Last updated 13th of March 2024

The proof

Perfectness

Resembling a perfect triangle and being a perfect triangle are two different truths. For example, some “triangle” a small child drew without a ruler, poorly resembles a triangle (so it is an imperfect triangle). The resemblance is so poor that some doubt that it is a triangle at all. Alternatively, it is a pretty good drawing of a triangle, but the standards of some are so high that they reject is as being a triangle. This shows that the triangularity of an imperfect triangle can be doubted or rejected provided that the standards of triangularity are high enough. On the other hand, a perfect Euclid triangle (a shape with three perfectly straight lines with its interior angles adding up to 180 degrees) cannot be doubted or rejected as being triangular because the standard here is absolute/perfect. 

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. Denying this would be insincere or contradictory to the semantics we are aware 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 or a perfect existence (a perfect existence is impossible independently of God. As I will hopefully show the reader, a perfect existence and God denote the exact same existent). 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 or imaginary good just as real evil/bad/harm is worse than pretend or imaginary evil/harm/bad.

When existing/being is the standard, nothing is better than a real perfect being/existence. It is better to be a real perfect being than to exist as just an illusion/image/resemblance of a perfect being. We are meaningfully aware that something indubitably exists (see A and B again if this is not clear to you), reason and semantics dictate that this can only be a perfect being/existence (see the last paragraph and the second sentence of this paragraph if this is not clear to you).

If an imperfect triangle is considered as triangular, then a perfect triangle should certainly be considered as triangular. If an imperfect being should be considered as existing, then a perfect being should certainly be considered as existing.

No contradictions will occur if unicorns do not exist on our planet (unicorns do not have the same ontological necessity as the perfect being). Contradictions will occur if the omnipresent (a necessary attribute of the perfect being or the perfect existence) does not exist in our dreams, on our planet, or anywhere else. Everything is contingent on the perfect being. Everything is sustained by God. Rationally speaking, God (the perfect being) has to be absolutely real. Is it not the case that the more real the good is the better the good is/exists?

Completeness

Another version of B is as follows: Whatever’s completely existing is indubitably existing. An imperfect existence cannot accommodate all hypothetical possibilities or semantics (it will at least fail to accommodate the semantic of ‘perfect’ as it would render a perfect being/existent as hypothetically impossible. See the first section of “All that exists” and the whole of “The nature of existence” for a thorough defence of this) whereas a perfect existence accommodates all possibilities or semantics. 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/being (again, rejection of this is contradictory to the semantics we are aware of; specifically the semantic of ‘completely existing’). Thus, that which perfectly exists and that which completely exists are the exact same being/existent. Only God is omnipresent, complete, and perfect.

With regards to what was said earlier about real evil being worse than pretend or imaginary 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/unjust/irrational. That way I won’t get punished for doing what is bad/evil/harmful”. Such a person is literally choosing evil over good. What he says logically implies that evil is good. If anyone says an imperfect triangle is better than a perfect triangle in terms of triangularity, then they are saying what is absurd. So if anyone says that an imperfect existence is/exists better than a perfect existence in terms of being/existing, then they are saying what is absurd/irrational and evil. 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 to Truth/Existence/Reality/God. God cannot be contradictory/evil to Truth/Existence/Reality/God.

In some of my other posts I have stated that perfection is omnipresent. This means that everything exists perfectly. It might be asked, if everything exists perfectly, how can anything be imperfect?

When I say everything exists perfectly, I mean to say that only existence exists perfectly (with everything else existing perfectly as a part of existence’s existence). Outside of a perfect existence, nothing exists perfectly. Again, a complete existence encompasses the potentiality/possibility of both perfect and imperfect triangles. It is perfection that the semantic/possibility/potentiality of imperfect triangles exists. Also, wherever an imperfect triangle physically exists, it is perfection for an imperfect triangle to exist there for as long as it is perfection. Perfection might be that it be moved elsewhere or changed to something else. Again, an imperfect triangle is imperfect as a triangle and as an existent because better triangles and existents than it can be conceived of. But as a part/member of a perfect existence, an imperfect triangle exists perfectly (its potentiality/existence in existence is a reason for why existence is perfect. Existence is perfect/complete as a whole, not as a part). An existence wherein which imperfect triangles are meaningless/absurd/non-existent is incomplete, and therefore imperfect. Thus, it is not triangles that exist perfectly. It is existence that exists perfectly within which triangles exist perfectly because of existence. Triangles and humans don’t sustain existence. A perfect existence sustains existence. Again, outside/independently of a perfect existence, nothing exists perfectly.

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, then only the perfect being/existence would qualify as a being/existence.

From here on out, if I capitalise a particular term outside of standard grammar rules, I am either referring to the truly absolute version of that term, or the absolute version of that term relative to its context. For example, when I write Triangle, I am referring to a perfect triangle. When I write triangle, I am referring to an imperfect triangle. So the three distinctions made in this paragraph are as follows: 1) The truly absolute, 2) The absolute relative to its context, and 3) The non-absolute or imperfect.

We can meaningfully doubt ourselves (did I eat pizza last week? Am I good enough to do x? Is this the realest me, or is there a realer me “dreaming” whilst this is the “dream” me?), but just as we cannot semantically/meaningfully or rationally doubt the Triangularity of Triangle, we cannot meaningfully or rationally doubt the Realness of Reality (or the Perfectness of Existence). 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 absolutely cannot rationally/meaningfully doubt the Realness of Reality, but we can rationally/meaningfully doubt ourselves to some extent.

The illusion or resemblance of being versus truly completely being

If our standards of Triangularity were flawed or imperfect enough, then we would describe the triangle I drew without a ruler as being Triangular. There’s nothing wrong with saying “x resembles Triangularity, therefore, x is a triangle” (provided that one sees such a resemblance). But there is something wrong with describing a triangle as being Triangular when it only resembles a Triangle. A being with imperfect vision/eyesight 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 sufficiently 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 (as for why, that’s a different matter). If it’s not clear to them what it looks like, then it’s not clear to them what it looks like. Whether one is honest/sincere or dishonest/insincere about how something looks to them, is another matter.

Resemblance to something can meaningfully vary in terms of depth and breadth. The closer something is to being three-sided with its interior angles adding up to 180 degrees, the better it is at resembling Triangularity in the Euclidian sense. 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 or rationally 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 (though we can say a triangle is triangular and we are existing) We have no meaningful/semantical or rational alternative to this. It is not us who are truly complete beings/existents. Existing is exclusively an attribute of God. Existence wholly belongs to God because only God is Omnipresent. The non-existence of an existent does not lead to any contradictions. But the non-Existence of the Existent 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. This is simply because of the way Existence is. It Exists/Is, therefore, non-Existence does not Exist.

Semantical ambiguity versus semantical clarity

An imperfect triangle is necessarily a thing/existent 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 or subjectivity 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 non-straight lines, 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/standard to be able to perfectly/truly/objectively answer the question (what I mean by this will hopefully become clear to the reader in the next paragraph).

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 truly 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. 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 another being who is engaging in the same reference/standard as you but with superior vision, is that it looks more like a trapezium to it because it can see the top half of the shape better than you. As for the being with truly flawless/objective vision, should it call it a trapezium or a triangle? The shape in question truly objectively is neither. If he was Omniscient, he would be able to perfectly/indubitably tell what it is more like in which imperfect standard/reference. He would also be able to completely/indubitably tell what it looks more like to which imperfect being/subject/eye. He would also be able to objectively tell to which beings it looks equally like both (or in which standards it is equally both) provided that such beings/standards are hypothetically possible in relation to the shape in question. Given curvature and the infinitesimal, the matter can be endlessly fluid.

Three paragraphs ago I asked: Is it meaningful to say “that perfect triangle is not an imperfect triangle because it is not perfectly imperfectly triangular”? If I were to say “so long as a shape perfectly fulfils the semantic of the shape y, it is perfectly y” and then I were to say “y = imperfect triangle”, then I’d have to say “that is a perfect imperfect triangle”. But isn’t it semantically underwhelming/unfulfilling to say this?

Suppose some artist Q drew an imperfect triangle, and there was some clear defining/signature feature to his drawing of a triangle such that it could be meaningfully said “that is a perfect Q triangle”. Would it then be meaningful (as opposed to underwhelming) to say “that is a perfect Q triangle”? Perhaps to someone who has no regard for “artistic triangles” or Q, it makes no difference if something is a perfect Q triangle or not. Perhaps also worth adding to this is that if there was some one/place/thing that needed a very particular imperfect triangle for whatever reason, then it could perhaps be meaningful to say “the perfect imperfect triangle for…”. For this person/place/thing, a perfect triangle would not be as fulfilling of its needs/function/existing as that very particular imperfect triangle. So what is a perfect triangle to/for this person/place/thing? If the reference is triangularity, then it would be a perfect triangle. If the reference is the person’s/place’s/thing’s need posited, then it’s the very particular imperfect triangle. Of course, whilst it’s possible to be completely right/wrong about what’s perfect for what/who/when/where, it’s also possible to be partially right/wrong about what’s perfect for what/who/when/where.

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/doubt their own vision or knowledge if they are flawed/imperfect. When an imperfect being with imperfect eyes and knowledge sees a distorted shape, he may not know if it’s the shape that’s distorted or his vision that’s resulting in the shape looking distorted to him. Of course, if he truly knew that his vision was perfect, then he would truly know that it’s the shape that’s distorted. And if he truly knew his vision lacked, then he would truly know that he is not qualified to visually inspect the shape in an absolute sense.

In the case of when he sees what looks like a perfect triangle, if he cannot zoom in as much as possible, then he must acknowledge that the shape looks like a perfect triangle to him but he cannot verify in a more absolute sense. What’s perfect for one may be imperfect for another. I know that my vision is imperfect because I cannot zoom in far enough (or see sharp enough). Thus, 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 the shape (nor my semantical awareness of ‘triangle = a three-sided shape’). Also, if I believe a triangle’s angles add up to less than 180 degrees, then my semantical awareness is likely lacking, not the semantic of triangle. I say likely because I do not know for sure that a triangle’s angels add up to 180 degrees (though I’m confident there is some proof out there beyond visually/empirically verifying the angles of a triangle that mathematicians know and are not lying about) but I am sure all triangles are triangular.

If one does not understand what a triangle is (put differently, 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 of triangle, is as far as it goes in terms of being aware of the semantic of triangle. There is no “zooming” further into this. You can never view the semantic of triangle as another semantic. Similarly, 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.

My understanding (or semantical awareness) 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 likely added to. If I remember right, in school I was taught that the angles in a triangle always add up to 180 degrees. Thus, my objective understanding of triangles likely increased and I was able to appreciate triangles more (if I liked geometry. There is nothing really wrong with not liking geometry, but there is something really wrong with not liking a truly perfect being/existence). My understanding of Existence is objective because I recognise that all things considered, Existence is at the very least truly perfectly existing (which means that at the very least, everyone is always getting what they perfectly deserve). This understanding can never change, but it can be added to. Not knowing all there is to know about something, does not mean we know nothing about it at all.

For any Q, so long as we truly 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 truly understood/recognised Q’s Q-ness in the first place, and if we say that we did, then we are either lying, or just not focused on (or understanding) what we are 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. You cannot both truly know that you were right and then later truly know that you were wrong about it. The standard/semantic of what it is to truly know dictates this. See my first blog post for a thorough 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, clearly 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, and therefore 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. Sincerity to truth/goodness is true and good because that is what a truly perfect existence/being (or God) rightfully/truly/perfectly dictates as being good.

If we mistake an imperfect triangle for a perfect triangle, or an imperfect being/existence for that which is truly perfect, then that is down to our lack of vision or reasoning. Those who adamantly 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 any who adamantly believe Zeus to be a truly perfect being. If such people were sincerer to God, Truth, or Goodness (not lazy/suppressive nor arrogant/oppressive in its pursuit. Not trying to prioritise themselves ahead of God/Goodness/Truth), they would see that their belief is semantically inconsistent, and therefore absurd/unreasonable/wrong.

Additional notes

Only God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, therefore, God alone is Free. We are free, but 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 provide.

“…you will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)

A rational person with understanding on what it is to be 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 good; not triangular-like, or pig-like, or safjogunknown-like. An irrational/unfair/evil 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 Goodness/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 fairer/sincerer or less evil in a truly objective sense (or in an all things considered sense). In other words, such people are not as good/close to resembling Goodness as those who are more committed to Truth and Goodness. Or put differently, Existence is such that the insincere to God/Goodness/Truth are not as good as the sincere to God/Goodness/Truth, and this is a perfection/truth which is rooted in Perfection/Truth/God/Existence. 

“Why do you call me Good?” Jesus replied. “No one is Good except God alone. (Mark 10:18)

Can an imperfect triangle 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 Goodness 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 Goodness, but none can be God other than God.

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 = בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ – 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 (Source = Biblehub.com)

Perhaps scripture can appear vague, unreasonable, childish, and contradictory to us at times, but then 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. We do not truly know what we would do in all possible circumstances). God neither wrongs us nor Himself. Whilst absurd statements exist, absurdity is not true of Existence (hence why they can meaningfully or perfectly be classed as absurdities). Similarly, whilst evil people/beings exist, evil is not true of Existence (hence why they (not Existence) can be perfectly or meaningfully classed as evil). To embrace what is false/evil (that which is in opposition to Truth/Goodness/God), is to be unreasonable/evil. The root of all evil is insincerity/unfairness to God. The greater this insincerity, the greater the evil. The more one is knowingly in opposition to Truth/Goodness, the more evil one is. God is wholly innocent of evil and perfectly sincere to God/Goodness/Truth. If we want to be/exist better, we must increase in sincerity/fairness 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. (Source = studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm)

Whether we visually see this or not (or how well we visually or existentially see this), Perfection is always perfectly satisfied. God’s existence (not ours or anyone else’s) is such that everyone gets what they perfectly/truly/objectively deserve all things considered (including God). 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. If we were immediately punished for a wrong move, how qualitatively would we be doing good for the sake of Good? If Karma was only such that one received a slap immediately after slapping another, how would It be anything beyond the simple functioning of a robot or “survival of the fittest” at a very basic or insignificant level? Having said that, what’s insignificant for one, may mean everything to another.