Pure reason dictates "an omnipotent being exists"

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.


:woozy_face: :exploding_head:


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

Nonsense, my criteria for belief is that sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated to support it.

You don’t get to limit the scope of what is discussed, especially since you have claimed to be a theist in your profile. Though at this point I shan’t even feign surprise at your dishonesty.

There are innumerable contradictions in the bible. That is axiomatic.

Utter rubbish, and this lie won’t gain credence from repetition. The word triangle once dud not exist, as humans had no word to describe the concept, and probably little or no understanding of the concept. The fact you’ve repeated this lie after so many have explained shows you’re not worth debating with. Not that we needed anymore evidence, but your ludicrous and biased rhetoric will still be challenged.

So you’re claiming words existed before humans created them as labels for, and explanations of, things? If so that’s an asinine claim.

Another repetition of an earlier lie. It is a fact that words can, and often do change their meanings overtime, sometimes these changes encompasse shifting perspectives, but sometimes these changes are arbitrary and subjective, and just become commonly used.

This has been explained to you already, so your repetition is a lie.

Good luck, I’ve grown hoarse asking and given up, as he hasn’t even the integrity to say yes or no that he can demonstrate anything approaching objective evidence.

When do you think we can expect the news to break outside this forum that he’s “proved” deism?

Nothing on any news channels yet? Whatever can the delay mean?

1 Like

Are you saying semantics is “meaning”? Again, awhile back I pointed this out.

Everything is neutral - we provide meaning.

We as a human species on a group level, to tribe levels to … individual level.

When an event happens in my personal life, I provide the meaning of that event. I determine whether it is a positive or negative and the “outcome” (some require time/action to get me where I decide I need to go) for a favourable result.

Words themselves hold no special meaning - just a sound/writing to express the specific “meaning” we’ve agreed the sound/writing represents.

So - once again YOU have stuck to your idea :bulb: YOUR “meaning”.

This has been explained previously. Putting nonsense “together” does not evidence your god idea. It does demonstrate your inconsistent mind to stubbornly hold ideas :bulb: that have no “meaning”.

Well firstly is @Philosopher referring to logical semantics or lexical semantics?

And of course his examples of simple shapes are deliberately facile, so he can dishonestly compare their definition against words like existence, when used to make sweeping and absolute claims about the state that may or may not have existed prior to the big bang.

Its risible and asinine, to make such inadequate comparisons, as has been explained to him exhaustively, and of course he’s dishonestly ignored all such objections.

Closed minded is the only way I can describe his endless and sweeping dogma.

This is an atheist forum, the main purpose for this forum is to discuss religion and the god proposition. Additionally, in the post tile you mentioned “omnipotent being”, and that, good sir, it the god proposition.


It seems you’ve been reading my posts as you corrected me before. As a result of this when you asked a similar question to the above that seemed legitimate, I did reply to you before. Now you raise a good point, so I will reply to you again.

When I say semantical inconsistencies cannot exist, I mean to say they cannot be true of Existence. That is what I mean. Though you are right, me saying semantical inconsistencies cannot exist, is like me saying lies cannot exist. Both lies and semantical inconsistencies exist. But lies are lies because they are not true of Existence. The same applies to semantical inconsistencies. All lies are semantically inconsistent when you consider all premises in relation to them. If I say I’m at the park when I’m at home, I’m saying something that is semantically inconsistent because I cannot be both at the park and at home at the same time. If x is semantically inconsistent, it is not true of Existence. So if a theory or belief or statement or book or subject or person is semantically inconsistent in what they say, then what they say is certainly not true of Existence.

Again, beliefs/statements/theories/utterances exist. They can be right/true/semantically consistent or wrong/false/semantically inconsistent.

Seems to me that an omnipotent being is not semantically consistent.

A question:

Our little sophist claims to have had a university education. He seems to be literate enough.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think he may have gone to one of those chronically christian universities/biblical colleges? The flavour of his posts is similar to discussions I’ve had with catholic priests trained in apologetics. (beginning when I was 16 and was baffled with bullshit and by Thomas Aquinas)

Is my logic too strained? What about Occam’s razor? That the bloke is exactly what he seems; just a stubborn fool?.

I asked that question…silence was the curt reply. But I am in agreement with you Boomer. Either he does or did go to one of those “christian” colleges where the standard of education and “degrees” conferred are worthless, or, he went to a middling college but failed to pay attention.

Either way he has failed in his mission to “prove” his choice of deity exists despite the herculean efforts to reword the woefully inadequate arguments that seem to have convinced him.

Unfortunately after 250 plus posts he still is not listening.

1 Like

That seems false.

Wow, what a bold statement! Are you going to back that up with a formal proof; or are you asking us to take your word on that? I won’t hold my breath.

Now that I have your attention, could you spend just a few seconds answering a question I’ve asked you a few times now:

It seems that the answer is just a number, could you please post it? I won’t hold my breath on this one either.

That many!

Wow. Seems he’s not the only stubborn one. :innocent:

If you believe x is semantically inconsistent, then show where the semantical inconsistency lies. You have not shown where the semantical inconsistency lies in Omnipotence. I have shown where the semantical inconsistency lies in the following:

Existence is imperfect. Existence is finite.

Omnipotence is a human abstract concept, with no ties to the real world. There are no examples of omnipotency, nor can it be tested. That is the inconsistency.

It is a shame you were not born a thousand years ago, you would have excelled at determining how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

1 Like

No you haven’t. You should post a formal proof for these; because no one here is likely to accept your word on the matter.

Personally I think you are insane; and just making shit up that sounds good to you (and that is why you keep contradicting yourself, imo). But I’ve been wrong before; so it would be nice if you could teach us something by posting a formal version.