Pure reason dictates "an omnipotent being exists"

Before I was married my ex wife’s mother told me “once she makes up her mind, nothing will change it”

I admired such resolve, mistaking it for strength of character. It didn’t take me long to work out that her stubbornness was not an indication of character but its opposite .

Reading what’s-his-names broken record posts made me think of her. I don’t know why. :innocent:

Bored now.

1 Like

Yes. Over a week later. Over 240 posts. Jesus fuckin’Christ.

Ohh come on!!! Who is taking this crap seriously? He would not know a fallacy, false assertion or outright lie if it jumped up and bit him in the ass.

1 Like

And here we have practically the poster child for elementary failure of understanding.

First of all, it’s perfectly possible for people to utter absurd and irrational statements, which on its own destroys your facile asserted equality above. Indeed, I was directed recently to a public statement by one Marjorie Taylor Greene, attributing the recent California wildfires to Jewish space lasers paid for by the Rothschilds. Since I observed her uttering this statement on a TV news channel, I know it’s possible for people to treat batshit insane ideas as fact. Indeed, treating batshit insane ideas as fact, is practically a definition of both absurdity and irrationality. But wait, there are plenty of people out there who perform this operation, and do so frequently. Pedlars of ex recto apologetics gatecrashing this site spring to mind at this juncture.

As for impossible, well, it’s impossible for a real number to equal the square root of -1, but that doesn’t mean the concept of the square root of -1 is absurd or irrational, as any competent pure mathematician will tell you. Indeed, an entire branch of pure mathematics, namely complex analysis, arose from the act of defining i to be the square root of -1, and extending the number system via said definition.

Extending the number system in this manner has turned out to be immensely useful from a practical standpoint, courtesy of the existence of conformal mapping theory, which, among other uses, has been used to design aerofoils for commercial jetliners (see “Joukowski aerofoil” for more on this).

In addition, extending the number system via this means, turned up some interesting surprises. In the realm of the complex number field, the French mathematician Augustin-Louis Cauchy alighted upon a startling result, centred upon his work aimed at providing a rigorous definition for the derivative in complex number theory. That startling result consisted of a proof that if the derivative exists, for a function in the complex number field, then that function is infintely differentiable in the complex number field. This is not true for functions restricted to the real number field, a good many of which are only finitely differentiable.

Then there’s another startling outcome from extending the number field to the complex numbers, which centres upon whether or not it is possible to extend the definition of a function to a region outside its original region of definition. Quite simply, it has been proven that this is always possible for functions in the complex number field. The process consists of the following steps:

Step 1: Given a region R1 within which a function f(z) is defined, now define a new region R2, in such a manner that it overlaps R1. In other words, the region R1 ⋂ R2 is non-empty.

Step 2: Define a function g(z) within the region R2, in such a manner that within the region R1 ⋂ R2, f(z) = g(z) for all points in that region .

Step 3: The function g(z) in R2 therefore constitutes the extension of the definition of f(z) into the region R2.

This process is known as analytic continuation, and is a perfectly proper and respectable means of extending a function definition to a new region of the complex plane. Indeed, applying this process to the zeta function allowed Bernhard Riemann to extend the definition thereof to the entire complex plane, with the exception of a singularity at z = 1+0i.

While doing so, he alighted upon an extremely interesting hypothesis about the non-trivial roots of that function, which has significant impact upon our knowledge of the distribution of prime numbers. That hypothesis, incidentally, has tested and destroyed numerous world class mathematicians, and remains unproven to this day, which is why the Clay Mathematical Institute is offering a $1 million prize to the first mathematician to succeed in proving or disproving the hypothesis.

So, while it’s impossible for a purely real number to equal √-1, allowing that number to exist leads not only to an internally consistent new number field, but to a host of illuminating results covering such topics as functional analysis, vector spaces, etc. Indeed, extending tensors to the complex number field allows for a much easier transition to spinors than would otherwise be possible.

As a corollary of the above, if you have problems with this elementary concept, I see no reason why anyone should trust the rest of your apologetics.


[quote=“Old_man_shouts_at_cl, post:234, topic:1124”]
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.)

I will add Algebe gets it, and Callissea not only gets it but explains it , at length to you, Mr “philosopher”.

Get rid of the arrogance and pretension so obvious in the posts and realise your education is just beginning. There are better minds at work in this forum then 3 years of middling college…hold on…it wasnt a :christian college" you attended was it?

If it was that explains your posts, if not, then it is obvious by your posts that you didn’t pay attention.

1 Like

So much for civilised and open minded. I doubt there’ll be much sincerity to reason and truth on your part given your first post here. In any case, I will attempt to verify this via the following question:

Is it rational for someone to have a belief or theory that is semantically inconsistent?

The answer is either yes or no.

Let’s see if you answer the question, or just dodge it completely.

Irony much? You are wasting everyone’s time that has attempted to engage with you. Your head is in lockdown it seems.


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.


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?


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.


: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.


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.


The wheels on the bus go round and round.


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.