Pure reason dictates "an omnipotent being exists"

Suppose you witness someone heal other people and walk on water amongst other ‘miraculous’ things. Suppose he then claimed that he has presented us with empirical evidence (healing people, walking on water etc.) that definitively proves he is god and that he is in fact perfect. Do we accept his claim? No. This is because it’s hypothetically possible for x to walk on water and heal people without being god. Since his claim is semantically inconsistent (he claimed that he provided definitive proof, yet semantically, definitive proof means that there is no other possible alternative) he is definitely not God as God is Perfect and this ‘miracle’ worker has shown that he is imperfect by being semantically inconsistent.

The problem here is not with me. I showed you how it is semantically inconsistent to believe in Existence being imperfect. You responded by asking for proof of god via me showing you a real ‘miracle’. If I have shown you that it is semantically inconsistent to believe in an imperfect Existence, then I have given you definitive proof that Existence is Perfect. In order to highlight this point to you, I put to you the following:

Can you test/prove the following two statements:

One semantic cannot mean another semantic.

One thing cannot be two different things at the same time.

Also, should you believe in the above two statements?

If yes, then is the reason anything other than the fact that it would lead to contradictions (semantical inconsistencies)?

If no, then I’ll leave you to your semantically inconsistent (contradictory) beliefs.

Do you usually accept hypothetical claims, based on supposition? That explains a lot.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

Start there…

Yes you can. I am a son, a father, and a grandfather all at the same time.


That claim is not inconsistent in the context of formal logic. So again I’m finding it very difficult to even understand what you are saying.

It seems you are just labeling things you don’t like as “inconsistent”.

You are not two different men at the same time. You are not both your son and your father at the same time. You are a son to one man, and a father to another.

Existence cannot be both finite and infinite at the same time. It cannot be both perfect and imperfect at the same time. If a finite or imperfect Existence leads to semantical inconsistencies (which is what I am claiming to have shown), then an Infinite and Perfect Existence is necessarily the case.

If you are the son of x, then it is necessarily the case that you are not the father of x because it is semantically inconsistent to say you are both x’s father and son.

Notice how @Philosopher describes a person who is a healer and a water-walker; then tells us that something can’t be two different things at the same time.

I assure you I am alive, and human; at the same time.

I’m a member of the set of people who are not in China right now. I am also a member of the set of people who are not in Japan right now.


It is semantically inconsistent. He is treating what is not definite, as what is definite. Definite and not definite do not mean the same thing. They do not have the same semantical value. He has spoken as though they do. He has therefore said what is semantically inconsistent. He is therefore definitely not God because he is imperfect.

That isn’t what being semantically inconsistent means to me! We keep telling you your terminology is very strange to us. Are you even listening?

You can hear the goal posts shifting. He’s a man, and he’s a mammal, now is a man and a mammal the same thing?

That was your claim, it is demonstrably wrong.

Indeed, and don’t forget he also claimed definitions are absolute truths.

Did I miss the part where you demonstrated any objective evidence that a deity exists and is perfect? I’ll bet I didn’t…

It seems when he hears an objection to his rhetoric, he cuts those people from his dialogue, and moves on to the next. A sort of apologists triage, if you like. My granddaughter had a similar trick, where she kept asking each adult in turn the same question, if she was unhappy with the previous response. I’m guessing at some point he’ll stop lying about leaving, and just leave, I’m also prepared to bet he will claim it was our fault, that we found his assertions uncompelling.

1 Like

If x says triangles are circles, then he is being semantically inconsistent. If x says round triangles exist, then he is saying what is semantically inconsistent. If x says that which is triangular is not triangular, then he is saying what is semantically inconsistent. If x says that which is not definite is definite, then…

x claims “Jack is smiling, therefore, Jack is definitely happy”. What x is saying is semantically inconsistent because being happy does not contain the semantical component of smiling. As in if you see a person smile, it does not follow from this that they are happy. It is not guaranteed. It is not definite. Whereas if x claimed “that’s a three-sided shape, therefore, that is definitely a triangle” then he is not saying what is semantically inconsistent.

So if y says I am definitely god because I can walk on water, then he is being semantically inconsistent in the same way that x is being semantically inconsistent when he says Jack is definitely happy.

No, that isn’t a semantic inconsistency; at least not in formal logic.

1 Like

again, not in formal logic. Maybe in your messed up head.

It’s an inconsistency in meaning/semantics. The following two things do not mean the same thing:

Not triangle

I cannot explain it to you any clearer than this.

Right, but that isn’t in your examples I objected to.

So now his generic assertion that one thing can’t be two different things at the same time, has been utterly refuted, he’s dishonestly changing it back to a specific claim, fucking hilarious.

One thing can absolutely be two different things at the same time, as has been demonstrated unequivocally.

I am both a man, and a mammal, QED.

It is. Definite versus not definite. Have a closer look.

I’ll leave you to it.

Man and mammal, I can’t dumb it down for you anymore than that.

Ah, another threatened flounce. The boy who cried wolf…

OK lets do that:

Notice he didn’t say something was not definite and that it was definite. That would have been a semantic inconsistancy.

Just because what someone says is false, or foolish; doesn’t make it an inconsistency! Inconsistency requires a direct contradiction. If both sides are not offered, it can’t be a contradiction. At least not formally. You want to make up your own logic rules? Fine. It can be anything you want. But don’t expect anyone else to understand you. I certainly can’t. It might help if you could answer extremely simple questions; I predicted 8 days ago that you couldn’t/wouldn’t answer it. Fuck Muhammad, it seems I am a prophet!


Perhaps a better way to express it:

Joe counts the number of beans in a bag and reports that there are 17 beans. It is later discovered that Joe made a mistake (he missed one) and there were really 18. Does that make Joe’s report semantically inconsistent? No!

For Joe’s report to be semantically inconsistent, he would need to claim that there we 17 beans in the bag, and also claim that there were not 17 beans in the bag. Joe isn’t insane, he just made a simple mistake. Simple mistakes are not automatically inconsistent. Being wrong doesn’t mean you are inconsistent.