Pure reason dictates "an omnipotent being exists"

I made the assumption that you would treat that which is contradictory (hypothetically impossible) as contradictory (hypothetically impossible). What you’re actually doing is treating that which is contradictory (hypothetically impossible) as unknown (I don’t know if it’s meaningful or not). This is like treating that which is round, like it is triangular because it is treating one meaning as though it means another meaning. Hence the semantical inconsistency on your part (belief about the nature of Reality/Existence) I keep highlighting.

Compare the following:

  1. dsghsghjk djksdfjkh

  2. ‘10th sense’ ‘100th sense’

  3. ‘Round square’ ‘non-existent existence’

1, 2, and 3 are all meaningless. 1 is pure gibberish. 2 is meaningless but is made up of meaningful words. 3 is meaningless but is made up of meaningful words.

Compare 2 and 3. What difference do you see between them?

3 is contradictory, 2 is not. Contradictions are contradictions because they contradict a certain/definite truth. Falsification in science or any thing else for that matter, is rooted in this principle. It is not rooted in empirical observation. Empirical observations are used to support this principle, otherwise science would not be science at all.

For example, it is definitely true that measure means measure, or that a measure really is a measure, or that a triangle means triangle, or that a triangle really is a triangle, or that infinity means infinity, or that that which is infinite, really is infinite, or that Reality means Reality, or that Reality is Reality.

Unknowns are unknowns because they are unknowns. As in we don’t 100% know if a word, theory, or story is contradictory in meaning, or consistent in meaning, or not. You are treating 3s like 2s. This is an inconsistency on your part that you need to address.

Do you see the difference between that which is contradictory/hypothetically impossible (irrationalities) and that which is unknown (neither rational or irrational, neither contradictory nor meaningful, just simply unknown)?

With the above being said, do you now see why we know for certain, that abb is not real/true? Do you see how necessarily either abb is the reality/truth about Existence/Reality (Reality/Existence came from non-existence/0 reality) or

‘abf field’ is real/true. As in ‘abf field’ is the reality/truth about Existence/Reality. As in the nature of Existence/Reality is that it is infinite.

Again, either Reality/Existence has always been real/existed (abf field), or it hasn’t (abb). There is no other option. It’s one or the other. We KNOW it’s not abb. So…

Again, if a theory, word, or belief is contradictory, then it is certainly not true of Reality/Existence. Saying Reality/Existence is finite, is contradictory for reasons shown above. Agree or disagree?

hahahahaha

Listen to @Philosopher, @TheMagus apparently this needs to be addressed, “this inconsistency”

Oh god, fuck me!!! I swear, I’m on here because I get so many laughs.

1 Like

No it’s fucking not, as you’ve been shown exhaustively. You’re comparing simple concepts we understand, like the number of fucking sides a triangle has, with concepts we know next to nothing about, like the pre big bang state, and using subjective terms you’ve hand picked to conjure a deity from a bronze age superstition into the mix.

It’s risible nonsense.

I skipped the rest as you’re simply repeating the same erroneous claim you started with, and have repeated over and over again, but with a slightly different disingenous red herring analogy each time.

You haven’t even told us which deity you believe is real, so this was a meaningless exercise in dishonest semantics from the very first.

You’re also risibly claiming to have answers that the entire scientific world seems to have missed.

We don’t know if a state of nothing is possible, and neither do you, using disingenuous descriptions for it that are contradictory like exist or existence is a juvenile piece of absurd sophistry.

Not knowing that something is rationally impossible, does not mean we can logically infer it is possible. The thread author is using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to claim otherwise.

I think most objective readers can see quite clearly why the thread author has dishonestly refused to address that fact.

Even were all this not valid rational objections to his claims, his argument doesn’t demonstrate the existence of any deity, just a ludicrously tenuous leap from his irratiinal claim that omnipotence is possible, to a deity…?

Even then his argument would only support deism, not theism.

1 Like

Non-existent existence?

Cogito ergo sum, muthafockers!!! :joy::joy:

2 Likes

I don’t think you understand words and their relationship to reality. We invented words to describe measured reality, not the other way around. Otherwise, there would be no use for them. We noticed that it was useful to know if some things are longer and shorter, so we invented measuring system to quantify them. We noticed some things were heaver and lighter, and it was useful to have a system to measure weight. Even if you could think of a measuring system for something invisible, it would be functionally useless.

Do you think words came first? If so, how would we know that they are useful if we can’t measure something?

It is not measurably contradictory. In your mind, you define existence similar to us, but add it being infinite in time and space. Yes, what we are saying conflicts with the way you define it, but as you already said, like the blue cat, you can make up words that could exist, but we don’t know.

Time for the opinion section. I have been debating religion for over 20 years and this is, by far, the worst argument I have ever heard for the existence of god. You are defining a word the way you want to, and then saying that because of the way you defined it, that reality must be that way. Furthermore, because of the way you defined your word, god must exist. In response to our questions you just keep saying that our definition doesn’t make sense and that yours is correct (without evidence). Understand that you are defining existence as being infinite because you want to. Words must have measurable definitions to be useful and mutually agreed upon. How would you ever know if the universe was really finite? On top of that, it takes another logical fallacy to then extend the universe being infinite to say that god must exist. This is the most important point that I think your are unable to answer.

Just for my own knowledge, what is your religion and highest level of education? Most people I know who are more educated in science and math make completely different arguments that generally end with the admission that they are believing because they want to and not evidence they have. They definitely don’t play these silly word games.

This conversation doesn’t seem to be going anywhere and you keep responding with nonsensical things like that is somehow evidence. I could say that the definition of existence requires that it is finite, and that anything you say against it is like a rounded square. Except it would be stupid, because I defined existence the way I wanted to. The core is that you haven’t proven how one definition of existence is more correct than another. The only reason you know anything about existence, is the finite measurement that you have taken of it.

Please study science, math, and logical fallacies. Take a few years to learn and then see if you still think this is a good argument.

1 Like

He has literally claimed word definitions are absolutes.

It’s woefully bad to be sure. One of his key premises is that “nothing exists” is a rational contradiction.

It takes seconds to re-word the concept accirately as no thing exists, and then his ridiculous semantics unravel.

Of course no one apart from Philosopher has made any claim about no-thing. I simply disbelieve his unevidenced assertion that it’s not possible.

1 Like

I’ve been wading through the the mire of arguments of our university trained philosopher. The notion of using semantics to reach a truth keeps coming up.

One word keeps coming into my mind ; ‘sophistry’. Specifically the arguments of Zeno Of Elea. EG: He proves that dog is your father, that the hare never catches the tortoise in their race, and my favourite, that motion is impossible.

I think it is from Zeno that I began to form the observation that reality cannot be argued into existence. These days I demand empirical evidence for claims and will accept nothing less.

Apologies if my reasoning seems a bit muddled. I’m old and easily confused.

1 Like

You keep saying I’m making my own definitions as though you have no idea what the semantic of Existence/Reality entails.

It’s so simple. Has some x always existed such that it did not come from non-existence/nothing?

You talk of measure. Consider the change in beliefs from the earth being flat, to it being round.

It never made sense to believe in something that is semantically contradictory and it never will. This is not a matter of empirical observation being different to what we expect (like the earth being round when we thought it flat). This is more fundamental/foundational than that.

We never observed/measured one thing be two different things at the same time and we never will. We did not get this from science. We got this from reason/semantics. Semantics/reason dictates that no one semantic/meaning/thing can be two different semantics/meanings/things at the same time. We did not observe the earth be round from space and then conclude: ‘The earth is round and flat at the same time’, precisely because we KNOW that we cannot have a belief that is contradictory in semantics (despite never measuring this or empirically observing this). It’s either round or flat. Which empirical observation do we want to believe in? The view from space is best. So we believe in that.

The argument I put here shows that rejecting a perfect being/existence, results in having a semantically contradictory belief. Like believing in round squares or the existent non-existent. I did not create the semantic of Existence or Perfection, just as I did not create the semantic of triangle. I know what I’m talking about when I say you have it backwards. Meanings have always meant what they meant and they will always mean what they mean. Different languages will have different labels for them, but the semantics they focus on is the same. This is why you can communicate with other people with different languages. To treat contradictions like they are unknowns (which is what you are doing), is to ‘justify’ anything you want, like this: We don’t know if the earth is round or flat because contradictions don’t prove anything. So it’s unknown to us whether or not if the earth is round and flat at the same time.

Again:

It never made sense to believe in something that is semantically contradictory and it never will. Some people believe God can create something from nothing, some people believe something can come from nothing. Some people say “we don’t know if something can come from nothing because we never observed such a thing”. Yes, you also never observed one thing be two different things at the same time. Yet you would never allow yourself to believe such a thing to be possible. All such people are absurd/irrational/semantically inconsistent in their beliefs. You cannot reason with them. They seek refuge in unknowns to justify their absurd and rationally inconsistent beliefs.

Just remember, you said you were willing to change your beliefs if they were shown to be wrong/contradictory (semantically inconsistent). So I debated with you.

No. Wrong. You are missing some semantic qualifiers. Can you guess which ones?

1 Like

It once made common sense that the sun revolved around the earth, but we were wrong. It once made sense to me that something or someone must have been behind the complexity we see in nature, perhaps an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being. And perhaps that is the case. But I simply don’t know, as no being has made it clear to me whether this is true or not. I can only conclude that I don’t know, and I will nolonger presume otherwise.

2 Likes

Not the the word definitions themeselves, but you are using words in an ad hoc and biased fashion, like the risible notion that the idea of nothing existing is actually arguing that something is existing in order to falsely claim a contradiction. Which is easily removed, by recording the phrase, since we are dealing with a state that even cutting edge theoretical physics has little understanding of.

You are making absolute claims about concepts no one fully understands. You even claimed word definitions were absolutes at one point, a demonstrably false claim.

No one knows, and neither do you, since always necessarily involves knowledge we don’t have.

2 Likes

It never made sense to believe in something that is semantically contradictory and it never will. This is not a matter of empirical observation being different to what we expect (like the earth being round when we thought it flat). This is more fundamental than that.

We never observed/measured one thing be two different things at the same time and we never will. We did not get this from science. We got this from reason/semantics. Semantics/reason dictates that no one semantic/meaning/thing can be two different semantics/meanings/things at the same time. We did not observe the earth be round from space and then conclude: the earth is round and flat at the same time, precisely because we KNOW that we cannot have a belief that is contradictory in semantics (despite never measuring this or empirically observing this). It’s either round or flat. Which empirical observation do we want to believe in. The view from space is best. So we believe in that.

The argument I put here shows that rejecting a perfect being/existence, results in having a semantically contradictory belief. Like believing in round squares or married bachelors or existent non-existents. Again:

It never made sense to believe in something that is semantically contradictory and it never will. Some people believe God can create something from nothing, some people believe something can come from nothing. All such people are absurd/irrational/semantically inconsistent in their beliefs.

Sheldon gets it, Boomer gets it, The Magus gets it, Whitefire gets it…David Killens gets it, Nyarklthep gets it…(If I’ve missed anyone…sorry.)

The only person half witted enough to keep on harping on the same discredited and silly argument is “Philosopher”.

You do not even KNOW what is wrong with your “argument”…despite all these good folks (except for me, I think your arguments are so much timewasting regurgitated indigestible crap) taking the time to disabuse you of your overweening and pretentious desire to "logic/reason your version of a god into existence.

Newsflash. It ain’t happening.

2 Likes

A perfect being creates an imperfect world. That in itself is a contradiction.

4 Likes

This is “Blatently Wrong!” You have set up a false dichotomy based on what you know… “Our current form of existence within this universe.” and “Anything and everything else whose existence may be completely beyond our ability to understand.”

Reality/Existence is. There is no opposite that we know of. Any opposite imagined is merely chewing gum for the mind with no substance behind it what so ever. You live in this little bubble that we call, “The Universe.” It is here and it exists. You have absolutely no knowledge what so ever about what is beyond. You can find information about this universe, right up to Planck time. “AND THEN” That information comes to a ‘STOP.’

You do not get to assert that the universe has always existed and you do not get to assert that the universe is finite. YOU ARE NOT THAT FUCKING SMART. What you get to do, along with the rest of us, is simply admit that YOU DON’T FUCKING KNOW. If you had a fucking clue you would be taking classes at MIT and working part time at the Hydron Collider. FUCK OFF.

1 Like

If Existence consisted of one single world or instance of imperfection/injustice/evil, you’d be right.

Whether Existence is infinite/perfect or finite/imperfect, is not something you can empirically observe. This is because you can never empirically observe all the premises with regards to any given affair to conclude ‘injustice’ or ‘imperfection’. But you are still rationally obliged to believe Existence to be both perfect and infinite. Rejecting this leads to a contradictory (semantically inconsistent) belief about the nature of Existence for reasons already given.

You interpret your empirical observations in line with pure reason such that you do not end up having a contradictory (semantically inconsistent) belief. You do not sacrifice pure reason for the appearance of things (empirical observations).

No, you got it, by manipulating semantics, then insisting your rationale is logically sound against all objections, to preserve an your a priori belief in unevidenced archaic superstition.

Which god are you claiming exists btw, you still haven’t said? Your profile says theist, not deist, but then you have lied several times already.

No it doesn’t, as has been amply demonstrated by multiple posters in this thread. Just because you’ve refused to acknowledge that, and stubbornly repeat the claim doesn’t make it rational.

Like a perfectly benevolent deity with limitless power and knowledge, creating an existence with ubiquitous suffering. As a perfect and rational example. Your example is only a contradiction because you have subjectively constructed it to be.

No we’re not, as has been explained to you exhaustively.

YOU obviously :roll_eyes: don’t read my posts.

When an electron is in superposition , it is both up and down at once – it is a complex combination of both. BOTH clockwise and counter-clockwise spin…

At one scale it appears very flat, on another scale is appears very round.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KaZC6bKDAxQ

@Philosopher
The vase exists in reality. It can be measured and demonstrated. The illusion does not exist in reality. Does this help? Your perception is “off”.