Pure reason dictates "an omnipotent being exists"

[Philosopher]

@Sheldon

(1) Theists generally claim their deity is “beyond understanding”. So that’s a problem for your 1st assertion. Perhaps you can explain how and what you understand about a deity? As usually this is no more than unevidenced assertions about its attributes. For example understanding unicorns are like white horses, which are possible and exist, and have a single horn, and extant horns are also possible and exist, doesn’t make unicorns necessary or real.

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.

@Sheldon

That implies unicorns are possible, I’m open minded, all I ask is that you please demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support the claim.

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.

@Sheldon

So you can demonstrate sufficient objective evidence it is possible? Maybe you should have led with that, though this of course doesn’t evidence a deity.

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)

@Sheldon

I’m a little dubious about how you’ve defined omnipotence here as “access to all things”. It means limitless power.

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.