Pure reason dictates "an omnipotent being exists"

When regular omnipresence isn’t good enough, you need True Omnipresence™! Ask your doctor about True Omnipresence™ today!

Warning: do not consume or even mention True Omnipresence™ if you have been taking Free Will™ or plan on taking Free Will™; as these two are well known to form a nasty contradiction. Talk to your pharmacist/drug dealer before taking True Omnipresence™.


Awwww FUCK! I can’t wait for this fallacious piece of tripe to be explored… Just reading the title I know for a fact that a bucket of shit is following… Okay… here goes…

Well, here we go with the first bit of bullshit. NO! Possibility needs to be demonstrated. You do not get to merely assert possibility without sounding like a complete fool. A man is murdered and laying dead on the floor. After a quick look around, I announce Blue Universe Creating Bunnies did it. Can you prove it was impossible for them not to do it? Obviously they are one of many possibilities.

NO! They are not a possibility and that is not the way science works. They are not in any way among the possible causes of the man’s death.

First you gather facts. Are there blue universe creating bunny footprints? Are there bits of hair laying about? Anyone see any rabbit poop? Anyone turn up with a bit of nibbled on carrot or cabbage? What about paw prints? You begin with facts. Next you create a hypothesis. Here we have to prove that universe creating bunnies actually exist. Okay we do have some evidence but … frankly we are going to need a whole lot more. No one has ever seen a universe creating bunny before. We have to demonstrate that they are an actual option and that the man was not simply murdered by a normal bunny painted blue. Each step of the way facts, observations, and assertions must be evaluated. You don’t get to jump to A CONCLUSION and then look for supporting evidence while ignoring any contrary evidence. (The man was shot in the back of the head, How in the fuck did a bunny do that? It does not matter we have footprints and fur.) NO NO NO NO NO!

NEXT: Can you demonstrate one single thing that has been proved to be an impossibility in all possible ways? Science does not run about proving things to be impossible. What is impossible today may be possible tomorrow. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The person making the claim must demonstrate their point of view or assertion to the satisfaction of others. This is the backbone of science and is called “Independent Verification.” In short, whatever you come up with in your exploration and evaluation, I should be able to repeat and come up with identical conclusions.

#3 is nothing but a straw man Black Swan fallacy. Asserting they are not possible. And then you assert they are possible, you are engaged in a unicorn/human of the gaps fallacy. No one can demonstrate they are not possible and so they are possible. An argument from incredulity.

NO! Possibility must me demonstrated and not merely asserted. If you think they are possible, you must provide evidence for that possibility and not merely engage in an argument from ignorance fallacy.

THE REST OF YOUR POST IS NOT WORTH READING: Your foundations are pure bullshit. You would not know a logical argument if it jumped up and bit you in the ass. One fallacious comment after another does not get you to where you want to go.

You do not get to “think” a god into existence and you certainly don’t get to do it with such ignorant assertions.


Bollocks. We need evidence of that first assertion…apart from the fact that nothing we have experienced is actually omnipotent. But then we have no evidence that your statement is true. Like the rest of your “arguments” they hold water as well as a rusty colander.

What’s the difference between an absurdity, a paradox, and a hypothetical impossibility?

I see no difference between them. If you see a difference, can you show it to me?

Let’s call that which everything exists in ‘Existence’.

Existence exists everywhere. As in it is omnipresent. How could something become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state? As in how could something take the place of Existence? What existing room/space is there available for this substitution to take place?

There is none. Therefore nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state. Much like nothing can become infinite from a non-infinite state. You cannot count or expand to infinity.

Something like a 10th sense is ‘beyond understanding’. I have no idea if there are existing beings with a 10th sense or not. That would be just pointless speculation about something that is completely meaningless.

I cannot meaningfully talk about a 10th sense. But I can meaningfully talk about True Perfection (God) as length. Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of. There is nothing better than a perfect existence. A perfect existence logically entails that there is no injustice/evil within it. For such an existence to be at all possible, it (existence) needs to be Omnipresent, Omnipotent (have absolute power…be able to do all that is doable) Omniscient (know all that is knowable), Omnibenevolent towards good, Omnimalevolent towards evil, and so on.

None of the above is beyond my understanding.

What’s the difference between a unicorn and a married bachelor? One is a hypothetical impossibility, the other is a hypothetical possibility. For you to claim ‘I don’t know if unicorns are a hypothetical possibility or not’ is for you to say something contradictory. If you said ‘I don’t know if a 10th sense is a hypothetical possibility or not’ you’d be saying something true. If you said ‘I don’t know if a round square is a hypothetical possibility or not’, you’d be saying something contradictory.

We must treat impossibilities as impossibilities, possibilities as possibilities, unknowns as unknowns, and necessaries as necessaries.

The nature of Existence determines what is hypothetically possible and what is not hypothetically possible. If we conclude that Existence is Infinite (meaning there is Infinite time, space, and potential for all hypothetical possibilities to attain reality) then we have a paradox-free belief system about the nature of Existence. If we say not all hypothetical possibilities are hypothetical possibilities…then that is a clear contradiction. It would be like saying not all triangles are triangles.

If x is not a contradictory theory/concept/sentence, then it is at least a possibility. Round square = absurd = impossibility. Unicorn = meaningful = at least possibility. Existence = meaningful = necessity (it is paradoxical to reject that Existence is at least as real as us) Omnipresent = meaning = necessity
Omnipotent = meaning = necessity (see the argument for a defence of why omnipotence = necessity)

Omnipotence: If x can do all that is doable, then x is omnipotent. Existence can bring about all hypothetical possibilities (all that is doable), therefore Existence is Omnipotent.

Ok. I should have just said omnipresence instead of true omnipresence.

See my reply to Sheldon. It addresses your objections.

You need to distinguish between empirical observations and pure reason. The former is open to interpretation, the latter is not. The former adheres to the dictates of the latter. Where a theory or belief is paradoxical, pure reason dictates that you change it, and it would be unreasonable of you not to change it.

If you believe something can become omnipotent from a non-omnipotent state, then your belief is paradoxical. To be omnipotent, you need to be omnipresent. To be omnipresent, you need to be Existence. Only Existence exists everywhere. Nothing can take Its place. Nothing can become Existence. Existence just IS. Either Existence is Omnipotent, or Omnipotence is an impossibility. Where Omnipotence is meaningful and non-paradoxical, Existence is necessarily Omnipotent for reasons stated in the argument. See my reply to Sheldon for more details if you’re interested.

Existence is a state, an abstract concept, not a thing that occupies space.

I don’t know. But I’m not the one making a claim. You’re asserting that the negative answer is true. How do you know? What’s the basis for your claim?

Just repeating the claim doesn’t justify or explain it.


Is it true that all things that exist, exist in an existing thing? Yes. Call this existing thing, Existence. This thing would have to be omnipresent. Nothing can take its place. As in nothing can become that thing which all things exist in.

Well I totally agree, here you are; Desire is the antithesis of divinity. You may be ruled by illusion without realizing it. Do not let it exterminate the knowledge of your journey. Yes, it is possible to sabotage the things that can destroy us, but not without nature on our side.

Today, science tells us that the essence of nature is power. Divinity is the truth of knowledge, and of us. To engage with the journey is to become one with it.

You must take a stand against desire.
Consciousness consists of transmissions of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a deepening of the intergalactic. This life is nothing short of an awakening oasis of authentic curiosity. The galaxy is full of transmissions.

1 Like

I could not have expressed it better Old Man. You have such an eloquent way with words. Peace and mung beans be yours forever.
Pseudo-philosophical reasoned logic is the distilled essence of pure quasi-intellectual bullshit. Sounds good but so do echoes. With a little effort pure reason can prove black is white, truth is lies and unicorns must definitely fly.
Does anyone have any evidence for the existence of any god?
I don’t and it doesn’t trouble me one little bit.

You could try the dictionary?

What does that have to do with my objection to your first point? Seriously reread it.

What you’ve responded with doesn’t seem to have any relevance to that?

You have yet to offer anything to demonstrate it is possible. You have simply offered bare assertions here again.

Another subjective bare assertion. That aside, I already explained, I can understand what the words unicorn and mermaid mean, this demonstrably doesn’t make them real.

Great, now all that’s left is the part where you demonstrate some objective evidence for your claim unicorns are hypothetically possible.

I couldn’t make any sense of the endless list of redundant tautologies you offered sorry?

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?

It’s a pretty simple question.

1 Like

No it doesn’t, at all.

I find that claim very dubious

1 Like

Yes! .:joy::joy:

I went from reading your response to me, about the way you work, to this. I read his proposal through, ticking off all the things wrong with it and mentally noting my replies and then I got to you and Sheldon and thought, I’m wasting my time. It’s done.

When are these supposed intellectuals going to stop re-wording Aquinas and Anselm in order to convince us of their God and their own intelligence and try to come up with something original that hasn’t been countered so many times?

Sheldon, there is no difference between them. I made the point to you so that you might engage in a sincere manner and see for yourself. But I see you deflecting.

I already did it. If you can’t see it already, then I think it’s unwise for me to just repeat myself again.

So now you’re contradicting the dictionary, seldom a good sign.

It’s your claim there’s no difference, and you’re the one deflecting as you have avoided the dictionary definition which shows you are wrong, but I’ll play along and do your leg work for you, for now.


  1. the quality or state of being ridiculous or wildly unreasonable.


  1. a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.


  1. not able to occur, exist, or be done.

So this few seconds of Googling demonstrates they are not the same, as the definitions clearly contain differences.

Will you now insist I post the definitions of same and different?

You still haven’t answered if you can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?

It’s a simple question.

1 Like