Pure reason dictates "an omnipotent being exists"

For what it is worth:
180 degrees in a triangle is a human convention

so if you find like a race of Vulcans (from Star Trek) or something; it is very unlikely that will think a triangle has 180 degrees.

I understand that just fine. You should really stop trying to tell other people what they do and don’t understand.

So you think an alien race will have access to the semantic of euclidean triangle but believe that the angles in a triangle do not add up to 180 degrees?

You are questioning semantics. Different languages exist because the same semantics exist for everyone. People have different labels for different semantics. But the semantics they label are the same. That is why you can translate languages.

If a nation or alien race existed that believed triangles have four sides, you’d think “they must have labelled the semantic of ‘square’ triangle”. This is because semantical inconsistencies cannot exist. x cannot meaningfully believe in a round square. If the angles in a triangle don’t add up to 180 degrees, then by definition, you are not talking about a euclidean triangle, just as if the shape does not have three sides, then by definition you are not talking about a triangle. Or if it is not Infinite, then you are not talking about Existence.

Again, semantical consistency is the minimum requirement for truth. It is what reason and logic demand. It is what any good theory or belief should possess if it is to have any hope of being true of Existence.

yes, that is exactly right

I’ll tell you what, seeing as you believe that you understand Jack being both at the park and at home at the same time, AND think that it’s wrong of me to tell you that you cannot understand such a thing, I will leave you to your beliefs.

Cool. Yeah see Jack went to pet a llama at the park, and the llama bit his arm off so he ran home. Later Jack’s dad asks “where is Jack”. And Jack’s mother, who has a dark sense of humor says: “why he’s at the park and at home”. But don’t worry, they called the doctor and Jack was stitched back into one piece, so now he is just at home, making a recovery.


1 Like

I will respond even though you have not said why they are contradictory. I’ll guess as to why you think they are contradictory and try to address that guess. I’d rather have not guessed though. In any case, if you still see a contradiction between those two semantics after the following, then make clear what the contradiction is:

Justice = Everyone getting what they deserve

Mercy = Forgiving someone for doing something wrong.

If x is evil in relation to you, then you either punish him, or you forgive him. x asks you for forgiveness and mercy. Two things can happen:

  1. You punish him
  2. You forgive him (show him mercy)

If you commit to 1, then that’s an eye for an eye.
If you commit to 2, then you may have done in an unjust manner. In the case of 2, whether you did in a just or unjust manner, depends on the following:

You have a soul/character reader. You can tell if x is genuinely sorry or not. If he is genuinely sorry, then he is no longer evil. This does not take away from the fact that he was evil. Which leads to the following:

If you forgiving x results in you being harmed/wronged in any way, then you should not forgive him because that would be a case of injustice. That would be a case of you sacrificing the innocent (in this case yourself) for x’s past evil in relation to you. That would be a case of sacrificing good for evil. It should be x who should be sacrificing for you. It should be evil that should be sacrificed for good.

If you forgiving him results in you not being wronged/harmed at all, then, IF you know that x is genuinely sorry such that he is no longer evil, then the better thing to do would be to show him mercy. He is no longer evil, and his past evil did not harm you in any way. So nobody was wronged/harmed except x because he is now genuinely in regret. So by you forgiving him, you show him mercy whilst not being unjust. You were not wronged/harmed, x was wronged/harmed.

Existence is Perfect and Infinite. You cannot harm or benefit Existence (otherwise it would be imperfect and non-omnipotent). Existence can Harm or Benefit you (Karma). If you are evil and unrepentant, Existence/God is Just and Unforgiving. This is what’s Perfection in relation to unrepentant evil. If you were evil but then you genuinely/sincerely repented, then It is Just and Forgiving/Merciful. This is what’s Perfection in relation to that which has sought Perfection’s/God’s Forgiveness and Mercy with sincerity. God/Perfection was not harmed in any way, so It can afford to be Merciful without being unjust to Itself. If x was pretending to repent, or pretending to be sorry for being evil (making no effort towards being good), then Perfection would be to not Forgive it. To Forgive unrepentant evil is for evil to be better of by being evil. Evil should be better off by being good, not evil. Perfection Guarantees this. In relation to such a being (unrepentant evil), Hell is Perfection. It never repents, it’s always evil. It’s Perfection for evil to suffer (as in it’s what Satisfies Perfection). Hence Hell.

Whoa… can you provide a link or a source outside yourself for this extra addition of “…because of”.

And an outside accepted source of omnipresent being linked to existence?

And you say call it “E” or whatever I want. But that’s my point. You can’t just call things whatever you want without an agreement. I don’t agree that “omnipresence” is a quality of existence as defined in reality.

No and no.

Proofs say via law…evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

“you will be asked to give proof of your identity” - say a driver’s licence or birth certificate or fingerprints…

Semantics- “ the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics , which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics , which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics , which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.”

Words. The study of words in context and “meaning”

  • very important but should not be twisted to have no meaning either “where it’s just semantics” (quibbling over words)

I DO NOT accept your use of “existence”
AS you are describing and using it. You are presupposing onto a word and distorting meaning.

Why not just say god? Why are you using existence?

Again - presupposes “I am aware” BUT NO not this usage or meaning you are adding on to it.

…but you didn’t address that I don’t believe in “perfect” in reality. It is an ideal that I’m sure falls short in reality and any use of the word “perfect” is subjective.

Not true. The friend exists. He is apart of existence. He lies. As apart of existing and existence the lie he told is apart of “it”.

I understand he is bold face lieing. It’s not a matter of not understanding- it’s that there is demonstrable evidence that he is not where he says he is.

Anyone could be texting me using his phone. That’s the logical conclusion.

Why start now?

I was not simply expressing my opinion, but a basic principle I was taught in philosphy101 at university. I make no claims to being a philosopher because I only took a year.

Ad hominem fallacy. IE “you don’t agree with me because you’re ignorant.”

I notice you haven’t answered my question ,so I’ll ask again. Where did you study philosophy and for how long? IE do you have an undergraduate degree, in philosophy or anything else?


Do you not believe that Existence exists everywhere (omnipresently)? Do you not believe that the source of all truths and semantics, is Existence? What’s the alternative? That Existence does not exist everywhere (which logically amounts to the hypothetical impossibility of non-Existence exists everywhere). That Existence is not the source of all truths and semantics (which logically amounts to the hypothetical impossibility of non-existence being the source of all truths and semantics). If not Existence, then non-existence. Not Existence = non-Existence = Not true of Existence = Hypothetical impossibility

If you need an outside source to verify this, I don’t know of any off hand. If you believe that it’s possible for Existence to be non-omnipresent, or to not exist everywhere, then we won’t be able to progress in this discussion. We’ll have to agree to disagree. To me it’s contradictory to deny Existence as being non-omnipresent. It is hypothetically impossible for Existence to be non-omnipresent. If we can’t agree on this, we’ll to agree to disagree on everything else.

And if the argument that is presented is not semantically consistent, what happens then? Is that argument accepted or rejected?

As with any theory or belief or statement, if it is not semantically consistent, then it is by definition, false. It is by definition, not true of Existence.

And I did not say that that’s what you believe. I said IF that’s what you believe. Look again at my reply to you.

What I said was:

How can I reason with someone who does not see the logical inconsistency in denying logic as a necessary tool for arriving at truth?

I did not say that that someone was you. I said that I cannot reason with someone who does not see the logical inconsistency in denying logic as a necessary tool for arriving at truth. This does not = an attack on your character.

The rest of your questions are irrelevant. The argument speaks for itself. It does not matter what my credentials are. You don’t need to be a philosopher or mathematician to recognise the inconsistency in believing in hypothetical impossibilities as being meaningful or possible or true of Existence. You just need sincerity to reason and truth and semantics.

In any case, I studied philosophy at the University of Hull. I did a degree (that lasts three years).

Does your soul reader work over the internet/zoom? :rofl:

A distinction without a difference and still an ad homimen attack. IE any person is wrong if they do not agree with you. I’ve made it clear that I do not.

I have said more than once that logic is not a reliable tool to arrive at a truth.

The reason for that claim is that I was taught that in formal logic, arguments begin with IF A then—. That is to say that a logical inference can only be true if the premise is true. This is a broad principle, to which there are exceptions.

Consequently, although a logical inference may be true, it is not necessarily true. To me, that means that one may not reasonably claim that “logic is a necessary tool for arriving at a truth”

I obviously lack your depth of understanding, so I’ll stop here.

You seem to have ignored my questions about your claims again…

Says the man who contradicts the dictionary. Care to quote a belief I’ve offered? I’m guessing not.

Atheism isn’t a belief, and truth requires objective evidence, you’ve offered none, and are still running away from every request to do so.

At least you’ve stopped pretending you’re a philosopher with any interest in debate. I’d suggest if you want to peddle superstition, then church might be a better place for your verbiage.

1 Like

Yes, this is true. For example:

  1. All existing beings are natural
  2. Existence/God/Infinity/Perfection (I’ve explained why Infinity/Perfection/God necessarily can only semantically/meaningfully denote Existence) is supernatural

This logically implies that Existence does not exist. This is false because of an inconsistency in semantics.

Existence exists. Triangles have three sides. These are truths. Perhaps someone can just accept these truths without any logic involved. In that sense, you make a fair point. But this does not take away from the fact that if something is logically inconsistent, then it is certainly false. Also, this does not take away from the fact that we need logic to establish consistency between semantics. Whenever there is inconsistency between semantics, then there is what is certainly false. Whether it’s in a movie, or theory, if it’s semantically inconsistent (as in it amounts 1 thing being 2 different things at the same time, or something coming from nothing) then it’s certainly wrong. What is essential is consistency in semantics. Logic is a necessary tool for this. This is what I meant by logic is necessary for truth. For example:

Infinity = that which has no beginning and no end
Existence = that which all things exist in

With logic highlighting consistency in semantics we say: If Existence does not exist, then non-existence exists, non-existence can never exist (hypothetically impossible), therefore Existence is Infinite.

Objective empirical evidence is why we have paradigm shifts in science, as science requires this before it accepts anything.

Now remind us, how many deities has science ever evidenced? It’s none in case you’re struggling. How many supernatural events has science ever evidenced? Its, oh I know this one, no don’t tell me, yes it’s none again isn’t it.

So why do theists endlessly and dishonestly try to include science in their rhetoric, when they come here to peddle their superstitious wares.

If you’re struggling, I can answer that for you as well…

Now any chance I’ll get an answer to a single request for evidence to support your claims?

I think we all know the answer to that one…

1 Like

Paradigm shifts happen when an empirical observation results in an inconsistency in semantics in a given theory.

I’ve already presented twice. As in I’ve shown how rejection of God/Perfection results in an inconsistency in semantics. You say I didn’t. I’ll leave you to your beliefs.