The Ontological Paradox

[Ostronomos]

I guess I don't see it as a paradox at all. Sorry.

Reality, is not existence. Ignoring time for a moment.. ( hee, pun not intended ) Reality by defintion includes everything that does not exist along with everything that does exist.

If something did not exist then it would be unreality and thus outside of reality. Therefore, in order to exist it would have to be inside reality. A paradox. I may not have the perfect explanation at the moment but consider this:

Consider what I think about what my critics wrote above, especially the guy with the stupid grin: It has no bearing on the true nature of God and does not resolve the set of all sets paradox. It has been shown that the edge of the universe must be self-perceptual in order to resolve the self-inclusion paradox.

That's what defines reality. Gravity exists, I am not weightless. Both of those true statements are what defines reality.

Because of this, when a person takes a hard-line opposition to any and all god-concepts, that's not outside of reality any more than taking a hard-line opposition to Trump as the winner of the 2020 election. It's just something that a person is saying "didn't happen" "won't happen" "isn't currently happening". That negation IS included in reality.

When I define a hammer as something that exists in reality, I am by default and automatically, perhaps outside of my awareness, defining all the things that are not hammers simultaneously. And all those "not-hammers" are included in reality as negations.

Yes. Reality contains all and only that which exists. But what about that which does not exist, can it exist?

As reality is only mind. Reality, according to the thread, "Paradox of Nothingness", follows the rules of logic. It also gives error the same way logic would.

So, I don't see it. Regardless of how much I would love-love to play some philosophical gotcha-game with atheism, I don't think this one is going to work.

 

[dybmh]

If something did not exist then it would be unreality and thus outside of reality.

That's just semantics. I don't see any reason to equate existence with reality, but if that's what is desired, it doesn't produce a paradox. Splitting what I consider/define as reality into reality and unreality, doesn't change anything. The two are still inherently linked forever and always just like the outside form of a russian doll ( reality ) and the negative space ( unreality ) which is produced as a consequence of the form.

Like I said earlier, Gravity exists and I am not weightless are always and forever linked. Putting Gravity in the "reality" category, and putting "weightless" in the unreality category doesn't split them because the catergories reality-and-unreality are inherently linked.

Then if this applied to God and atheism it really-really doesn't help your argument. For the atheist, they are putting "God" and "theism" in the unreality category. Conceptualizing 'God' for the atheist doesn't magically 'poof' it into existence because it is conceptualized in the "unreality" category. It's still being conceptualized as a negation.

When I described it, lacking the "unreality" category, the atheist conceptualizes God as a negation, and this negated non-entity exists just like any other non-entity, or non-event. It's just like Trump's non-winning the election. It exists as a concept which "did not", "is not", and "will never" occur. If we choose your model, reality-and-unreality, the same thing happens. For the atheist, God is conceptualized in the unreality category as something which "did not", "is not", and "will never" exist.

Therefore, in order to exist it would have to be inside reality. A paradox.

Per what you are defining/describing, for the atheist, God is not "inside reality". It is "inside unreality" which is outside "reality". Still no paradox.

I may not have the perfect explanation at the moment but consider this:

Consider what I think about what my critics wrote above, especially the guy with the stupid grin: It has no bearing on the true nature of God and does not resolve the set of all sets paradox. It has been shown that the edge of the universe must be self-perceptual in order to resolve the self-inclusion paradox.

The set of all sets paradox is solveable by establishing categories in a hierarchy, instead of using set theory, and the top level is an absolutely general conglomerate which is absolutely literally infinite. Russel's paradox is not about self awareness (perception), it's about self inclusion. Self awareness does not require self inclusion, just reflection. Once God chooses to be omnibenevolent, then it produces a reflection of everything it is not. That inverse is a method for self awareness through a reflection, just like a mirror, or a mold in a casting. Self awareness is achieved without self inclusion. Russel's paradox doesn't even come into play.

Yes. Reality contains all and only that which exists. But what about that which does not exist, can it exist?

There are 7 total categories for reality ( as I define it ).

Reality = what was + what is + what will be + what wasn't + what isn't + what won't + what could be.

That which doesn't exist is in the "wasn't" "isn't" and "won't" categories.

As reality is only mind. Reality, according to the thread, "Paradox of Nothingness", follows the rules of logic. It also gives error the same way logic would.

This causes a new problem. If reality is only mind, then when the atheist conceives God in the unreality category, then God is unreal. Their mind is not somehow excluded from the assertion "reality is only mind". If the unreality category is excluded, then the atheists mind simply doesn't include "God", it includes "not-God" attached to each and every concept in their mind. And this is their reality per the assertion.

And just in case the next step is to claim there is a collective shared "mind", I invite you to provide proof for this which I will absolutely undeniably accept. There are many examples of undeniable proof I will accept. If there is a shared collective mind, you will know what these are, and you will be able to provide both the challenge and the correct response. Both. Just like any cipher.

Regarding nothingness, I'm not sure it actually exists. Perhaps at the center of a black-hole. I don't actually know. I don't recall the thread titled "paradox of nothing". If you provide a link for it, maybe I'll check it out.

 

[wellwisher]

What paradox?
Do I have to be a genius to see it?

The ontological paradox comes from the thought experiment of sending information backwards in time. Once in the past, it will appear to have no origin, from the POV of that past. It had not yet happened in that past and it is many time disconnected due to precedent that still needs to be established.

As an example, an innovator sees the image of a future machine, that is not yet here. Since it only started in the mind of the innovator, others will assume that it does not and cannot exist, since they see no precedent for it. However, the innovator stays true to the image and makes it come alive. Once it materializes, in the future, and others can now see, its origin appear in that future.

The paradox is resolved if there is another part of the brain; inner self, that can organize thought and even time project or extrapolate that thought into new form or future ideas. These future ideas, may seem detached by the cultural standards of the ego; present, but this is natural for the inner self. It can present a quantum leap forward to the ego, that it can be fulfilled through faith in that future.

This is common to religion. Jesus left behind the promise of the spirit; future information sent back into time before it happens. Those of faith evolved the idea forward, until it appears in time, bringing the future sent back in time, back to the future. If you develop a rapport with the inner self this is very common and part of your inner reality. Materialist who wish to stay in the present or past, lose out on the fun and awe of the living ontological paradox.