Pure reason dictates "an omnipotent being exists"

It’s ironic how many theists and religious apologists feel this way, when their “iron clad reasoning” is pulled apart like wet Papier-mâché.

So in the end a mediocre flounce to go with his mediocre apologetics.

I’ll sum up, he can’t understand or fully explain certain concepts or states with words like existence or non-existence.

…therefore god exists, oh and unicorns are possible as well (seriously that’s not me taking the piss).

1 Like

Almost as if the semantics you’re using are facile, and insufficient to grasp concepts like non-existence.

Semantics are not infallible, no human method for understanding is infallible, your facile argument seems at odds with that fact, when you keep insisting the concept of non existence is impossible just because semantics can’t adequately understand or explain it.

Try turning off your biased rhetoric for a moment, and look at your claim critically.

Is it possible that a failure or contradiction in semantics to explain or understand a concept, like non-existence for example, is the fault of the limit of those semantics, rather than the impossibility of the concept.

If it helps your argument had you claiming that the existence of unicorns is possible, reason enough for pause I’d have thought.


According to the paper you submitted: God wanted you to have unrealistic expectations, so don’t blame us, blame God:

1 Like

God must hate you, to want you to present such farcical nonsense.

Non-existence can’t…wait for it…exist…priceless.

I’m sorry you feel that way, but I’m not surprised. I’ve seen many people come into this forum and naively think that we are ignorant and just haven’t heard the “truth”. Like them, instead of directly addressing our objections, you just repeat what you said before. That tells me that you don’t understand our objections, your beliefs, or both.

For your argument, in general, humans make up words (“semantics”), and if they match or don’t match reality, that is the human’s fault. Words themselves don’t determine reality. If we define words the way we want, like using your logic, then we can trick ourselves into thinking reality is whatever we want it to be. We define our words so we can quantify reality, not use the things we made up to figure things out about it. That is what you have backwards. If you make up all the variables of an equation, of course it is going to equal what you want it to. So I fully reject this notion that words we made up can be then used to figure out reality itself.

Here are my objections that I want your feedback on (DO NOT REPEAT YOUR CLAIMS PLEASE):

  1. We define our own words so even if we can make something “semantically correct”, it does not make it true. A totally blue cat would have a blue tale, but that doesn’t mean it exists.

  2. Finite existence is not “semantically inconsistent”. There is nothing about the way we define existence that has anything to do with a length of time. You could create a new word that means an infinite existence but that doesn’t mean such a thing exists. Once again, “Trump had a finite existence in public office” is a not inconsistent.

  3. Assuming that existence is infinite or god exists because of something else existing is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. A clue that you can use to tell if something is a logical fallacy is that you logically assume something is true without measuring it directly.


Precisely what I have tried to tell him multiple times, and of course that reality is constantly changing as we learn more about it. Which is why arguments that deal in absolutes, as his do, are doomed to fail.


This is dream crusher…

1 Like

I see what you’re trying to convey and where we disagree. Make a distinction between the following:

  1. What is necessarily at least as real as us (for example, reality and existence are necessarily at least as real as us because it is semantically inconsistent to say ‘reality isn’t at least as real as us’, or to say ‘existence does not exist with at least as much reality as we do’). We call that which falls under 1 as hypothetically impossible to meaningfully deny/reject. Or absolutely true. Or 100% true. Or 100% true of Existence/Reality.

  2. What is necessarily able to become at least as real as us (for example, a totally blue cat with a blue tail, a red square, more humans, unicorns, zeus). Note that that which we semantically/meaningfully recognise as being able to become at least as real as us, may already be at least as real as us but we just haven’t empirically observed it yet. So it may be that there is a totally blue cat on another galaxy, or that unicorns are somewhere in our universe. This is unknown to us. So it is empirically irrelevant. We call that which falls under 2 as hypothetically possible.

3 What is necessarily unable to become at least as real as us (for example a totally blue cat with a red tail, a round square, an unreal reality, a non-existent existence, a finite infinite thing, non-existence existing). We call that which falls under 3 as hypothetically impossible. Or not true of Existence. Or 100% false. Or a known falsehood. 3 is a product of the rejection of 1.

Do you agree with all the above?

We can make our own theories, words, concepts, stories with the semantics/meanings we are aware of. I’ve just made up the word “acb”. It means ‘something that is both round and triangular at the same time’. Is the word I made up meaningful/understandable/intelligible? Here’s another word I made up “abb”. It means ‘that which is non-existent but exists. Or that which exists and not exists at the same time’. Is my word meaningful?

I’ve just come up with a theory called ‘abd field’. It states that “In conclusion, reality came from 0 reality. Empirical observations show that there was non-existence, and then there was existence.” Is this a meaningful theory? Does it fall under 1, 2, or 3?

I’ve just come up with a theory call ‘abf field’. It states that “In conclusion, reality/existence has always existed. Though we can never empirically observe this, it is 100% true that existence has always existed and will always exist." Is this a meaningful theory? Does it fall under 1, 2, or 3?

That’s because we are using the word ‘existence’ differently. You view ‘exist’ to have the same meaning as ‘existence’. This is understandable. But in my other posts I defined Existence (with a capital E) as that which exists everywhere. Ok, I will change what word I’m using. So long as we are focused on the same semantics, meaningful communication can occur. Reality (with a capital R) = that which exists everywhere or every place. As in there is nowhere or place that is real where reality is non-existent. Agreed? Finite Reality is semantically inconsistent. Agreed?

Before you measure something, you logically assume that ‘measurement’ is truly meaningful, otherwise you would not be able to meaningfully measure. You do not directly measure ‘measurement’. Given what you say, should I say “measurement” does not truly mean ‘measurement’ because I have not measured it directly? Or should I say triangle or Reality or 10cm do not truly mean what they mean because I have not measured them directly? Which brings me back to my point that meanings truly mean what they mean (this is not something you measure. This is something you accept as true before you measure or assess anything or engage in a discussion). As in a triangle does not mean square. Existence does not mean non-existence. You are aware of meaning/semantics and interact with Reality/Existence. Science is only possible because meanings truly mean what they mean. What is responsible for meanings meaning what they mean? Existence/Reality. Make a clear distinction between using meanings incorrectly (so defining words or theories that are semantically inconsistent (3)) and using meaning correctly (1 and 2).

liar liar pants on fire…


You misunderstood Sheldon. See forum = non-Existence = non-Infinity = i like turtles = anal sex = Existence. :woozy_face:

That is what you did wrong.


Hilarious, some things might be possible or not, but we don’t know, this is priceless.

We don’t know if nothing is a possible state, yet you seem determined to make assertions based on not knowing. That’s called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Something you stated is impossible on this page.


  1. The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Oh the irony…

Wtf is it with you and tautologies. And yes we do measure measurements, with things like tolerances and calibration. No measurement is exact, it’s measured only by how precise we want to make it.

Still bullshit, meanings are based on common usage, they change and evolve.

Gay has a dual meaning now, as the old meaning has fallen out of vogue, this is just one example.

Of course not, but then no one but you has tried to make that ridiculous straw man claim. Nothing is a concept our language is not able to explain in this context, that’s why we leave this to theoretical physicists, not woo woo religions, or their apologists.

  1. If you are saying that we and the universe exist, then I agree. However, you are really overcomplicating this. Just saying “do you agree that we exist” is sufficient. Next, things are either true, or false, period. “Absolutely” adds nothing to the word truth. If we don’t know if something exists, then it is unknown and we cannot say whether it is true or false, aka “hypothetically possible”.

  2. Could other things we imagine exist? (my shortened version) Yes, and you have a list there, and I would add god and the universe being infinite to that list. It is possible, but that doesn’t make it real or mean that we know.

  3. This is where I lose you and this bullet point is pointless since comparing a bunch of conflicting definitions is pointless. If we agree that truth exists, then it naturally flows that some things will not be true.

Of course “abb” is not meaningful, but just making up words does not tell us something profound about the universe. I catch Christians saying things like “faith is the evidence of things unseen”, if you swap out faith for its definition you get “belief without evidence is evidence of things unseen”. It is not meaningful, but people act like it is. You can mangle our language around, but that doesn’t make things exist.

This is an assumption. We don’t know this, but you are acting like we do. What evidence do you have that existence is infinite?

Does “reality” exist outside of the universe? We don’t know. That is why I was asking for you to define what you meant by everywhere. Did realty exist before the universe? We don’t know. Will reality continue to exist infinitely in the future? We don’t know. So no, I do not agree that finite reality is semantically inconsistent, because we don’t know. Option 2 on your list above. It all could, but we don’t know. That’s why I bring it all back to epistemology; what do we know?

Do you agree?

I think you have conventions confused with their application. Humans have come up with all conventions. We invented meters so we can know the lengths of things, grams the weight, etc. We can then compare reality to our made up scale to quantify reality. Once again, if we measure something we can say that it is 10cm, and it is true if it does, but you can’t say that the measuring system is some how true or false on it’s own. I can define what a meter is, then I can also define light with a wavelength of 700 nanometers as “red”. When I go out into the world and measure light that has a wavelength of 700nm, I can say that it is true that it matches my definition of red. Once again, red is not true on its own, but only when compared to realty. Definitions are not true on their own, but only when compared to something else.

How could a measuring system be inherently true or false?

You didn’t really answer this question. As much as you like to play with words, you can’t use them to figure out reality because they are all created by other people who also don’t know.


It seems that according to @Philosopher: the raunchiest, dirtiest, group incestuous gay sex (or insert whatever kind of sex the theists hate) that has ever taken place; God wanted that gay sex to happen.

Apparently God isn’t as bigoted as his followers!

1 Like

So god wanted Eve to tempt Adam, and eat the fruit that he’d previously claimed was verboten. Then got all bent out of shape, when it happened just as god wanted it to???

So much for free will…

So he drowned the planet and every living thing because…it had turned out exactly as he wanted it to???

I guess we won’t get any answers, as Philosopher is done with this forum.


Ok, so this is what I said:
Here’s another word I made up “abb”. It means ‘that which is non-existent but exists’.

And this is why you replied with:
Of course “abb” is not meaningful, but just making up words does not tell us something profound about the universe.


This is an assumption. We don’t know this, but you are acting like we do. What evidence do you have that existence is infinite?

So you clearly understand that ‘that which is non-existent but exists’, cannot be true. You understand that abb is 100% false. abb cannot be a meaningful word, theory, belief or statement. So why then do you reject the following:

Existence has always existed and will always exist

If Existence has not always existed, then you are saying that abb is true. Because let’s say the universe had a beginning. Was this beginning in non-existence, or Existence? In other words, was this beginning in/via an existing thing, or a non-existent thing? If you say non-existence (non-existent thing), then you are saying that non-existence existed (meaning that you believe that abb is true). If you reject abb, then you are rationally obliged to commit to the following:

Something has always existed and will always exist.

If you then reject that we don’t know if it will always exist, then I put to you the following falsification of said potential rejection:

How can something go into or become non-existence? Do not confuse this with something becoming non-existent in relation to what it was before in your reality. For example, your dog dies. Your dog is no longer existing as your dog in your reality. This does not mean that your dog went into non-existence or that it became nothing/non-existent. It means that it changed into something else. When you burn something and it turns to ashes, those ashes don’t then turn to nothing/non-existence do they?

Do you see where I’m going with this? So again, you reject abb. If you reject abb then how can you reject the following:

Some existing thing (which I will call Existence) has always existed and will always exist. Some existing thing, is infinite.

Only you are using that straw man. We don’t know what state existed or didn’t exist prior to the big bang. This is sounding like a god of the gaps polemic now.

Rubbish, as has been explained to you exhaustively, we can’t expect to have the semantics to explain something we currently don’t understand.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Nothing is proved or disproved because of a lack of evidence.


  1. the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

You have yet to establish with objective evidence or rational argument, that your claim that a negation of that state is impossible.

You simply keep asserting it by invoking your straw man tautology that non-existence can’t exist.

It’s astonishing you think such word games are rational argument, but hey ho.

1 Like

Don’t be dishonest, I did not say that we don’t know if “abb” is real as it is pointless to make up contradicting definitions.

It is not true or false, but just meaningless because we cannot compare it to reality since it is a contradiction in terms.

This is profoundly silly. Finite reality is not a contraction in terms, it is simply an unknown. You can’t just say that things you think exist must be true and like a contradiction if you can’t prove it. Even if we knew that, it wouldn’t be proof of god. You still did not answer my question on post hoc.

We don’t know! All you’re doing is guessing. I’m not trying to guess and tell you what I think is true. What I am telling you is that I don’t know, you don’t know, and we can’t know by playing word games.

Yes, things can change into other forms. But we don’t know where the matter and energy that at some point made the dog, originally came from.

1 Like

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. … “When I use a word ,” Humpty Dumptysaid, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean —neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

Fuck me with a dead galah this twat really is a meaningless waste of fucking time. I would rather read Lewis Carroll again and recite Edward Lear in a bath of lye that discuss the deepitiness of deepity with this self styled “stable genius”.