The Ontological Paradox

[Ostronomos]

The self-containment of reality or existence renders it an ontological paradox that results in the atheist confusion of real with illusion and illusion with real (notice I explicitly have not used the word "imaginary").

This is starkly obvious when considering the elusive, paradoxical nature of reality.

G.O.D. is believed by atheists to be contained outside of the paradox of reality. But this leads to a stubbornly unrelenting contradiction.

Because if G.O.D. were but a name then it would be contained strictly within mind which is believed by dunces to be outside of reality, leading to a split in reality that separates it from its illusory half.

Pfft. And they call themselves geniuses.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

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

It's kind of hard to explain. I can just about fathom it, though I might disagree with it, but it's not something I can easily jot down yet.

One thing I do want to say, is that the argument is a bit more complex than how some might take it, but also maybe a bit too complex for your average reader.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's kind of hard to explain. I can just about fathom it, though I might disagree with it, but it's not something I can easily jot down yet.

One thing I do want to say, is that the argument is a bit more complex than how some might take it, but also maybe a bit too complex for your average reader.

Dang.
I can only look at things simply.

 

[Alien826]

Because if G.O.D. were but a name then it would be contained strictly within mind which is believed by dunces to be outside of reality, leading to a split in reality that separates it from its illusory half.

I'm not sure who considers thought to be outside reality. Thoughts are real.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm not sure who considers thought to be outside reality. Thoughts are real.

To be fair for the sake of the thread, I'll actually agree with the OP that if something is only in the mind, it exists outside reality.

I may be playing along a bit, but I'm interested in seeing the OP expand on some of their ideas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

I have four of them. If I sold you two we would each have a paradox:

 

[Stevicus]

I have four of them. If I sold you two we would each have a paradox:

View attachment 81174

 

[vulcanlogician]

Pfft. And they call themselves geniuses.

Ah, man. You had some great thoughts, but you ended with an erroneous assumption.

Question?: Is God some kind of acronym for you? What does G-O-D stand for?

This is starkly obvious when considering the elusive, paradoxical nature of reality.

G.O.D. is believed by atheists to be contained outside of the paradox of reality. But this leads to a stubbornly unrelenting contradiction.

So, I really liked this thought. There really is something paradoxical about reality or the fact that "anything at all" exists.

But I take issue with the claim that God is "believed by atheists to be contained outside of the paradox of reality." I don't think this phrase means exactly "possibly or probably nonexistent" Most atheists think that God is "possibly or probably nonexistent." By implying that they in some way place God outside of reality, you are (possibly) misrepresenting atheism, which would be a strawman.

Care to elaborate? And feel free to correct me at any point where I might have misinterpreted you.

 

[Ostronomos]

Ah, man. You had some great thoughts, but you ended with an erroneous assumption.

Question?: Is God some kind of acronym for you? What does G-O-D stand for?



So, I really liked this thought. There really is something paradoxical about reality or the fact that "anything at all" exists.

But I take issue with the claim that God is "believed by atheists to be contained outside of the paradox of reality." I don't think this phrase means exactly "possibly or probably nonexistent" Most atheists think that God is "possibly or probably nonexistent." By implying that they in some way place God outside of reality, you are (possibly) misrepresenting atheism, which would be a strawman.

Perhaps I am misrepresenting the more "agnostic" group of opened-to-the-possibility of believing-in-reality "atheists", which in this case would simply not mind being called "agnostics".

Care to elaborate? And feel free to correct me at any point where I might have misinterpreted you.

The material universe cannot be independent of consciousness or the mind otherwise it would be "unreal". Thus unreality is non-informational and thus non-observational. It is nothing. And it has no relationship or connection to the spacetime manifold in which the universe can be real. The unreal universe is non-relational to the real universe and cannot exist, so it does not exist. There can be no external reality to a conscious observer and observation. Communication is the means of building an objectifiable reality in which our conscious brain can explain.

Physical matter exists within the reality of the mind and the communication between individuals. The mind is not an object. It is the reality.

(Sorry about the exceeding genius of that last statement. I was ^ when I wrote in back in the day.)

 

[Link]

I am non-dualist as well and only believe in word/idea/aware type existence and also hold reality we all connect to and derive our relative partial existence is full of existence and that proves it's God and exists.

 

[Ostronomos]

Thank you. I agree!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps I am misrepresenting the more "agnostic" group of opened-to-the-possibility of believing-in-reality "atheists", which in this case would simply not mind being called "agnostics".

The material universe cannot be independent of consciousness or the mind otherwise it would be "unreal".

What makes you say that? You need to be able to justify your premises. If all that you have for them is handwaving then mere handwaving refutes your argument. To me the universe would still be real if we were hear or not. And we have not even gotten anywhere as far as a god goes yet.

Thus unreality is non-informational and thus non-observational. It is nothing.

Oh come, is that all that you have? You cannot go from an undefended premise to a non sequitur and expect people to take you seriously.

And it has no relationship or connection to the spacetime manifold in which the universe can be real. The unreal universe is non-relational to the real universe and cannot exist, so it does not exist. There can be no external reality to a conscious observer and observation. Communication is the means of building an objectifiable reality in which our conscious brain can explain.

Physical matter exists within the reality of the mind and the communication between individuals. The mind is not an object. It is the reality.

(Sorry about the exceeding genius of that last statement. I was ^ when I wrote in back in the day.)

So prety much just a circular argument. Is that all?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The self-containment of reality or existence renders it an ontological paradox that results in the atheist confusion of real with illusion and illusion with real (notice I explicitly have not used the word "imaginary").

This is starkly obvious when considering the elusive, paradoxical nature of reality.

G.O.D. is believed by atheists to be contained outside of the paradox of reality. But this leads to a stubbornly unrelenting contradiction.

Because if G.O.D. were but a name then it would be contained strictly within mind which is believed by dunces to be outside of reality, leading to a split in reality that separates it from its illusory half.

Pfft. And they call themselves geniuses.

If you could say something that meant something, I'd be happy to debate. But, without meaning to be unkind, what you've written is entirely meaningless.

I'm guessing you think that when you use big, "philosophical" words like Ontological and Paradox, or real and illusion (and don't, please, be afraid of "imaginary" -- we humans do that, too), you think you're being profound.

Trust me, you're not.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

If you could say something that meant something, I'd be happy to debate. But, without meaning to be unkind, what you've written is entirely meaningless.

I'm guessing you think that when you use big, "philosophical" words like Ontological and Paradox, or real and illusion (and don't, please, be afraid of "imaginary" -- we humans do that, too), you think you're being profound.

Trust me, you're not.

I'm feeling kind of torn. There's a good argument nestled in the post, but it's not something that can be explained simply or very quickly, and the post as it is, looks like it's saying something else.

If given a really good and patient writer that could walk one through it, it could have been a challenging argument, even for the atheist side.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm feeling kind of torn. There's a good argument nestled in the post, but it's not something that can be explained simply or very quickly, and the post as it is, looks like it's saying something else.

If given a really good and patient writer that could walk one through it, it could have been a challenging argument, even for the atheist side.

I'm sorry to say it, but I don't think you are correct. The post isn't saying anything coherent, but tries to disguise that with "mystical" words and phrases that seem to say something profound, but in fact say nothing at all.

Just read the first sentence: "The self-containment of reality or existence renders it an ontological paradox that results in the atheist confusion of real with illusion and illusion with real." This doesn't even qualify as a "deepity," because the surface read doesn't say anything, any more than what you might try to glean from what lies under it.

Consider the fact that insects, looking at a flower, see it very differently than you or I do. There's nothing of "illusion" in this, just a difference in perceptual apparatus. One of the reasons that humans have been learning so much about what the "invisible world" (to us) is like is simply that we've invented ways to supplement our perceptual capacities.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm sorry to say it, but I don't think you are correct. The post isn't saying anything coherent, but tries to disguise that with "mystical" words and phrases that seem to say something profound, but in fact say nothing at all.

Just read the first sentence: "The self-containment of reality or existence renders it an ontological paradox that results in the atheist confusion of real with illusion and illusion with real." This doesn't even qualify as a "deepity," because the surface read doesn't say anything, any more than what you might try to glean from what lies under it.

Consider the fact that insects, looking at a flower, see it very differently than you or I do. There's nothing of "illusion" in this, just a difference in perceptual apparatus. One of the reasons that humans have been learning so much about what the "invisible world" (to us) is like is simply that we've invented ways to supplement our perceptual capacities.

I'm trying to think of a way of explaining it. I kind of had an image in my head how it might work after I read about the ontological paradox.

There's a chance I'm wrong, though. We kind of need an independent arbiter on who's correct, hypothetically... I wonder if it'd be possible to make Chat-GPT that arbiter in this case? I wonder if it would say whether the sentence made sense or not?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm trying to think of a way of explaining it. I kind of had an image in my head how it might work after I read about the ontological paradox.

There's a chance I'm wrong, though. We kind of need an independent arbiter on who's correct, hypothetically... I wonder if it'd be possible to make Chat-GPT that arbiter in this case? I wonder if it would say whether the sentence made sense or not?

Okay. I asked ChatGPT, "what sense can you make out of the phrase 'ontological paradox?'" Here is the reply:

Certainly! An "ontological paradox" is a concept often explored in the realms of philosophy and science fiction, especially in time-travel narratives. Let's break it down:​

​

1. Ontology: This is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of being, existence, or reality. It explores questions about what kinds of entities exist and how they can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.
2. Paradox: This refers to a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or logically absurd but may in reality express a possible truth.

So, an "ontological paradox" pertains to a situation in which the cause and effect relationship of events becomes cyclical or circular, defying our traditional understandings of causality. The most common appearance of the ontological paradox is in time travel stories. Here's an illustrative example:​

​

Bootstrap Paradox: Imagine that a person travels back in time and gives Shakespeare a copy of his own works. Shakespeare then publishes those works as his own. In the future, these works are then read by the time traveler, who then decides to travel back in time to give Shakespeare the works. The paradox here is: who originally wrote Shakespeare's works? The cause (the works) and the effect (publishing them) are intertwined in a way that makes it impossible to determine the original source.​

​

The reason such paradoxes are termed "ontological" is because they challenge our understanding of existence and causality. If an object or piece of information is sent back in time and becomes the cause for its future-self to exist, then where did it originally come from?​

​

In popular culture, the ontological paradox has been a theme in various movies, books, and TV shows. It forces us to confront and reconsider our beliefs about cause and effect, existence, and the nature of time.​

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Okay. I asked ChatGPT, "what sense can you make out of the phrase 'ontological paradox?'" Here is the reply:

Certainly! An "ontological paradox" is a concept often explored in the realms of philosophy and science fiction, especially in time-travel narratives. Let's break it down:​

​

1. Ontology: This is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of being, existence, or reality. It explores questions about what kinds of entities exist and how they can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.
2. Paradox: This refers to a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or logically absurd but may in reality express a possible truth.

So, an "ontological paradox" pertains to a situation in which the cause and effect relationship of events becomes cyclical or circular, defying our traditional understandings of causality. The most common appearance of the ontological paradox is in time travel stories. Here's an illustrative example:​

​

Bootstrap Paradox: Imagine that a person travels back in time and gives Shakespeare a copy of his own works. Shakespeare then publishes those works as his own. In the future, these works are then read by the time traveler, who then decides to travel back in time to give Shakespeare the works. The paradox here is: who originally wrote Shakespeare's works? The cause (the works) and the effect (publishing them) are intertwined in a way that makes it impossible to determine the original source.​

​

The reason such paradoxes are termed "ontological" is because they challenge our understanding of existence and causality. If an object or piece of information is sent back in time and becomes the cause for its future-self to exist, then where did it originally come from?​

​

In popular culture, the ontological paradox has been a theme in various movies, books, and TV shows. It forces us to confront and reconsider our beliefs about cause and effect, existence, and the nature of time.​

We got one term out of the way. My issue is with combining all the elements together and explaining it. I need to read the OP post again, and see if I can retrace my original thoughts.

 

[dybmh]

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. 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.

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.