Pure reason dictates "an omnipotent being exists"

He’s struggled more than once with simple word definitions . Even tried to claim definitions were absolute truths.

I’ve lost count of how many times this has been explained to him. He’s also making analogous comparisons between knowing how many sides a triangle has, and knowing what was and was not possible prior to the big bang.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah…

Uh, oh no…:face_with_raised_eyebrow:…irony overload…

1 Like

A “perfect being” could not require anything to be added, or removed; if so, then it is no longer perfect. So if a “perfect being” creates something, it is removing something from itself, and thus is no longer perfect.

Read the OP, is this seriously the best theism has to offer?

Wow…

Furthermore, even if someone was daft enough to accept it all, there would be an almost an infinite number of possible omnipotent beings/entities that could be responsible for everything.

It get you nowhere, it certainly gets you no closer to proving the god of any religion exists.

It only serves to show how little and fragile the evidence is on the side of theism, its kinda sad that this is how far the argument for a god(s) has fallen.

Nothing gets added to or taken away from Existence for it to go from imperfect to perfect or vice versa, or, from finite to infinite or vice versa. Either Existence has always been Infinite/Perfect and always will be Infinite/Perfect, or It never was Infinite/Perfect and never will be. I have shown that to believe in the latter is to have a semantically inconsistent belief.

When you form a belief you consider all semantics. When you form a belief about Existence you consider ALL semantics. The semantics of ‘Infinity’ and ‘Perfection’ and ‘Omnipresence’, all exclusively apply to Existence. They cannot apply to any other semantic without amounting to a contradiction (inconsistency in semantics). One cannot meaningfully say ‘Perfection’, ‘Omnipresence’, ‘Infinity’, and ‘Existence’, are meaningless without being insincere to semantics. It would be like me saying triangles are meaningless. It would be a case of me being insincere to the semantic of triangle, pretending that I don’t know what it means, when I clearly know that it means what it means.

Then how come many christian teachings indicate that a person should strive for a state of spiritual perfection? How come your word play does not account for this inconsistency?

Of how do we deal with semantics for a dead language? Should a proper discourse be conducted in Medieval Latin?

FYI, I know of a triangle where the three angles add up to a number in excess of 180 degrees.

1 Like

I’m not here to discuss religion. The following holds true of all books, beliefs, theories, and so on: If it is semantically inconsistent, then it is definitely wrong. If I was here to discuss the bible, then I’d understand why you would show me semantical inconsistencies in the bible (if there are any). I’m not here to discuss the bible. I’m here to discuss the nature of Existence.

So what inconsistency have I not accounted for?

Semantics have always been the same and will always be the same. Languages label semantics. Triangles has always meant three-sided shape. Different languages will have a different label for this semantic. Perfection has always meant that which no greater than can be conceived of. Different languages will have a different label for this semantic. Existence has always meant Existence. It may be that the semantic I have labelled as ‘Existence’ you label as something else, but the semantic will be the same and the connection between relevant semantics will also be the same. As in you cannot use the semantic of ‘omnipresent’ without referring to the semantic of ‘Existence’ because only Existence exists everywhere.

You can have euclidean triangles and non-euclidean triangles. This does nothing to semantics which have always been the same and will always be the same. A unicorn has always meant unicorn. When the concept was focused on and why it was brought to focus is a different matter. It is not the case that a unicorn meant something different 1 millions years ago than it does now. Either people were focused on the semantic of unicorn, or they weren’t. You do not create semantics, just as you do not create pitch in music. You work with them. Use them. Reality/Existence makes them the way they are by virtue of It Being the way that It Is. Again, round squares will not become meaningful in the future, nor were they ever meaningful in the past. All semantics have always existed and will always exist and will always mean what they mean. Which ones we focus on and at what point in time we do this, is a different matter.

Semantics are absolute. If they weren’t, absolutely nothing meaningful would take place ever. What semantic one is focused on, and what links one makes between semantics, are what cause consistent or inconsistent beliefs/theories/statements. Progress comes from being rational. It comes from being semantically consistent. Where evolution is the truth, then x evolved because x had the ability to learn to adapt to its environment/reality. We have the the ability to learn to adapt to Reality, to exist better in relation to It. Being semantically/rationally consistent is foundational to this. It’s why anything successful we’ve done has been successful. We’ve evolved to be able to distinguish what it is to exist well from what it is to exist in an evil manner. We either choose good, or evil. To exist well, or to do the opposite.

V.S.

:woozy_face: :exploding_head:

1 Like

Excuse me? I spend time discussing in detail the wonders of complex analysis, and your response is to treat this as some sort of personal attack?

This has to be a first, even by the usual standards applicable to the output of pedlars of ex recto apologetics.

Did I burst your complacent, self-centred little bubble with inconvenient facts? Boo fucking hoo.

Here’s a clue for you, sunshine. Ideas are a free-fire zone for whatever discoursive ordnance is brought to bear thereupon, to determine whether or not those ideas are good or bad. If you don’t realise this, despite billing yourself as “Philosopher”, then you might want to look for a more appropriate label.

Projection, much?

It’s hilarious being accused of discoursive dishonesty, by someone who treated an exposition of complex analysis as a personal attack.

This is going to be good

First of all, I’d like you to define the term “semantically inconsistent”, because I suspect you don’t know what this actually means. Given the manifest problems you have already demonstrated with elementary concepts, not to mention your frankly bizarre response to a proper exposition thereof, I suspect you don’t know what this term actually means.

Upon receipt of a properly constituted definition of that term, I’ll be more than happy to answer your question, because I actually understand the relevant concepts. Whether you will understand my answer, of course, remains to be seen.

Whoopee. Want a cookie for stating the blatantly obvious?

Let’s see if you know what the question you posed is actually asking first, shall we? You see, I’m familiar with pedlars of ex recto apologetics asking questions, then upon receipt of a substantive answer, shifting the goalposts to avoid facing the implications of said substantive answer for their apologetics. The reputation of your ilk has preceded you in this vein.

5 Likes

I’m glad you pointed this out. It was a semantical inconsistency on my part. I fixed it.

It means that semantics (meanings) are used in an inconsistent manner. For example:

A round square, is a semantically inconsistent phrase. It is a contradictory phrase. A round square is a hypothetically impossible thing (as in it cannot/does not exist).

Hopefully, you are clear on the following: If no omnipresent thing/entity exists, then that logically/semantically implies that non-existence exists.

If you are not clear on the above, I can show this to you. But I’m assuming you’re clear on this.

Call that which exists omnipresently E.

E is finite is a semantically inconsistent statement/belief. It is a contradictory belief. A finite E is a hypothetically impossible thing (as in E cannot be finite), therefore, E is necessarily Infinite.

E is imperfect is a semantically inconsistent statement/belief (see the argument for why believing in an imperfect E (which I labelled as Existence in my argument) results in semantical inconsistencies), which in turn means it is impossible for E to be imperfect because an imperfect E is a hypothetically impossible thing.

That which is semantically inconsistent, is also hypothetically impossible, as demonstrated above.

V.S.

The wheels on the bus go round and round.

3 Likes

The many professions I worked in my life all required a high level of accuracy and understanding in my tasks. In performing such duties, I had to consult many volumes of tech manuals and instructions. So I am very familiar with precision and effective communication. Yet when I read your words, they do not make sense, you are under the assumption that just because you keep repeating something, it is true.

I have seen enough of these arguments that pretend they are arguing a god into existence. Yet of all I have witnessed, they always come down to a stalemate, with one party in the position where they must provide proof or evidence, and fall short.

So I will cut to the chase … can you provide more than just your form of logic to prove your assertions?

I deal in the real world, not one of happy thoughts and unicorns.

2 Likes

Reality/Existence gave you access to semantics. Its Nature is such that you have access to an Infinity of semantics. This is why people meaningfully communicate with each other and do all the meaningful things that they are able to do. Per the dictates of pure reason (which is a product of Reality/Existence being the way that It Is/Exists) that which is semantically inconsistent, is definitively not true of It/Reality/Existence.

I’ve shown that to believe in an imperfect existence, is to believe in something that is semantically inconsistent. Any counter you put forward, I responded to. It’s like going to a ‘religious’ person and saying God cannot create something from nothing, and then them saying can you provide more than just your form of logic to prove your assertions?

If x is proven to be a semantically inconsistent belief, then x is proven to be wrong.

Given Existence Being Perfect, it’s in everyone’s best interest to be rational and semantically consistent in their beliefs. If x believes existence is imperfect despite this belief being semantically inconsistent (and him/her being shown this), then x will suffer if he/she does not change his/her beliefs (a consequence of Existence Being Perfect). Karma isn’t just Real, It’s Precise, Thorough, Brutal (if one is evil), and Glorious (if one is good). To treat that which is perfect as imperfect, is to be unfair and semantically inconsistent.

V.S.

:woozy_face: :exploding_head:

2 Likes

There is a difference between a belief/word/theory existing that is semantically inconsistent, and a semantically inconsistent thing existing.

A round square is a semantically inconsistent phrase. This phrase exists. Round squares do not.

OK, let us be rational. I am not convinced the god you describe exists. Convince me with proof or evidence. This method works in resolution of conflicts, as well as court cases.

1 Like

For me to prove that x’s belief is wrong, I’d have to falsify x’s belief. If I show semantical inconsistencies in x’s belief, then I have falsified x’s belief.

In court P says I didn’t do it. Q says the evidence suggests that what you say is semantically inconsistent (of course they don’t say ‘semantically inconsistent’, they say ‘lie’ or ‘not telling the truth’ but use empirical evidence to show that what P is saying doesn’t add up semantically given all the premises available. They rationally try to show semantical inconsistencies via empirical evidence. Now imagine someone saying I saw a round square. You don’t use empirical evidence to prove they are wrong. You can’t. You only use reason. You say it is impossible to see round squares because such a thing is impossible (semantically inconsistent) by definition. We can never empirically observe round squares not existing. We take it as a given because reason tells us to. It is with reason that we interpret empirical observations, because again, that’s what reason tells us to do). All lies, all false beliefs, are semantically inconsistent.

Again, I’d like to highlight, I have proven that the following is semantically inconsistent:

Existence is imperfect.

As in I have falsified the above via showing semantical inconsistencies inherent within it. You would not believe in a round square existing because it is a semantically inconsistent thing. So why would you believe in an imperfect existence existing when it is also a semantically inconsistent thing?

How are you going to show us something that you told us can NOT exist?

1 Like

I don’t give a crap. I am requesting proof or evidence to support your god proposition.

1 Like