I believe something can come from “nothing” whilst knowing what “nothing” is? If I know what “nothing” is, then I know something cannot come from it. I cannot be said to have an understanding of “nothing” if I believe something can come from it.

Even if I don’t understand what ‘somethingness’ and “nothingness” amount to, the evil demon will still never be able to get me to meaningfully believe something can come from “nothing”. How can I believe something can come from “nothing” without knowing what “nothing” is? I cannot.

Our fallibility is in our use of the wrong labels with regards to the semantics we are trying to highlight, or, in feigning understand of a word or theory we have not understood. The concept of “nothing” is a good example of this. How do we know we’re not falsely understanding ‘triangles’ or feigning understanding of them?

With regards to the concept of “nothing”, there is confusion because of how it is commonly used in a semantically consistent or non-absurd manner. When someone says “there’s nothing here”, they know they don’t mean ‘there’s non-Existence here’. They mean ‘nothing but space’ or ‘nothing relevant’. This is a matter of mismatching labels and semantics, or just not being wholly focused on what is being said. Sure, someone can “understand” triangles as being squares as a result of mismatching the label of “triangle” for the semantic of ‘square’, but then we do not call that understanding. We call that misunderstanding. How do we know we’re not misunderstanding what a triangle is? We don’t. We just have to see a posteriori if our labels match (I label the semantic ‘triangle’ “triangle” and you label the semantic ‘triangle’ “triangle”). But we definitely know that the semantic of ‘triangle’ is the semantic of ‘triangle’. We definitely know that the semantic of ‘triangle’ is not the semantic of ‘square’ (just as we know that a married man is not a bachelor). Even if someone calls it a “square” or a “dagjkagl”, no one can successfully understand a three sided shape as not being three sided. They either understand what a triangle is, or they don’t. For emphasis: We cannot mistake/misunderstand one semantic for another. For example, we cannot mistake/misunderstand the semantic of three-sided for the semantic of four-sided. We can only misunderstand/mistake which semantic is being focused on by another person (if any semantic is being focused on at all).

Of course, one can then ask how do we know we’ve understood what a triangle is? The simple answer is I don’t know if you’ve understood or are semantically-aware of triangle. If you haven’t, then you won’t be able to meaningfully talk about them (much like how a robot can be programmed to say something meaningful without being meaningfully aware of what it is saying). If I haven’t, then I won’t be able to be aware of them. If I’ve thought about them, then I’ve understood them to the level that I’ve successfully thought about them. If I’m aware of the semantic, then I’m aware of the semantic. This is meaningfully undeniable (as in one can absurdly or meaninglessly deny this, but they cannot meaningfully deny it). It cannot be that I was actually thinking about squares when I was actually thinking about triangles. And it cannot be that I was actually not thinking at all, when I was actually thinking about triangles. We can look at a more complex example, but the conclusion will be the same.

It is the norm for people to say triangles are three-sided and water is h2o. When people are asked “are all triangles three-sided?”, all who understand triangles (as well as the question), will say “yes” (unless they’re joking lying). If you ask someone “is water always h2o?”, they will either say “yes”, “no”, or “I don’t know”. If they say “I don’t know” and they are truthful, then they admit they haven’t thought about the matter enough or understood the question enough to be able to give a conclusive answer. This is not a matter of understanding something true as being false, or vice versa. It is simply an unknown to the person at hand. It is a lack of understanding or the absence of understanding. Despite this lack of understanding, some will inaccurately answer “yes” as opposed to accurately answering “I’m not sure” or “I’m not sure I understand the question”. Again, despite their inaccurate answer, this is not a case of understanding something false as being true. It is a lack of understanding of something.

If someone answers “no” and you ask them “when is water not h2o?” and they reply “water in dreams is not h2o”, then you know they understood what you meant by the question because they have given you the truth in relation to the question you asked of them with regards to the semantics you had in mind when you asked them the question. In other words, given the semantics involved, only one answer from them could have been semantically consistent, and they gave it to you. More specifically, you know their answer was true because describing water in dreams as not being water is absurd (semantically inconsistent). Your question semantically encompassed all forms of water and was labelled “water” as opposed to “the water that x is under the impression of scientists in what he calls his waking reality describe”.

Despite most (if not all) people acknowledging the existence of water in dreams, some such acknowledging people will answer “yes”. How can one have such an acknowledgement and answer “yes” to the question asked? Provided that one is not forgetful of this acknowledgement, one cannot truthfully answer “yes”. One can either fully understand the question, fully misunderstand the question, partially understand the question, partially misunderstand the question, partially understand and partially misunderstand the question, partially not understand the question, or fully not understand the question (as is the case with a robot or someone who just doesn’t listen to the question at all). Such acknowledging people cannot fully understand the question and then answer wrongly (unless they want to be absurd/contradictory or are forgetful/unfocused/unmindful of their acknowledgment. People are sometimes absurd in order to be funny, sometimes they are absurd for more sinister reasons. Sometimes they’re forgetful or not sufficiently focused). I will try to illustrate this further:

For someone to understand water as always being h2o, they’d have to understand h2o as being a necessary semantical component of water (just as three-sidedness is a necessary semantical component of triangle; hence why ‘triangles are always three-sided’ is a basic belief). Such an understanding of water is impossible (just as an understanding of 1 + 1 = sometimes 3 is impossible). Since such an understanding of water is impossible, then the person who answered “yes” to “is water always h2o?”, either understood the question (not the semantic) as meaning something else, or did not understand or focus on the question sufficiently but feigned understanding (if you told them the correct answer would win them a million dollars, they may not have answered incorrectly). It has to be one or the other, or a mixture of both.

One can wrongly label that which is semantically an a posteriori matter as “an a priori matter”, or that which they think is ‘almost certain’ as “100%”. But one cannot understand the a posteriori and the a priori (or almost certain and 100%) as being the same. One can wrongly label the semantic ‘water which the scientists in what the present moment me thinks my memories describe’ as “water” and correctly describe and understand this semantic as containing the semantical component of what we I call “h2o”, but this is not the same as one understanding the actual semantic of ‘water’ as always being h2o. Water in video games is not necessarily h2o, but triangles in video games (or anywhere else) are necessarily shapes. Again, it’s either a misunderstanding of labels, or a lack of focus on the semantical implications of what is being said, or just simply a lack of focus.

Every instance wherein which we pretended to understand something, we were aware that we were pretending. Every instance wherein which we understood ourselves as having understood something, we really did understand something. We can’t understand something yet pretend to understand it at the same time. It’s not pretend understanding if it’s actual understanding. Later finding out that our understanding was actually an understanding of another word or theory, or that our understanding was partial as opposed to complete, does not mean that we misunderstood one semantic for another semantic. You cannot mistake the semantic of ‘night’ for the semantic of ‘Knight’. A new English language learner can understandably misunderstand us as meaning ‘night’ when we say “it’s Knight time” when it’s time to watch the tv series “Knight” that happens to be on at night (and the learner is unaware of the TV series). Semantics are not at fault here.

Where someone attempts to make clear to us the impossibilities or contradictions in a contradictory movie or philosophical argument, we either recognise/understand the contradictions, or we don’t. If we don’t recognise the contradictions, no understanding has taken place. So it’s not a case of understanding something false as being true. If we do recognise the contradictions, then understanding has taken place and we recognise something false/absurd as being false/absurd. Alternatively, we just hold a different understanding to what the movie or philosophical argument intended by smuggling in premises or semantics that are irrelevant to what the movie or philosophical argument intended. For example, a contradictory philosophical argument suggests that married bachelors can exist. If one smuggles in the semantic of ‘a bachelor who pretends to be married’ and attaches the label of “married bachelor” to it, and then expresses agreement with the contradictory philosophical argument, then one has not agreed with the philosophical argument because one has not understood the philosophical argument to be able to agree with it. Alternatively, where no understanding has occurred at all, how can one meaningfully agree with that which they don’t understand? How can one agree with that which is meaningless to them? They can pretend to agree, but they can’t truly agree.

Hopefully, what all this shows is that it is impossible/absurd for someone to genuinely understand something as a basic belief, without that thing actually being a basic belief. Sure, we add to our understanding of things, but the things that we genuinely understood before we furthered our understanding, never were contradictory or absurd. How could they be? We’ve always understood triangles as being three-sided shapes. At some point we understood additional truths about them. There can be no additional truth for us to learn that renders triangles as being anything other than three-sided shapes. We know this. Why absurdly treat it as an unknown?

Meaningfully distinguishing between truth and falsehood

Near the beginning of this post I stressed that absurdities should be treated as absurdities, and unknowns should be treated as unknowns. The semantic of unknown (that which we don’t know) is clearly distinct from the semantic of absurd (that which we know to be semantically inconsistent, or contradict a truth). Either this understanding is in place or it isn’t. If it is in place and one does recognise Pyrrhonian scepticism to be absurd, then one should not act as though they may know nothing. One should treat the absurd as absurd. One should not lie or be insincere to one’s awareness (which encompasses the semantics that one is aware of). It is absurd/wrong/contradictory of one to do so.

There is Existence (it is semantically inconsistent to deny this). 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, sustain, and 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 exist. It is contradictory 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 a unicorn just now). How real something is in its existing, is another matter. In any case, if x exists, then it is either in Existence (or sustained by Existence), or it is Existence.

Lies exist, but they are not true of Existence. For example, if I say to you “triangles have four sides” whilst being aware and focused on the semantics of ‘triangle’ and ‘four-sided’, then I have lied to you because I have knowingly described something that contradicts truth as truth. It is not true of the semantic of triangle (which is a part of Existence) that ‘having four sides’ is a semantical component of it. Similarly, it is not true of the semantic of me (which is a part of Existence) that it believes triangles to be four-sided. Thus, it is not true of Existence that triangles have four sides, and it is not true of Existence that I believe triangles have four sides. what is true of Existence is that I am a liar. Whilst people can be contradictory, Existence cannot. In other words, whist it is not contradictory/impossible for people to be contradictory, it is contradictory/impossible for Existence or Reality (capital R to emphasis the true reality that all lesser realities are contingent on or sustained by) to be contradictory.

Triangles have three sides because Existence/Reality is the way it is. In other words, Reality/Existence is such that triangles are always three sided. Existence/Reality is also such that planets aren’t always green. It is Reality that makes semantics true (a priori) and the labels we use for them possible (a posteriori). We are, after all, fully contingent on Existence/Reality (as opposed to non-Existence or non-Reality). We are not Existence for us to be able to meaningfully say “it is us who make triangles three-sided as opposed to Existence” or “Existence does not sustain us, we sustain Existence”. We did not get our semantics from non-Existence. When we say round squares are absurd, we are in effect saying Existence/Reality is such that round squares are not true of It (you will never see, imagine, or dream of a round square). Every truthful statement we make implicitly contains the premise ‘Existence is such that… ‘. On the other hand, every false statement we make inaccurately describes something about Existence. Consider the following definitions/semantics for the words “true” and “false”:

True = that which is in relation to Existence as described or stated. For example “our earth is round”.

False = that which is in relation to Existence not as described or stated. For example “our earth is flat”.

If Existence/Reality is such that our earth is round, then the statement “our earth is round” accurately/truthfully describes something in relation to Existence (in this case our earth). This match between how Existence is (specifically that it includes our earth which is round) and the statement, gives the statement the quality of being true or semantically consistent in relation to Existence. If Existence is such that our earth is flat, then the statement “our earth is round” inaccurately/falsely describes something about Existence. This mismatch between how Existence is and the statement, gives the statement the quality of being false or semantically inconsistent in relation to Existence.

True = that which semantically/meaningfully matches how Existence is.

False = that which semantically/meaningfully contradicts Existence.

An Attempt at a True Theory of Everything (Part 1: Existence)

Last updated 6/9/2021

This post consists of the following parts: “Existence, reality, and the imagination”, “Hypothetically possible versus hypothetically impossible”, “Determined versus random”, and “Time travel”.

Relevant from what was established in “Wrongly embracing absurdities in the name of unknowns, and the indubitable nature of semantics and reason” are the following truths:

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 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. In any case, if x exists, then it either belongs to Existence, or it is Existence.

It is also possibly good to be mindful of the following truths before proceeding:

Anything that is semantically/meaningfully inconsistent or contradictory (such as a word, statement, or belief), is definitely not true of Existence.

The existence of unicorns on our planet can be meaningfully doubted by beings who do not have absolute knowledge of what’s on our planet whilst being aware of our planet, but the existence of Existence can never be meaningfully doubted by any being. There are things/existents beyond our being/existing, but there are no things beyond Existence. Existence is never absent or not-Existing.

There is Existence, therefore, there is no non-Existence. Married-bachelors, round-triangles, existing-non-existing things, and non-Existence are all absurd/contradictory (semantically inconsistent).

Existence, reality, and the imagination

It is impossible to be thinking about nothing. One is either thinking about something, or one is not thinking at all (like a rock that is insentient). We cannot view thoughts as not being in Existence because that would imply they are “in non-Existence” (which is absurd). Also, thoughts cannot pop in and out of Existence because nothing can enter or exit Existence. There is no “bridge” or “door” or “connection” or “existent” separating Existence on one side from non-Existence on the other. If Existence was spatially or temporally finite, then that would mean it has an end. If Existence has an end, then non-Existence has a beginning (either spatially or temporally). Nothing can have a beginning in non-Existence (because non-Existence does not exist for something to have a beginning in it). Hence the absurdity of non-Existence. A finite dream or tree begins and ends in Existence (as do all other things with beginnings and ends). Existence does not begin or end in Existence because Existence is Existence (it encompasses all beginnings and ends) and non-Existence is absurd. Since non-Existence existing is contradictory, Existence is spatially and temporally infinite. Thus, anyone who holds the belief that Existence is finite, holds a contradictory/irrational belief.

Since there is no “bridge” to non-Existence in Existence for something to exit to; or put differently, since there is no non-Existence for something to enter Existence from, we are forced to conclude that all potential items of thought (including semantics) are in Existence. To reject this is to say items of thought do not exist in Existence, or that they are nothing, or that they are in non-Existence, or that they come from non-Existence. It is absurd to describe an existing thing such as an item of thought as existing in non-Existence (or independently of Existence).

We know that dreams and items of thought exist. The question is, how are they existing? We describe our waking experiences as being our most real, our dreams as being less real than our waking experiences (although some have claimed to have had dreams more real than that of their waking experiences), and our imaginative thoughts as being less real than our dreams. You’ve perhaps heard of someone comforting someone else who woke up from a nightmare saying “it wasn’t real, it was only a dream”. Nightmares or dreams cannot be said to have no reality whatsoever (by this I mean they cannot be said to be wholly independent of Reality like contradictions are). If you experience x, then x is a real experience for you (even though realer experiences may be hypothetically possible). How truly/potently/completely real the experience is, is another matter.

Can we describe virtual reality as a kind of reality? Surely if some virtual world (like the one that is depicted in the movie “The matrix”) felt as real as our real world, we’d have to describe it as feeling equally real. And if the virtual world felt more real than our real world, we’d have to describe it as feeling more real than our real world. In that scenario, we’d have to describe the mechanism that takes us from our less real “real” world to the more real “virtual” world, as a bridge between that which is less real to that which is more real. Thus, our standards would have to shift such that we label the “virtual” world as our real world, and our “real” world as our less real world. A priori speaking, how real something is, is the only relevant factor to describing how real something is. Whether a posteriori mechanisms such as being a brain in a vat, or being plugged in to the matrix is the truth or not, is another matter. So long as the a posteriori is correctly interpreted in line with the a priori such that it does not contradict the a priori, we have no contradictory, absurd, or semantically inconsistent beliefs/theories/interpretations/sayings.

As far as we know a posteriori, all virtual reality worlds games (such as those playable on Playstation vr) are designed by some game designer or developer who uses software to build them. The worlds are made accessible once the relevant device has been turned on, and they are accessed once the software is run and the headset is put on. Thus, with regards to virtual reality worlds games that we have access to, we have an a posteriori understanding of how they are made and how they are instantiated. When it comes to dreams, we are not as well informed. We need to go to sleep. That’s all we solidly know a posteriori. What are the tools used to build the dream worlds (if any)? Who designs the dream worlds (if anyone)? We recognise that there are an endless number of hypothetical possibilities or items of thought (just as there are an endless number of numbers or possible dreams). Do we create these items of thought from nothing? Obviously no because that would mean something has come from non-Existence.

Consider my current situation and what I’m doing now very specifically. I am doing activity a (sitting), in location xyz, at time t, in world p. With this being the case, can you meaningfully assert or imagine me doing a different activity b (standing), in the exact same location xyz, at the exact same time t, and in the exact same world p? No because that would amount to you imagining me as sitting and standing at the same time. You cannot imagine this. At best, you can imagine me doing activity b (standing), in a different but identical location xyz², at time t²in a different but identical world p², but certainly not in world p.

The previous paragraph shows that for some reason, we are not able to imagine anyone as sitting and standing at the same time. What is it that renders one thought as being irrational or hypothetically impossible, and another as being meaningful or hypothetically possible? With regards to our irrational thoughts, it is simply the case that they are hypothetically impossible because they can never exist, therefore, they are absolutely not true of Existence. For example, a round square can never exist, therefore, round squares are hypothetically impossible. If it was possible for them to exist in any way, shape, or form, then they would not be classed as a hypothetical impossibility. This explains why we can never make sense of them. How can we make sense of something that is not true of Existence whilst we are wholly dependent on Existence? We cannot.

Hypothetically possible versus hypothetically impossible

With regards to wholly meaningful items of thought such as hypothetical possibilities, non-absurd theories, stories, and so on, we can say with certainty that the mind isn’t accessing non-Existence (again, this is because non-Existence does not exist for it to be accessed). We can also say that it’s not creating something from nothing (or non-Existence). This means that it’s either creating something from something, or it’s just accessing something that’s already there. For the sake of highlighting a particular point, for the next three paragraphs forget the earlier conclusion of Existence is necessarily infinite.

Hume suggests that all our items of thought are constructed from simple concepts that we have attained through experience. For example, we experience shapes by seeing them, and we acquire them through this experience. Infinity is not an absurd concept. It has clear semantical value. Although we have not experienced anything infinite, we are aware of this semantic. So Hume’s empirical approach won’t work here. Where does infinity come from? What makes it possible for us to have awareness of such a semantic? As with everything, Existence (as opposed to non-Existence) makes it possible for us to have awareness of infinity. But how does It do this? What is the link between Existence and infinity? In other words, how do we explain infinity in terms of Existence?

Some, such as Hume himself, have argued that infinity is the negation of finite. We acquire awareness of finite by seeing finite things, and acquire awareness of infinity by negating finite. Thus, infinity is linked to Existence via finite. But how would this negation work? Semantically/meaningfully/rationally speaking, If you were to negate/erase the boundaries of anything, you would either be left with a smaller version of that thing, or the non-existence of that thing. If Existence was finite and you were to negate it, you would be left with non-Existence, not something infinite. On the other hand, if you were to negate all finite things within an infinite Existence, then all you would be left with is something infinite (Existence). But this is still not the same as “negating X results in an infinite X” (which is what Hume appeared to have had in mind). Y is infinite, X is finite. Negating the boundaries of X results in the non-existence of X and the continued Existence of Y. Or alternatively, it results in an even smaller version of X, and the continued Existence of Y. What it does not result in is the non-Existence of Y and the existence of an infinite X. Hume’s belief that we obtained infinity from finite, is clearly absurd/false/contradictory in relation to Existence or not true of Existence.

If we are to say that our minds (or us beings) have constructed the concept of infinity, with what have they constructed it with? We know that we cannot count or add to infinity (we can try, but we will never reach infinity). Is this truth something that our minds have constructed on their own, or is it simply a feature/truth/aspect of Existence that we are aware of (just as 1 + 1 = 2 is a truth of Existence)?

Clearly, when it comes to infinity, it’s not that the mind creates something from something (we do not create the semantic of infinity from the semantic of finite), it’s more a case of it focusing on or being aware of something. Does this mean that that which is infinite actually exists in Existence? That which is truly infinite cannot exist in Existence because It truly has no beginning and no end. The only thing that can truly have no beginning and no end, is Existence Itself (not something in It).

If we don’t view Existence as being truly infinite, then we cannot explain infinity in terms of Existence. This would mean that nothing infinite has ever existed or will ever exist. This would mean that infinity is hypothetically impossible. How can we who are wholly contingent on Existence make any sense of infinity if Existence was finite? How can a finite Existence conceive of an infinite Existence independently of an infinite Existence?

Unicorns exist at least as meaningful imaginary animals, whereas round-squares don’t exist as imaginary shapes because round-squares are not rational/meaningful shapes for one to be able to access via the imagination/mind or otherwise. Put differently, Existence is such that there’s no such thing as a round-square, therefore, round-squares are hypothetically impossible (absolutely/objectively/necessarily not true of Existence). There being unicorns on our planet is subjectively not true of Existence (as in we as subjects have this interpretation of our planet, but because we lack omniscience with regards to what’s on our planet, or because we have not empirically verified what’s on our planet in an absolute sense, we do not know if it is absolutely/necessarily true or false that there are unicorns on our planet). The claim “there are no unicorns on our planet” is an educated guess/assumption/conjecture by us. It is not knowledge that we have. It is knowledge that any being that has omniscience with regards to our planet has. We know triangles have three sides (as in we have knowledge of this). We don’t know if there are unicorns on our planet. We assume there aren’t (but it is probably not an unreasonable assumption for us given what we have been exposed to and our limitations to further empirically verify. In contrast to this it is probably unreasonable for us to assume that the earth is flat or that our neighbours are androids. It is certainly unreasonable for me to assume that the earth is flat or that my neighbours are androids. You may have been exposed to something that I have not that would make it reasonable for you to assume that your neighbours are androids or that the earth is flat). Clearly, there is a clear distinction between what we know and what we assume.

If infinity is a hypothetical impossibility, then it should be an irrational concept like “round-square”. It might be objected here that whilst all irrationalities are hypothetical impossibilities, not all hypothetical impossibilities are irrationalities/contradictions. Just as ‘shape with interior angles totalling 180 degrees’ and ‘triangle’ denote the same thing, ‘hypothetically impossible’ and ‘irrational’ also denote the same thing. What is the difference between them? Is it not the case that when we find a proposition to be hypothetically impossible we label it as being irrational/absurd/false or not true of Existence? And is it not the case that when we find a proposition to be absurd/false, we find it to be hypothetically impossible? My friend says that I’m at the park right now despite me being at home. It’s absurd/false/irrational/impossible for me to be at the park and at home at the same time. It is not true of Existence that I’m at the park when I’m at home (unless I have one foot in the park and one foot in my home. Still, the whole of me cannot be at home whilst the whole of me is at the park).

Suppose we were to say that infinity was hypothetically impossible but not irrational. How then would we be able to account for our awareness of it? We would be saying that infinity has nothing to do with Existence, yet we as beings who are fully dependent on Existence, have somehow managed to gain awareness of it from non-Existence. This is absurd. We know we could not have constructed the concept from other concepts, or reached it via the negation of some other concept. So what has allowed for our awareness of infinity if not Existence being truly infinite Itself?

As highlighted near the beginning of this post, Existence is necessarily truly infinite, therefore, infinity is not an absurd concept. As already highlighted but in different words, we cannot confine the truly infinite to just being in Existence (just as we cannot confine Existence to just being in Existence). Since nothing can become truly infinite (you can expand to infinity but you will never become truly infinite. You can count to infinity but you will never reach infinity), we are semantically/rationally obliged to say that infinity is not a hypothetical possibility. So the truth is not that Existence has the potential to be truly infinite, or that it is possibly truly infinite, or that that which is truly infinite is confined to our minds. Rather, the truth is that Existence is certainly infinite. We must view Existence as being truly infinite as that is the only way Existence can accommodate the semantic of infinity. That is the only way we can explain infinity in terms of Existence. That is the only way we can avoid the absurdity of something (our awareness of infinity) coming from nothing or non-Existence.

Infinity solves a lot of problems for us. If we were to view Existence as truly infinite, then all hypothetical possibilities truly become hypothetically possible. This is because there is infinite potential (some would call this Omnipotence) available for any given state of affairs, worlds, or beings to occur. In other words, in a truly infinite Existence, all hypothetical possibilities exist such that they can all come to attain reality or truth (this does not mean that they necessarily will. Can and will do not mean the same thing). Which is the same as saying all hypothetical possibilities truly are hypothetically possible. Now consider the alternative: Not all hypothetical possibilities can come to attain reality or truth. Which is the same as saying not all hypothetical possibilities are truly hypothetically possible. If x can’t ever be brought about or come to attain reality/truth (like a roundsquare), then how can x be considered as hypothetically possible? Shouldn’t it be considered as hypothetically impossible? If something is hypothetically possible, then it truly is a hypothetical possibility. We cannot say if something is hypothetically possible, then it may be a hypothetical possibility. It either is or it isn’t. This is different to saying that something like a 10th sense is a possibility. When we say 10th sense, we don’t have enough information to classify as hypothetically impossible or hypothetically possible. A 10th sense is an unknown to us. It is not a known hypothetical possibility to us. We should not be saying a 10th sense is hypothetically possible. We should be saying a 10th sense is an unknown to us. Similarly, we don’t have enough information to know if our Joe Biden (the one in our world) is doing anything right now. This is just another example of an unknown, but unlike a 10th sense, it is not as absolutely unknown to us. We can have some reasonable assumptions about Joe Biden (one such reasonable assumption is that he was born in America. The assumption is reasonable for us (or at least me) given our (or at least my) empirical observations) but we cannot have any reasonable assumptions about a 10th sense.

Assume we don’t know if time travel is hypothetically possible or not. Now compare the following two sentences:

A) It’s possible that time travel is hypothetically possible.

B) It’s unknown whether time travel is hypothetically possible or not.

There are things that we know to be hypothetically possible (such as me raising my arm in the next second), things that we know to be true (such as triangles having three sides), things that we know to be hypothetically impossible (such as a triangle having four sides), and things that we know we don’t know to be true, hypothetically possible, or hypothetically impossible (such as a 10th sense, or who will win the next World Cup, or whether I will raise my arm in the next second or not, or whether there will even be a next World Cup). Regarding the first three categories, we know the truth in relation to Existence. As in we know that Existence is such that my arm can (but not necessarily will) be raised in the next second, or that It is such that triangles have three sides, or that It is such that it does not include four-sided triangles. Regarding the fourth category, we don’t have the truth or knowledge in relation to Existence, and we know this. As in we know Existence is such that we are such that there are things about Existence that we don’t know.

There is no difference between something that’s possible and something that’s hypothetically possible. My usage of the phrase “hypothetically possible” instead of the word “possible” in A, was intended to highlight the difference between the two different semantical usages of the word “possible”. In one usage, “possible” is used to highlight our ignorance of something in relation to Existence. In another usage, “possible” is used to highlight our awareness/knowledge of something in relation to Existence. In the statement “it’s possible that time travel is possible“, the first “possible” highlights our ignorance about something in relation to Existence (does it include within it the potential for time travel? In other words, is time travel possible/knowable/meaningful/rational?), whilst the second ‘possible‘ highlights true potentiality or possibility. A possibility (something that we know can attain reality in Existence) can be contrasted with an unknown (something that we don’t know can attain reality (like a 10th sense), or, something that we don’t know will attain reality (like “our” hands being raised in the the next minute), or, something that we don’t know to be real/true or not real/true in relation to us (did “I” take out the trash?) or Existence (does Existence have more dimensions than “I” currently know?) or anything in It (are there unicorns in “our” galaxy?).

So, we don’t know if a 10th sense is absurd like a round square because we don’t have enough information about Existence to conclude absurd/irrational or meaningful/rational. Do we have enough information about unicorns to conclude rational or irrational/impossible? If we say unicorns are hypothetically impossible, then consistency in semantics would have us say unicorn is an absurd/irrational concept. Unicorn is clearly a meaningful/understandable concept, therefore, it is not a hypothetical impossibility. Furthermore, if we say unicorns are as meaningless to us as a 10th sense, or as ambiguous to us as time travel, we would be falsely describing ourselves as not clearly understanding what a unicorn is. Again, ‘unicorn’ is clearly meaningful to us, therefore, unicorns are at least hypothetically possible. By this I mean Existence has the potential to produce/create/sustain unicorns. Some may have already had dreams with unicorns in them. Some may have had some experience with unicorns or aliens. How real their experience was, is another matter.

If Existence is truly infinite (which it is), then it is not finite in terms of potential. It is absurd to say “Existence does not have the potential to produce another world similar to ours in terms of realness that contains unicorns”. To say such a thing is to say “unicorns as real as our horses are hypothetically impossible”. Such a statement logically implies that Existence is not truly infinite (due to limitations in potential), and Existence not being truly infinite is an irrational/contradictory statement. Round-squares are hypothetically impossible, but unicorns-as-real-as-our-horses is not an impossibility/absurdity. Nor is it an unknown (we know Existence can produce unicorns-as-real-as-our-horses precisely because It is truly infinite. Whether It will, is another matter).

Again, for emphasis, if unicorn is a hypothetical impossibility, then it should be an irrational/absurd concept. It should be meaningless or non-sensical. Clearly, it is a meaningful concept (not unlike how a musical note played by an instrument is an actual pitch or sound). Similarly, unicorns-as-real-as-our-horses is also a meaningful concept. It doesn’t matter that we reached the concept or semantic of ‘unicorn’ or ‘unicorn-as-real-as-our-horses’ by combining other concepts or semantics. I constructed the concept of ‘asfhjk’ (which denotes a tyrannical round square with horns and wings) from multiple concepts too, but somehow, unicorn instantiates clear meaning, whilst asfhjk instantiates clear absurdity. We know that no being can make sense of ‘asfhjk’, but we can make clear sense of ‘unicorn’. We must rationally account for why this happens. In other words, we must explain why this happens in terms of Existence, and in relation to Existence. Our task is simple: Since it is clearly absurd for Existence to be finite, it is clear that all meaningful things are meaningful as a result of Existence being what It is (truly infinite). A finite Existence cannot accommodate an infinite number of semantics (or possibilities), and something cannot come from non-Existence. 

Not all hypothetical possibilities have to attain reality in order for us to consider them as true hypothetical possibilities. Will attain reality, and can attain reality are two different truths/semantics. The former does not have to be true of all hypothetical possibilities for us to be able to say all hypothetical possibilities truly are hypothetically possible, but the latter does. We are rationally/semantically obliged to abstain from believing unicorns will attain physical reality somewhere in our universe, or have attained physical reality in our universe, because the matter is solidly unknown to us (and that is because we are not omniscient with regards to what’s in our universe, or what will be in our universe in the future). But we are rationally/semantically obliged to believe Existence can produce physical unicorns (physical by our standards) because we know ‘unicorn’ (or even ‘physical unicorn’) is a meaningful concept.

Joe Biden flying is not an impossibility. We are rationally obliged to acknowledge that a Joe Biden can fly because we know the proposition is meaningful. Do we have the same rational authority to say “our Joe Biden, the one in our world, can fly”? Could there be premises in place (such as gravity) that render such a thing as absurd? The answer to this question will hopefully become clearer and clearer in the posts that follow.

We know that whatever the mind does, it does so within Existence and with what Existence provides or sustains. It does so because of the nature of Existence (truly infinite). Given the necessity of a truly infinite Existence, and the semantical implications of a truly infinite Existence, it is clear that our minds never create something from something. They simply access, or focus on, or experience one of an endless number of hypothetical possibilities (which they sometimes reach by combining or adding different concepts and traits). This means that these hypothetical possibilities or items of thought are all in Existence (which is no different than saying hypothetical possibilities exist in Existence as opposed to exist in non-Existence, or not exist at all). As highlighted near the beginning of this post, items of thought cannot pop in and out of Existence. The same is true of hypothetical possibilities.

From an allegorical perspective, if you imagine an image that has not been coloured in as being a real/true hypothetical possibility, and imagine an image that has been coloured in in some way or to some degree as being a real hypothetical possibility that has attained reality/truth in relation to us (because we experienced it in some way or to some degree), then the point I’m trying to make might become clearer. That is, that all hypothetical possibilities exist in Existence irrespective of whether we’re imagining them, dreaming them, or experiencing them in a more potent manner. How else can we account for the semantical value of clearly meaningful things in terms of Existence? If one carefully reflects on this matter, they will see that rejecting this logically implies the acceptance of something coming from nothing. Also, the Copenhagen interpretation of the double slit experiment (which I will not go into detail) might serve as food for thought here.

Is nothingness or non-Existence meaningful? If Existence gives meaning to everything by everything existing in Existence, then that means that nothingness or non-Existence must also exist. This is false. Non-Existence is the negation or absence of Existence (which is absurd/contradictory/irrational). When someone says “there’s nothing in the box” they do not mean ‘there’s non-Existence in the box’. They mean ‘there’s only air inside the box’ or ‘there’s nothing relevant in the box’. When one tries to think of nothing, they probably think of a vacuum (which is not nothing). Non-Existence is the very definition of false/absurd or not true of Existence. Married bachelors are non-Existent or not true of Existence. Non-Existence is non-Existent or not true of Existence. If I meaningfully say I know what “nothing” or “married bachelors” are, then I’m saying I know they are absurdities. I’m saying I know that they are things that are not true of Existence. What I am not saying is that they are things that are true of Existence that I or some god have made sense of. It would be absurd/contradictory of me to say this.

One can think by focusing on sounds or letters that appear to have no purpose or meaning (for example, I’m thinking about “fsjkgfnsjkgsnjkg”). One can think by focusing on what is false or absurd (for example, I try thinking about “round squares”, “sitting and standing at the same time”, or “non-Existence”. If I’m doing any actual meaningful thinking in these cases, then I am simply thinking about how these propositions, or concepts, or phrases, are absurd). One can also think by focusing on what is rational/meaningful (for example, I’m thinking about ‘unicorns’, ‘whether to sit or stand’, ‘Existence’, ‘infinity’, and so on).

Let’s recap what has been said so far. All meaningful things (which include all hypothetical possibilities) and absurd things (which include absurd concepts, absurd beliefs, absurd people, and so on) exist in Existence. The former are true of Existence (as in what they describe actually exists in Existence (potential or otherwise). This is why they are meaningful) the latter are also true of Existence but what they describe isn’t true of Existence. This is why what they describe is meaningless, non-sensical, absurd, false, or impossible. An important relation between rational/irrational, truth/falsehood, Existence/non-Existence has hopefully been made clear (or clearer).

The truth about Existence is such that in the next second, I can physically raise my hand. In other words, it is hypothetically possible for me to raise my hand in the next second. If I do this, then the truth will be such that the hypothetical possibility of ‘p (a hypothetically possible me) doing action q in location xyz at time t’, attained physical reality in relation to me (the me that we think is the real me). Which would mean the proposition of p did action q in location xyz at time t attained truth/reality in relation to me is true of Existence. If I do not do this, then that hypothetical possibility will not have attained physical reality/truth in relation to me, and that proposition is not true of Existence. If physically travelling back in time is hypothetically impossible, and I did not physically raise my hand at that point in time, has the hypothetical possibility of me raising my hand at that point in time become hypothetically impossible?

Suppose myreality is such I am such that in addition to being able to stay or go back to any location xyz in “my” physical world, I can also physically (not just mentally) go back to any time t. Further suppose I raise my hand in the next second such that p has committed action q at location xyz at time t’ attained reality/truth in relation to me. I then desire for this hypothetical possibility (p committing action q at location xyz at time t) to attain reality again in relation to me. So I physically go back in time in an attempt to raise my hand again when that time physically comes. Wouldn’t that mean that I would find my past self sitting there? If I ask him to move in order to take his place and raise my hand, it is no longer the same hypothetical possibility attaining reality. Even if the past me moved over and I raised my hand in the exact same place, time, and manner to how the past me raised his hand, there is still a difference in what has attained reality/truth in relation to me. There is a difference between the present me and the past me such that the p that’s tied to me (or rooted in me) is not absolutely the same as the p that’s tied to the past me. The p in relation to the past me does not semantically encompass ‘he is physically travelling back in time‘, where as the p in relation to the present me does. This clear difference in who’s hand is being raised, means that both the propositions and the hypothetical possibilities are not the same. If I went back in time purely as an invisible observer, has the hypothetical possibility of p committing action q at location xyz at time t attained reality in relation to me (or even me) a second time? No.

If I go back in time to before the hypothetical possibility occurs or attains reality in relation to me, then at that past point in time that I’m in, the truth is such that the hypothetical possibility has not yet attained reality in relation to me. But has it attained truth/reality in relation to me? Since the hypothetical possibilities are not the same (because in one version it includes me being there, in another it doesn’t), the answer is no. Furthermore, for me to go back in time to raise my hand a second time at that point in time, or to just not raise my hand at that point in time, would amount to me raising my hand twice at the same time, or me not raising my hand and raising my hand at the same time (both of which are contradictory. You cannot raise your hand and not raise your hand at the same time. Also, you cannot raise your hand twice at the same time. You raise it the first time, then you raise it the second time at a different time to the first time). Time travel (the one where you go back in time to change the future you really truly came from) is clearly contradictory.

Determined versus random

Suppose we have a random number generator that can only be used once. It is definitely going to be used and it can generate any number from 1 to 100. Whilst any of these 100 hypothetical possibilities can come to attain reality in relation to the number generator, only one of these 100 hypothetical possibilities will come to attain reality. My friend and I are in the same world as the number generator. My friend has some knowledge of the future of this world such that he knows exactly what number the random number generator is going to generate. He says “there aren’t 100 hypothetical possibilities that can come to attain reality in relation to the random number generator. There is only one.” As far as he’s concerned, the other 99 hypothetical possibilities are actually impossibilities because they will not attain reality in relation to the number generator. Who is right? Me who believes in 100 hypothetical possibilities, or my friend who believes in one?

Compare and contrast two different number generators that can only be used once. Both generate the number 19. One was set to generate the number 19 in a determined manner, whilst the other was set to generate any number from 1 to 100 in a random manner. This literally means that whilst it (the random number generator) could have generated only one number (call this layer 1), that number could have been any number from 1 to 100 (call this layer 2). This is the same as saying any number from 1 to 100 was hypothetically possible for the random number generator to generate. Denying this would be an utter disregard for the semantics and the mechanisms involved in the numbers being generated. Knowledge of the future does not alter the mechanisms involved in the numbers being generated. One future outcome does not render all past possible outcomes as not being possible at that past point in time.

Consider the alternative: It’s only hypothetically possible for the random number generator to generate the number 19 (which is clearly descriptive of a random determined number generator. There’s no such thing as a random-determined, and there’s no such thing as a married-bachelor). But it’s not just a hypothetical possibility as far as my friend is concerned, it’s a reality/truth in relation to our world who’s time has not yet been reached. A hypothetical possibility that has not yet attained reality/truth in relation to our world yet (but certainly will). So my friend hasn’t just discovered what is hypothetically possible and what is not hypothetically possible. We “discovered” this together when we read the instruction manual for the random number generator which clearly stated “this random number generator can only generate one number from 1 to 100, and we guarantee that it really is random”. My friend has discovered which of these hypothetical possibilities will come to attain reality/truth. This discovery does not render the non-reality attaining hypothetical possibilities as being hypothetically impossible at that past point in time. Back then they were hypothetically possible, now they are hypothetically impossible. Further compare and contrast the following two sentences with regards to two number generators that can only be used once:

Sentence A: 100 hypothetical possibilities can come to attain reality and 1 (the number 19 being generated) will come to attain reality.

Sentence B: 1 hypothetical possibility (the number 19 being generated) can come to attain reality, and it will come to attain reality.

Both sentences A and B accurately describe the truth with regards to the state of two number generators before and after generating their number in world w. If we focus on the future aspect of their respective timelines, the truth is such that they both generate the number 19. The truth is also such that at this future point in time, all 100 hypothetical possibilities from sentence A, and the 1 hypothetical possibility from sentence B, are no longer hypothetically possible. They are, at this future point in time, hypothetically impossible because the past cannot occur in the future, and their time has passed. This does not mean that they have ceased to exist in Existence. The past does not go out of Existence, therefore, those past hypothetical possibilities also do not go out of Existence. This is why we are meaningfully able to say it was hypothetically possible. If those past hypothetical possibilities weren’t/aren’t/won’t be in Existence, no being would ever be able to talk about them at all as it would be a case of something coming from nothing. This is why we can imagine a different past to the one that actually/really/truly occurred for us (or in relation to us). Different pasts truly were hypothetically possible for us. We can also imagine futures that haven’t occurred for us. But unlike the past, we have no solid a posteriori idea of what the truth will be in relation to us (despite there objectively being such a truth in relation to us). I have no solid a posteriori idea if I will die tomorrow or go to the park, but I have a solid a posteriori idea of what I ate ten minutes ago.

It might be objected that since it was determined beforehand that the random number generator was going to generate the number 19, the number 19 wasn’t randomly generated. Where things are pre-determined, randomness is absurd. Is there a difference between something being known in advance, and something being pre-determined?

Consider free-will or our supposed ability to choose. For God who knows all that is knowable, it is determined/known that I’m going to choose y in circumstance x. This is a hypothetical possibility to me who’s truth is unknown to me, and a hypothetical possibility to God who’s truth is known to God. It’s a hypothetical possibility who’s truth is unknown to me in that I don’t know what I would choose in circumstance x despite knowing what I can choose in circumstance x. It’s a hypothetical possibility to God who’s truth is known to God in that God knows I can, and will choose y in circumstance x.

If God brings about circumstance x, I choose y (which of course means that I was determined to choose y and this was not a random choice. This is not unlike me being determined to choose to do things that I think are good, if I’m determined to choose to be good that is). I literally choose. Can one non-absurdly say that I did not choose? The hypothetical possibility semantically/meaningfully contains the word choose. This is the first indication of it being true that I chose (but of course I will defend/illustrate this further). If God does not bring about circumstance x, then the aforementioned hypothetical possibility does not change. As in it remains true of Existence that at that point in time, if I was exposed to circumstance x, I would have chosen y. But it may be that at a different future or past point in time, if I am/was exposed to x, I would not choose y. I will hopefully discuss free-will in my future posts. For now, let’s go back to number generators. The number generators that will be discussed in the proceeding paragraphs can be used endlessly.

God knows that it is determined that random number generator r, will generate 19 at G. G contains all information such as time, place, external factors in relation to r, and internal factors in relation to r. The following is absurd: Where the reality/truth is such that r is absolutely random, G is wholly irrelevant to r. It is absurd because it is the internal/inherent nature of r that determines whether r is truly random or not. So G cannot be irrelevant to r.

Let’s say q contains less information than G (it includes everything except internal factors in relation to r). Where r is generating its numbers such that q has no effect on the reality/truth in relation to how r is generating its numbers (in this case randomly), then r can be said to be generating its numbers in a random manner. Where a specific location results in r generating a specific number (for example, if r always generates the number 19 in the kitchen), then r is not a wholly random number generator because it is determined to generate the number 19 in the kitchen. Thus, where a change in r’s location alters how r generates its numbers, then r’s manner of generating its numbers is disrupted or changed by a change in its location. But a change in location can only meaningfully impact r’s manner of generating its numbers where there is some meaningful thing about this new location that effects r’s manner of generating its numbers. It also means there either was, or there has come to be something internal/inherent about r that clicks with this new location, such that r no longer generates its numbers in a completely random manner. The former is not absurd in any way. The latter can either be viewed as absurd, or non-absurd. It is absurd in the sense that going from absolute randomness to any level of determinedness, means the potential/possibility to become determined was actually always inherently there. It is not absurd in the sense that r was truly/absolutely random because it had 0 inherent potential for determinedness, but some external force changed it internally or inherently such that when its location was changed, it would click with that location, whereas before, it wouldn’t.

So long as its interior angles add up to exactly 180 degrees, x is absolutely/perfectly/truly triangular. So long as it is generating numbers in a purely random manner, r is absolutely/perfectly/truly random in generating its numbers. It is determined that the semantics of random and triangular are both indestructible/immutable (as are all other semantics in Existence, and of course Existence itself). It is also determined that a triangular thing, or a random number generator, are both mutable or destructible.

For God, it is determined that determined number generator d, will always generate 19. In this case, d is maximally determined and q is irrelevant to d’s inherent nature (unless of course d’s inherent nature is changed to something else, but by q here I mean external factors clicking with d’s inherent nature, not changing it).

The last three paragraphs show that you can have a maximally random number generator, and a maximally determined number generator. You can also have all that is in between randomness and determinedness. The last three paragraphs show this because the denial of their meaningfulness, leads to an inconsistency in semantics. Consider the following spectrum:

random——————-semi-random/semi-determined——————-determined

The closest to random semi-random number generator (call any semi-random number generator s-r), will almost always generate numbers randomly in an absolute/complete sense (what I mean by absolute here will hopefully become clear further on). There will be one q wherein which it will generate a specific number (let’s say the number 19) purely as a result of this specific q. Call this one specific q “qx” or “external circumstance x”, but don’t take it as an absolute specific (so instead of it being one absolutely specific Sunday, it is all hypothetically possible Sundays on September 19th 2021 in world w). This nearly maximally random s-r, will always generate 19 in/at/on qx, but will generate randomly in all other qs (external circumstances). But perhaps it can get even more random (or closer to randomness if we are to be absolute with regards to our standards).

Instead of s-r being determined to generate its number 19 in qx, it is instead determined to generate any of its numbers except the number 19. Let’s unpack this: Suppose s-r only generates one number a day (it is guaranteed to generate one number a day). Further suppose qx is Sunday, and qxS is any absolutely specific qx Sunday. So there is one qx, and an endless number of qxSs. If we say s-r has a 1% chance of generating any number but 19, and a 99% chance of generating any number randomly in each qxS, then that is necessarily absurd due to the following: Unlike each qx (which encompasses an endless number of qxSs), each qxS does not encompass anything other than itself. One qxS, one assigned number to that qxS. An endless number of qxSs, an endless number of numbers (one assigned to each qxS with the exception of the number 19). It is for this reason we are able to meaningfully/truly say “s-r can generate any number, but at qx it will generate any number but 19″.

If we say s-r has a 99% chance of generating randomly (it can generate any of its endless numbers) and a 1% chance of generating semi-randomly (it can generate any of its numbers except the number 19) in/at qx (which is one layer higher than qxS), then that is absurd because we need to be one layer higher than qx for this to be possible. We need something that encompasses an endless number of qxs such that in 1% of the qxs, it generates any of its numbers but 19, whilst in the other 99% of the qxs, it generates any of its numbers.

I should perhaps highlight here that a number generator that is able to generate only two numbers but does so in an absolutely random manner, is still absolutely random relative to its potential. However, its unpredictability or randomness is not with as much depth and breadth as a number generator that generates three numbers in an absolutely random manner (because it is potentially less random to an external observer in the sense that it has less numbers to generate in an absolutely random manner). Thus, whilst both number generators can be said to be absolutely random in the manner in which they are generating their numbers relative to their potential, the latter (the one with three numbers) is harder to correctly predict with regards to what number it will generate next (not with regards to what are the odds of it generating the number 1 when it can only generate the numbers 1 and 2). There is less room for error regarding the former, hence the justification for describing it as being easier to predict despite it being absolutely random. Of course, neither of these two random number generators are absolutely/objectively/completely/truly completely random (their inherent potential is limited due to the limited number of numbers they encompass) because the potential for greater randomness exists in Existence (not in them). Only a number generator that possesses all possible numbers (as opposed to just two or three) can (but not necessarily will) be truly completely random in generating numbers.

The closest to determined semi-determined number generator (call any semi-determined number generator s-d), will almost always generate the number 20. Suppose a number generator generates 20 in all qs, but at qx it generates 19. We cannot describe this number generator as being random in any way (so it is not an s-d at all). It is fully determined to generate 20 and 19 in a determined manner.

Call Sunday 19/9/2021 qx, and any absolutely specific qx qxS. Where s-d generates either 20 or 19 in qx, then p% of qx (that’s p percent of all qxSs) consists of 19, whilst the other percentage consists of 20. Hence the semi-randomness. With this being in place, we can describe this number generator as an s-d. The smaller the p%, the closer s-d is to being maximally determined in generating 20. Put differently, the greater the odds of s-d generating 20 at qx, the closer it is to being absolutely determined in generating 20.

Time travel

Since the past cannot occur in the future, the future cannot occur in the past. This clearly proves that time travel is absurd. If time travel is to have any semantically consistent or relevant value in relation to its label, then I believe the following is it:

From the present to the past: The present me, can enter another world that is identical to the world the past me occupied, and then start interacting with it.

From the future to the present: If a future “me” comes to me now and tells me that he is me from the future, I would know a priori that he doesn’t mean from the same world. The future “me” from the other world, is from a world identical to the one I would have found myself in had the future “me” not interfered. Though we’re not truly/really the same being (just as no two right angled triangles in two different locations are truly/really the same triangle, even though they are internally semantically identical), the future “me” a posteriori knows what kind of life I would have had had he not interfered. This a posteriori knowledge is possible here because everything about our two worlds is identical, right up until the point the future “me” interacts with me. Even if the future “me” travelled to my world as an invisible observer and did not interact with me, the two worlds are no longer identical. In one version/hypothetical possibility of my world (or in one possible truth/reality in relation to the world I occupy), a/the future “me” is present as an invisible observer, whereas in another version, the future “me” is not present as an invisible observer.

So, where the future “me” does interact with me, it is no longer hypothetically possible for me to be identical to the future “me”. Where the future “me” is just an invisible observer that does not alter the course of events in my world beyond just being there invisibly, I will continue to be internally identical to the future “me”. Given the infinite regress that can follow from this, there will have to be one original “me” that never had a future “me” observe “itself”.

From the past into the future: The same principle applies but in reverse. If a past “me” comes to me now and tells me he’s from the past, I would at first think that he is probably mistaken because I have no past memories of visiting a “me” that I am identical to now. But just as I necessarily stop being identical to the future “me” after he interacts with me, the past “me” necessarily stopped being identical to me after he differed to my past. Clearly, both the past “me” and the future “me” are not truly me. Despite this, it appears that I have a closer resemblance to the future “me” because I would have definitely become identical to the future “me” had the future “me” been entirely invisible when travelling back in time to my world to see me. The past “me” would not have become identical to me unless he somehow travelled to the future my world to see me as an invisible observer, and then travelled back in time to the world he came from, and then suffered an adequate amount of amnesia. This would then mean that the present me identically did all these things but just can’t remember. No amnesia is required of a future “me” for us to be identical. All other things being equal, the more memories I have of myself, the more I am me (or the greater I am in me-ness).

For any given subject, real happiness, fulfilment, satisfaction, and pleasure, is better than pretend/illusory versions of those things (though some level of happiness and satisfaction is better than no level of happiness or satisfaction. Thus, it is better to be somewhat happy and satisfied, then to not exist at all). The reverse of this is also possible: For any given subject, real unhappiness, anguish, grief, meaninglessness, and suffering is worse than pretend/illusory versions of those things. If God put me in hell to satisfy Perfection/God/Justice, then surely I would rather not exist (unless I believed there would be an end to it and that something good would follow it such that it outweighed all the bad before it). If I was mildly unhappy and unsatisfied, and there was never any way for this to turn into something good (like mild happiness or potent happiness), then it is better for me that I don’t exist at all. If some other being is benefitting from my suffering, then it is better for him that I exist. Whether this is right or wrong, depends on whether I’m objectively good or evil (I have discussed good and evil in all but one of my posts that proceed this post). It also depends on whether he is objectively good or evil. He does not deserve to be benefitted if he is evil, and I do not deserve to suffer if I am good. Nothing is worse than seeing good sacrificed, traded, or betrayed for evil. The inverse of this is perfection/good (as in it’s perfection for evil to suffer unhappiness and for good to enjoy happiness. Why else would it be good to be good and evil to be evil?). Some are willing to commit to the former (some more strong-willingly than others), some to the latter.

An Attempt at a True Theory of Everything (Part 2: The Nature of Existence)

Last updated 9/11/2021

This post consists of the following parts: “That which is necessarily at least as real as us”, “Infinity”, “Omni”, “The omnis that logically denote Existence in an absolute manner”, and “Perfection”.

That which is necessarily at least as real as us

We don’t partially exist in Existence and partially exist in non-Existence. The notion of an existing thing being partly in Existence and partly in non-Existence, is absurd. Thus, we (whoever or whatever we may really be) completely exist in Existence (completely in the sense that no part of us is/exists in non-Existence, not in the sense that we are truly complete beings/existents. Only Existence truly completely exists. Everything else that exists, completely exists as a part of Existence, not as Existence Itself). It is absurd to say we don’t truly/indubitably/completely exist in Existence. I acknowledge that who or what we really are is dubitable, but us (or at least me or whatever I may be) being in Existence is not dubitable. We are indubitably aware that we are in Existence (just as we are indubitably aware that triangles have three sides).

It is impossible for us to have no ties to that which is truly/completely/absolutely real because all worlds or realities (dream or otherwise), must be rooted in that which is truly/completely/really real. How can that which does not truly exist, independently give rise to that which truly exists? Similarly, how can that which is not truly real, independently give rise to that which is really/truly real? Or how can that which is less real, give rise to that which is more real than itself independently of that which is completely/perfectly/absolutely real? It cannot as it would amount to something coming from nothing. This shows that there definitely is a true reality (or a completely real being/existent).

Consider the semantic of ‘triangle’. The triangle I drew without a ruler is not as triangular as the triangle I drew with a ruler. Now consider the semantics of ‘unicorn’ and ‘Existence’. We know that one is necessarily at least as real as we are (as in it exists with at least as much realness as we do), but we don’t know if the other is as equally real as us or not. We know that Existence is at least as real as us simply because all beings and realities exist in Existence (and as a result of Existence). So nothing is more real than Existence (just as nothing is more triangular than a perfect triangle). Unicorns don’t have the same ontological necessity. They do not necessarily exist in all realities in the same way that Existence does. Their not-equal-to-us realness in our reality does not necessarily lead to contradictions, whereas Existence’s not-equal-to-us realness in our reality is necessarily contradictory. The only reason we’re as real as we are, is because Existence is at least as real as we are. Zeus, Zorro, or unicorns, certainly are or certainly aren’t at least as real as us (as in they either are or aren’t physically in our universe, or some other equally real world/universe). We don’t know which.

There are semantics that logically denote Existence in an absolute manner (true infinity and true omnipresence are examples of this), and there are semantics that logically denote Existence but not in an absolute manner (so things that are in Existence such as unicorns and humans are examples of this). As this post is focused on the nature of Existence, I will go through all semantics that we have access to, and distinguish those that logically denote Existence in an absolute manner from those that don’t.

Infinity

Since true infinity denotes Existence, and Existence is at least as real as we are, that which is truly infinite is necessarily at least as real as we are. We are encompassed by Existence. We are encompassed by that which is completely/truly infinite. Another semantic that clearly denotes Existence, is omnipresent. Omnipresent = that which is present everywhere. Only Existence truly exists everywhere, therefore, only Existence is truly omnipresent. Anything else that we describe as being omnipresent (such as water in a swimming pool, or the air on our planet) is not truly omnipresent. If it’s not truly omnipresent, then it’s semantically inconsistent to describe it as being omnipresent. It is semi-omnipresent or imperfectly omnipresent perhaps. Given this logic, semi-infinite is more appropriate as a label for things that are not truly/actually/completely infinite (only that which has no beginning and no end can be said to be truly infinite. If x is immortal but had a beginning, then x is not infinite in life span. It is semi-infinite).

That which is infinite (Existence), makes semi-infinite worlds/realities/existents/beings hypothetically possible. It’s possible for me to be in a world and forever move forwards within it. It’s possible for there to be a semi-infinite library that contains a semi-infinite number of books. There can be no infinite libraries because only Existence is infinite, and there can only be one omnipresent or infinite being/existent. But given the nature of infinity, there can be an endless number of semi-infinite libraries each with a semi-infinite set of books. Bigger semi-infinite libraries can contain more than one semi-infinite set of books (or a bigger semi-infinite set). See the following post for more on infinity: The solution to Russell’s paradox and the absurdity of more than one infinity.

Omni

We’ve discussed one meaningful “omni” concept so far. Are there other meaningful “omni” concepts? Consider the concept of “omnishape”. Given the semantics that are available in Existence a priori, and how the English language has labelled them a posteriori, three definitions come to my mind regarding this word: 1) Something that is all the shapes at the same time. 2) Something that encompasses all the shapes. 3) Something that can turn into any shape imaginable. The first definition is absurd because no singular shape can be two different shapes at the same time. The second definition is true of Existence in that Existence encompasses all shapes imaginable. An omnishape existent (an existent that can turn into any shape imaginable) is also not absurd (nor meaningless or unknown). Therefore, the third definition is also semantically consistent.

What other meaningful omni concepts can we think of? Consider omniworld. Again, three definitions come to my mind: 1) something that is all the worlds at the same time. 2) something that encompasses all the worlds. 3) something that can turn into any world imaginable. Omniworld is pretty much the same as omnishape but on a larger, more complex scale. Again, the first definition is absurd, whilst the latter two definitions are true. We can try omnibook or omnicolour and they will logically generate the same definitional pattern with the first being false (semantically inconsistent), and the latter two being true (semantically consistent).

We a posteriori believe that water in our world is made up of atoms. With this belief/semantic in mind, in order for water to be semi-omnipresent, atoms must also be equally (if not more) semi-omnipresent. In other words, in order for omniwater to be at all meaningful, omniatom must be true (because water is made up of atoms). And even if we talk about water that’s not made up of atoms, it’s still made up of whatever Existence is made up of (which is neither nothing nor water).

Logically, we need an item that is between any and every meaningful item except itself. That item is the infinitesimal. The infinitesimal separates all existing things from each other except itself. Nothing can separate one infinitesimal from another. If x is not separated from x by anything other than x, then x is just one x. x is Existence. If we say concepts such as omniatom denote atoms occupying all of Existence in an omnipresent manner, then we would be rejecting infinitesimal as that which everything is made up of or sustained by. Whilst metals, water, and every other imaginable thing is made up of infinitesimal, the reverse does not hold true. The infinitesimal cannot stop being infinitesimal, whereas water can cease to be water by changing into something else. Since the omnipresent itself cannot change (despite things it sustains being susceptible to change), this shows us that any semantic other than infinitesimal, will leave us with an absurd description of what Existence is made up of or refers to. 

Only that which is infinite is omnipresent. Infinitesimals are is omnipresent. Existence is omnipresent. It’s like in relation to us, infinity is the external aspect of Existence, whilst infinitesimal is the internal aspect of Existence. I am in Existence, but there is no non-Existence in me, and there is no end to the Existence in me or outside of me. Thus, I am in Existence (infinity), and Existence (infinitesimal) is in me. In other words, I am fully encompassed, sustained, and separated from other beings/things/existents, by Existence.

We’ve discussed a few omni concepts. An explanation was given with regards to how/why they are meaningful. I will now focus on omnipotence and omniscience.

The omnis that logically denote Existence in an absolute manner

Omnipotent = that which can do all that is doable

Omniscient = that which knows all that is knowable

One cannot do all that is doable without having reach or access to all of Existence (if I have no reach or access to x, then I have no power over x). Just as I cannot count to infinity or reach infinity, I cannot expand to the point of infinity to replace that which is infinite. How is this replacement going to take place? Is the original Existence (or infinite being/existent) going to go into non-Existence in order to make room for me to take Its place?

Only the omnipresent has reach/access to all of Existence (because It is Existence). Furthermore, nothing can take the place of Existence or become Existence because nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state (just as nothing can become infinite from a non-infinite state). This shows that one cannot be omnipotent without being omnipresent. Similarly, one cannot know all that is knowable without being omnipresent. How can one store or be in possession of an endless amount of data, knowledge, or hypothetical possibilities, without being infinite? Also, how can one know what it’s like to be omnipotent or omnipresent without being omnipresent? One cannot.

The previous two paragraphs show that omnipotence and omniscience logically can’t be attributes of anything other than the infinite or the omnipresent (Existence). So whilst semantics such as ‘unicorn’ or ‘me choosing to do psychology instead of philosophy in 2009’ can all be said to be meaningful as a result of being hypothetical possibilities (or time sensitive hypothetical possibilities in the case of the latter semantic example), omnipotence and omniscience cannot be accounted for in the same way. Again, this is because nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state. With the previous two paragraphs in mind, this logically means that nothing can become omnipotent/omniscient from a non-omnipotent/non-omniscient state (because nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state). Also, that which is omnipresent cannot magically shift from being non-omnipotent/non-omniscient to being omnipotent/omniscient as that would be a case of something coming from nothing. Where would Existence (the omnipresent) have found the potential to be omniscient from if it was non-omniscient? Non-Existence?

If the omnipresent is not omnipotent, then omnipotence is hypothetically impossible (as is omniscience). Therefore, either Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient (which is the only way we can meaningfully account for how omnipotence and omniscience are meaningful), or, Existence is necessarily non-omnipotent/non-omniscient (which means omnipotence and omniscience are absurd concepts like round-squares). It’s not just a matter of hypothetical possibility or time sensitive hypothetical possibility. Where omnipotence and omniscience are meaningful/rational (semantically consistent) concepts, they must be true of Existence in an absolute sense. If they are true of Existence in an absolute sense, then an omnipotent/omniscient being is necessarily at least as real as we are.

Some might argue that naturalism is a meaningful concept. Since it is a meaningful concept, it is true of Existence. If concept A is the negation of another concept B from Existence as a whole, then A is a contradictory concept provided that B is a meaningful concept. On the other hand, if B is absurd/contradictory, then A is meaningful. For example, non-naturalism (the negation of naturalism) is true if naturalism is contradictory, and vice versa.

Consider what I will call “finitism”. The finitist will argue that Existence is finite (just as the naturalist will argue that Existence is non-omnipotent/non-omniscient). If the finitist is to be rationally/semantically consistent and avoid the problem of something coming from nothing, he will argue that infinity is absurd, therefore, Existence is necessarily finite. Similarly, if the naturalist is to be rationally consistent and avoid the problem of something coming from nothing, he will argue that omnipotence and omniscience are contradictory/absurd, therefore, Existence is necessarily non-omnipotent/non-omniscient. Finitism is purely a product of the negation of infinity. Since infinity is not a contradictory concept, finitism is a contradictory concept. Similarly, naturalism is purely a product of the negation of divine attributes such as omnipotence and omniscience. If omnipotence and omniscience are not contradictory (which the ontological argument (or the true cogito) I outline in my 5th post shows that they cannot be), then naturalism is a contradictory concept.

Finitism leaves us without an explanation for why infinity is meaningful. Naturalism leaves us without an explanation for why omnipotence and omniscience are meaningful. It is important to note that just as infinity is not the negation of finitism (although this is a logical consequence of it being meaningful but not its actual meaning), omnipotence and omniscience are also not the negation of naturalism (despite this being a logical consequence of them being meaningful but not their actual meanings). Nihilism, finitism, and naturalism, are all purely negations of other meaningful concepts. Infinity does not deny the meaningfulness of finite. It denies finiteness as being all there is to Existence by virtue of itself being meaningful. Similarly, omnipotence and omniscience do not deny the meaningfulness of there being natural laws in Existence. They deny natural laws as being all there is to Existence by virtue of themselves being meaningful.

Perfection

The final concept to consider when reflecting on the nature of Existence, is perfection. Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of (or that which cannot get/be any better). There is that which is truly perfect, and there is that which we wrongly labelled as perfect. For example, the phrase “perfect human” is absurd because the best possible human is not that which no greater than can be conceived of. How can the best possible human be considered as perfect when better than it can be conceived? This shows that phrases such as “the perfect human” or “the perfect house” amount to absurdly saying the perfect imperfect being/existent. This is no different to absurdly saying the omnipresent non-omnipresent being/existent.

A perfect triangle is truly/perfectly/completely triangular. That which is truly perfect (or exists truly perfectly) is truly/perfectly/completely perfect. In this post I have taken to being absolute with semantics. As in I have opted to view only the truly infinite as infinite. Consistency would have me only view that which is truly/perfectly triangular as triangular, whilst that which is imperfectly triangular (an imperfect triangle) as semi-triangular. Similarly, I will view that which is truly perfect as perfect, and view that which is “perfect” but not truly perfect, as semi-perfect (the best that it can be in relation to its non-perfect self or context). There was an a priori answer to what is omnipresent. Is there an a priori answer to what is perfect?

Objectively, which is better: Existence being the best that it can be, or, Existence not being as good as it can be? If I wanted to be as good as I can be, and, make sure everyone gets what they truly/perfectly deserve (including myself), would I not need to be omnipotent and omniscient? What would make one happier, more fulfilled, and more in awe of its own existing/being? Being perfect (a perfect Existence), or an imperfect Existence?

Whatever subject, object, world, or being you give me, it can be made better by being/existing in a perfect Existence (of course, the only exception to this is the perfect Existence Itself because it cannot be/exist any better). The “perfect” life that you want in the “perfect” galaxy, is made better by being/existing in a perfect Existence. Do you want your “perfect” book, life, or galaxy to be/exist in a perfect Existence (where everyone gets what they truly deserve), or an imperfect one? Thus, your “perfect” life is not perfect if it is/exists in an imperfect Existence because it can be made better by being in a perfect Existence. If your “reasoning” is such that you prefer to be in an imperfect Existence instead of a perfect Existence, then you are evil/irrational/inconsistent. Only evil people favour an Existence with injustice over an Existence with no injustice. Only irrational people think maximum, consistent, meaningful, fulfilling happiness can be possible in an imperfect Existence. Only irrational/evil/contradictory people think it’s good to be evil. Good being evil is as absurd as triangle being square.

Clearly, the greatest potentiality in terms of goodness lies within a perfect Existence. Any lesser being/existent such as a galaxy or a human, cannot be as good as Existence. Just as there can be nothing more present than an omnipresent being/existent (Existence), there can be nothing better than a perfect being/existent (Existence). Therefore, just as only Existence can semantically/meaningfully qualify as being omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and infinite, only Existence can semantically qualify as being perfect. How can something be perfect if it is not omnipotent? And how can something be omnipotent if it is not infinite/Existence/omnipresent? Most importantly, how can something be perfect if Existence is imperfect? How can anything exist perfectly in an imperfect existence? It cannot. Objectively speaking, there is no greater truth than ‘Existence is perfect’.

Is perfection (or God) at least as real as we are? Yes because perfection cannot logically denote anything other than the omnipresent, and the omnipresent is at least as real as we are. The proceeding paragraphs attempt to further illustrate this truth.

One might ask: What if Existence’s desires were evil or amoral? The short answer is then It wouldn’t be perfect. We can account for the meaningfulness of the concepts of imperfect and evil because there are imperfect and evil beings in Existence. How would we account for the meaningfulness of the concept of perfect if Existence was imperfect? This is not unlike asking how would we account for the meaningfulness of the concept of infinity if Existence was finite? In both cases we wouldn’t be able to because we are fully contingent on Existence and there is no non-Existence for us to derive anything that is independent of Existence from. If Existence was finite or imperfect, then infinity and perfection would be absurd concepts. They would be impossibilities (see my previous post for a more detailed defence of this). We are aware that infinity, omnipresent, and perfect are meaningful concepts. The only way to rationally/semantically/meaningfully account for these semantics, is to acknowledge/recognise them as attributes of Existence. We cannot be described as wholly rational (or semantically/meaningfully consistent) beings if we view Existence as finite or imperfect.

Round-squares are impossible. The concept of “round-square” is an absurd concept. A person who says he is 100% sure that Existence is not perfect is an absurd person. A person who definitively rejects God (and I am talking about that which I have outlined here (the infinite and omnipresent). I am not talking about Zeus or some other non-omnipresent or non-perfect being/existent) is an absurd person. Of course, if a person does not understand God (the omnipresent) at all, then he has not rejected God at all (even if he says he has) because he has not understood God for him to qualify as someone who has meaningfully rejected God. You cannot meaningfully reject that which is not meaningful to you.

For perfection to be meaningful, it must at least be a hypothetical possibility. That which has imperfect desires, or even the slightest bit of potential for an imperfect desire, is not perfect. If the omnipresent ever had imperfect desires, or, if It had even the slightest bit of potential for an imperfect desire, then perfection would be hypothetically impossible. Therefore, the omnipresent’s desires being evil or amoral cannot be true. 

Perhaps it is hypothetically possible for the omnipresent to do/exist imperfectly (just as it is hypothetically possible for me to gauge out my own eyes). This is false. With Existence, doing imperfectly is certainly guaranteed to never happen. With me, gouging out my own eyes is almost certainly guaranteed to never happen. I can think of extremely wild and unlikely hypothetical scenarios where I might gauge out my own eyes, but I cannot think of any hypothetical scenario where Existence would go against Its own perfect desires to compromise Its own perfection. It is omniscient, so It can’t miscalculate or do mistakenly (whereas I can). Its desires cannot shift from being perfect to imperfect because It doesn’t have any potential for an imperfect desire (if It did, then by definition/semantics/truth It wouldn’t be perfect. Existence will never desire to sacrifice the greatest good (Itself/God) for a lesser good. Nor will It desire to sacrifice a greater good for a lesser good. Such desires are impossible of a perfect being, but they are not impossible of an imperfect being). So how can It possibly do imperfectly? Having said that, I can conceive of Jesus being crucified. How do I reconcile this rationally?

Perhaps I should say Existence can do imperfectly, but won’t do imperfectly. But can I really/truly conceive of Jesus being crucified when the premises I have are ‘Jesus is righteous’ and ‘Existence is perfect’? Surely if I see Jesus being crucified I must either conclude Existence is evil, or Jesus is evil (unless he enjoys being crucified and no harm comes to him from it. But then can it meaningfully be called crucifixion? If Jesus looks as though he is being harmed but he is not actually being harmed, can it really be said that he is being harmed?). I cannot hold onto both premises at the same time. It would be like believing in the imperfect-perfect Existence or the married-bachelor. So which premise do I hold onto?

I can think of extremely wild and unlikely hypothetical scenarios where crucifixion does not cause Jesus any physical pain, or that he is simply insufficient in his righteousness such that it is perfection for him to be crucified. What I cannot do is think of any non-absurd hypothetical scenarios where Existence would go against Its own perfect desires to compromise Its own perfection. Again, It is omniscient so It can’t miscalculate or do mistakenly. Its desires cannot shift from being perfect to imperfect. So how can It possibly do/will imperfectly?

Clearly, Existence won’t do imperfectly. Can we say Existence can’t do imperfectly? If Existence wanted to crucify a righteous woman, It could because It is omnipotent. It is impossible for Existence to want this because It is perfect (hence the impossibility of such an occurrence). Thus, the omnipresent cannot become non-omnipresent, and the perfect will not will imperfectly or become imperfect. It can be said with certainty that the perfect being is at least as real as we are. Though I acknowledge that there are evil and unjust beings in Existence, there is certainly no evil or injustice in Existence because all such beings get what they deserve (simply because Existence is perfect). In my next post I discuss this in detail.

In my previous post I asked whether or not there could be premises in place that could deprive us of the rational authority to say “our Joe Biden flying is an actual hypothetical possibility”. The only premise that can render this as being absurd, is that it would amount to an imperfect Existence. Put differently, the only premise that can render this as being absurd, is that it would contradict the will of God. This also holds true for me being able to raise my arm in the next second. It holds true for everything because God is omnipotent. So long as it doesn’t contradict perfection (the will of God), it’s hypothetically possible.

Just as triangles can’t be anything other than three-sided, Existence/Being can’t refer to anything other than God (the infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent towards good, omnimalevolent towards evil…).

Bibliography

Books

Clarke, D. M., Rene Descartes, Meditations and Other Metaphysical Writings, (2003), London, England: Penguin.

Clayton, P., The Problem of God in Modern Thought, (2000), Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Kenny, A., Descartes: A Study of His Philosophy, (1968), Bristol: Thoemmes Press.

Razavi, M. A., Suhrawardi and the school of illumination, (1997), Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press

Online sources

Ayatullahi, H. R., “Mulla Sadra’s Argument of the Righteous and a Critical Study of Kant and Hume’s Views on the Proofs of God’s Existence” Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Institute (2009) URL = <http://www.mullasadra.org/new_site/english/Paper%20Bank/Knowledge%20of%20GOD/Ayatullahi.htm&gt;.

Brueckner, T., “Skepticism and Content Externalism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/skepticism-content-externalism/&gt;.

Chakravartty, A., “Scientific Realism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/scientific-realism/&gt;.

Comesaña, Juan and Peter Klein, “Skepticism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/skepticism/&gt;.

Culp, J., “Panentheism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/panentheism/&gt;.

Davidson, M., “God and Other Necessary Beings”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/god-necessary-being/&gt;.

De Pierris, G., and Friedman, M., “Kant and Hume on Causality”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/kant-hume-causality/&gt;.

Dowden, E., “Time” Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (2013) URL = <http://www.iep.utm.edu/time/&gt;.
Earl, D., “Concepts” Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (2007), URL = <http://www.iep.utm.edu/concepts/#H5&gt;.

Fisher, S., “Pierre Gassendi”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2009/entries/gassendi/&gt;.

Grier, M., “Kant’s Critique of Metaphysics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/kant-metaphysics/&gt;.

Guleserian, T., “Can Moral Perfection be an Essential Attribute?”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Dec., 1985), pp. 219-241, Published by: International Phenomenological Society, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2107354 .Accessed: 17/07/2013 00:06

Hoffman, J., and Rosenkrantz, G., “Omnipotence”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/omnipotence/&gt;.

Hofweber, T., “Logic and Ontology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/logic-ontology/&gt;.

Huggett, N., “Zeno’s Paradoxes”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/paradox-zeno/&gt;.

Hume, D., An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), Text derived from the Harvard Classics Volume 37, 1910 P.F. Collier & Son., This web edition published by eBooks@Adelaide., Rendered into HTML by Steve Thomas., URL = <http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/hume/david/h92e/&gt;.

Hylton, Peter, “Willard van Orman Quine”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/quine/&gt;.

Van Inwagen, P., “Metaphysics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/metaphysics/&gt;.

Khlentzos, D., “Challenges to Metaphysical Realism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/realism-sem-challenge/&gt;.

Klein, P., “Skepticism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/skepticism/&gt;.

Margolis, E., and Laurence, S., “Concepts”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/concepts/&gt;.

Miller, A., “Realism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/realism/&gt;.

Moore, G. E., “Chapter I: The Subject-Matter of Ethics.” Principia Ethica, (1903) URL = < http://fair-use.org/g-e-moore/principia-ethica/s.10#s10p1&gt;.
Morris, W. E., “David Hume”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/hume/&gt;.

Morriston, W., “Craig on the Actual Infinite”, URL = <https://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/craig-on-the-actual-infinite.pdf&gt;

Newman, L., “Descartes’ Epistemology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/descartes-epistemology/&gt;.

Nolan, L., “Descartes’ Ontological Argument”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/descartes-ontological/&gt;.

Oppy, G., “Ontological Arguments”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/ontological-arguments/&gt;.

Papineau, D., “Naturalism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/naturalism/&gt;.

Rizvi, S., “Mulla Sadra”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/mulla-sadra/&gt;.

Russell, P., “Hume on Religion”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/hume-religion/&gt;.

Skirry, J., “René Descartes (1596—1650): Overview”, Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (2008), URL = <http://www.iep.utm.edu/descarte/&gt;.

Slowik, E., “Hume and the Perception of Spatial Magnitude Source, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Sep., 2004), pp. 355-373 Published by: Canadian Journal of PhilosophyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40232222 .Accessed: 23/07/2013 10:26

Smith, K., “Descartes’ Life and Works”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/descartes-works/&gt;.

Vogt, K., “Ancient Skepticism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/skepticism-ancient/&gt;.

Wierenga, E., “Omnipresence”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/omnipresence/&gt;.

Other sources:

The Quran

The Bible

Wikipedia

Youtube

Google

corpus.quran.com

http://www.studyquran.co.uk

http://www.biblehub.com

The source of all sources:

God/Existence