Peace all
This may be of interest to the forum:
To discover things that are certain, we must use doubt maximally. This is what the process results in:
1) Logically the meaning of doubt cannot be doubted as its meaning is needed for its application. Therefore doubting doubt is paradoxical. Thus the first outcome of trying to apply doubt to everything is that the meaning of doubt cannot be doubted.
2) Logically, for the idea of doubt to have meaning, there needs to be an existence because without an existence, there is non-existence/nothingness and doubt cannot be possible within nothingness.
3) Everything that is a part of existence, whether fictional or non-fictional, is ultimately tied or rooted in reality (the imagination, dreams, virtual words and so on, are all dependent on the real world) This logically entails that existence and reality both encompass all worlds/things. This is equivalent to; reality and existence are omnipresent. Anything outside of this omnipresent thing is non-existent/nothingness.
4) There is a clear distinction between parts of reality (different worlds, things, beings) and reality as a whole. Simulations of one or more parts of reality are possible as suggested by dreams, imagination, virtual worlds and so on. The whole of reality or existence cannot be simulated.
5) How can we rationally distinguish between what to associate with reality and what to associate with simulative parts of reality? One way we could determine things about reality or existence as a whole, is by looking for items of thought or concepts that cannot be wholly simulated because reality and existence cannot be wholly simulated. Only parts of it can be simulated.
6) Aside from reality, existence and omnipresence, there are plenty of other concepts that fit the requirements of 5. This includes: omni-matter, omni-thought, omnipotence, omniscience, omni-green and so on. Any item that can meaningfully take the suffix "omni (all/complete)", is in line with premise 5?s requirement. So how do we rationally determine which of these concepts should be attributed to reality/existence?
7) Despite the definition of these ideas meeting 5?s requirement, all ?omni? ideas are problematic in some way with the exception of three: omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience.
Possible objection to premise 7: Reality or existence being omnipresent is a logical necessity. Saying reality or existence is omnipotent and omniscient is arbitrary and not necessary.
Possible defence: All other ideas that fit 5 either cancel each other out (existence is necessarily either omni-matter/corporeal or omni-thought/incorporeal) contradictory (existence cannot be omni-green as there are other colours) or rationally absurd (existence cannot be omni-shaped as the notion of something omni-shaped, is absurd and makes no sense at all)
8 ) Therefore the only ideas that are left that fit the requirement of premise 5 are existence, reality, omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience. These concepts denote the same thing.
9) Therefore there is rational motivation for considering existence or reality to be omnipresent as well as omnipotent and omniscient.
In conclusion, based on 1-3: That there is existence and reality, is a certainty. Based on 4-8: rejecting omnipotence and omniscience as an aspect of reality/existence/omnipresent entity is biased and more counter to reason than accepting it.
Peace
