Pure reason dictates "an omnipotent being exists"

Debate Room
323

Do not mistake logical inconsistency for semantical inconsistency. You can have something that is logically consistent in structure, yet false overall because it is semantically inconsistent. If something is semantically inconsistent, it is 100% false.

You didn’t make this distinction possibly because you have not studied philosophy. For this reason, I will try one more time to clarify this for you:

He (the ‘miracle worker’) described something that was not definite, as being definite. This is being semantically inconsistent. Consider the following two statements:

A) That is definitely a triangle because it’s a three sided shape.
B) Jack is definitely happy because he is smiling.

It is impossible to be a triangle without having three sides, but it is not impossible to be happy without smiling.

If it was the case that smiling was actually a semantical component of being happy, as in it was the case that it is impossible to be happy and not smiling at the same time, then statement B would have been semantically consistent. But smiling is not a semantical component of being happy. Hence the semantical inconsistency in B. Statement A is semantically consistent.

If Joe said ‘there are definitely 17 beans in the bag’, then yes it does! It seems very likely that you have not studied philosophy. If Joe said ‘from what I can remember now, I counted 17 beans in the bag’ and he is being sincere and truthful (as in that is what he is really recalling now, as opposed to him just flat out lying), then he has said what is semantically consistent. Then he has said what is true.

When people say there is ‘nothing’ in this box, they do not mean there’s ‘non-existence’ in this box. They mean something like there is nothing but air in this box, or there is nothing relevant in this box. But it’s more convenient to say there’s nothing in this box. If they meant there is non-existence in this box, then they would have been semantically inconsistent (they would have meant that non-existence exists…which is semantically inconsistent).

I think this post, coupled with the previous posts I have made, should clarify for you that which you seem to be unclear on: Semantical inconsistencies.

324

@Philosopher That was a pathetic attempt to divert from my question.

In my post I went to a lot of effort to ensure I was neutral and did not hurl insults. But because YOU chose to be a prick, fine, I treat others in the same way they treat me, or others.

I have stated it multiple times, that arguments do not carry the day for me, in the end evidence or proof is the validation to a proposition. This is my position because I have seen theists like you go on and on and on attempting to force your position in a mismanaged argument.

I cut past your bullshit and attempt to get to the point, the actual, verified proof of a god. When I press that point, you dodge and weave, throw up nonsense, and do everything possible to avoid the question and return to your babbling nonsense.

Once again, please provide proof or evidence of a god. And a good argument is not proof. A good argument is just a hypothesis, not the final conclusion.

Don’t you see how weak and pathetic your position is? Your arguments are flawed, and they fail to get the topic across the finish line. And when I press you to finish your thesis, you seem incapable of any further thinking. All you know is what you learned about semantics.

2 Likes
325

I believe true colours have been shown. The thread speaks for itself. Your replies to me and my replies to you (a moderator here) can be read by anyone who comes here. I think I’ll leave you now to your beliefs.

326

Not going to attempt to offer any evidence or proof?

That is all I ask.

1 Like
327

I think David has showed admirable patience, as have many others, and it was clear a long time ago that you have zero interest in honest debate, and your faux philosophical stance, didn’t need to be given the time of day, as the pretentious title of your thread is demonstrably absurd, given you’ve brought it here, as if millennia of theologians and philosophers have failed where you’ve succeeded.

Your tedious verbiage has borne those misgivings out as well, as you’ve been thoroughly dishonest and evasive throughout. Then keep threatening to “take your ball home” when you realise a poster won’t give in to your relentless repetition, or your arrogant condescending blather. You’ve also refused to answer direct questions, or even tell us which deity you believe in.

If you want to go then leave, this site doesn’t owe you anything, and your bullshit semantics are hardly new, this line in superstition has been peddled countless times on here before.

I’ve struggled for weeks not to resort to the common vernacular, and at this moment I don’t think any objective reader would condemn anyone for losing patience with your dishonest arrogance, and aiming a few choice vituperations at your smug self satisfied vapid mush.

…annnnnd breathe…

327 posts of ludicrous round square analogies, and unevidenced assumptions based on biased and dishonest semantics about existence, fuck me, it’s a wonder the Samaritans haven’t had to lay on extra fucking staff.

328

He’s said this a few times.

Is this an inconsistency?

BTW, thinking :thinking:

Existence is Perfect and All-Encompassing (am I capitalizing the right semantics?)…and “our” non-belief exists in Existence (which is Perfect) - so yah, leave our perfection alone (otherwise it wouldn’t exist).

329

Single statement(α)
Set of statements(Q)

For Q to be semantically consistent, it must obey (for every α):

(α ∉ Q) V (α’ ∉ Q)

For Q to be semantically inconsistent, we simply negate the above:
[(α ∉ Q) V (α’ ∉ Q)]’

Applying DeMorgan’s law gives:
(α ∉ Q)’ ^ (α’ ∉ Q)’

Apply DeMorgan’s law again:
(α ∈ Q) ^ (α’ ∈ Q)

In English that reads:
For a claim to be inconsistent, it must claim α AND not α.

If you claim that α is true, and it turns out to be false, you were not inconsistent, you were just wrong.

If you claim α is true AND α is false, you are inconsistent.

:woozy_face:

2 Likes
330

That’s not what I said. Apply your logic to my sentence.

I am the son of R, the father of D, and the grandfather of G, all at the same time. I never claimed to be R and D.

And then there’s Schrodinger’s cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time.

1 Like
331

You can be both a grandfather and a son. Nobody is disputing this. When I say one thing cannot be two different things at the same time, I am saying a triangle cannot be a square. I am not saying a triangle is not a shape. Nor am I saying that Clark Kent and Superman are not the same person. Clark Kent and Superman cannot be in two different places at the same time. This is because they are one person. They are not two different people at the same time. x has two different identities. x is not two different individuals.

One cannot be both alive and dead at the same time just as one cannot raise their hand and not raise their hand at the same time. That is semantically inconsistent. It is hypothetically impossible. If some ‘scientist’ suggests to you that a cat is both alive and dead at the same time, then I advise you to reject him. This is the same advice I would give to a Christian or a Muslim that would say to me their ‘mullah’ or ‘priest’ has told them God can create something from nothing, or a round square, or a cat that is both dead and alive at the same time.

332

Dear oh dear…

:roll_eyes::face_with_raised_eyebrow:

1 Like
333

So you don’t believe in an omnipotent deity then?

Which god do you believe in again?

334

Oh dear (stealing this from Sheldon) Again, two different names for identifying two different things.

LIAR - I have given you demonstrable evidence that this does exist. Clockwise and counter-clockwise at the same time.

YOUR advise is worth shit, as is your logic.

1 Like
335

Erwin Schrödinger? The Nobel-prize winning physicist who made grand contributions to quantum theory? The same man who devised a calculation for wave function and how it changes over time?

The famous " Schrödinger’s cat" thought experiment is basic learning for anyone who desires to learn physics.

Unfortunately @Philosopher this reveal on your lack of knowledge on things scientific speaks volumes on your personal knowledge base.

1 Like
336

In physics, you can be in the state:

  1. 1<A> (alive)
  2. 1<A'> (not alive)
  3. j<A> + k<A'> where j and k are complex numbers that satisfy |j|^2 + |k|^2 = 1; and who’s square is the probability of finding the associated state (in English, the probablity of finding the object in state A (alive) is |j|^2). Which is what @algebe was eluding too.

We don’t have very good language for #3; probably because #3 violates common sense very badly, imo.

337

Do a little reading on quantum mechanics. It’s Alice in Wonderland stuff, but it’s also the foundation of everything that we perceive as reality. Einstein called it “Spooky action at a distance.”

338

I’d like to start a sweep to see who gets fed up first.

The bloody mindedness of the OP and his interlocutors seems pretty even. :face_with_monocle:

1 Like
339

I appreciate your advice. I am not wholly unfamiliar with what you have brought to my attention. Schrodinger’s cat is just a thought experiment. I believe it is ultimately rooted in the following which I have copied from Wikipedia:

The prevailing theory, called the Copenhagen interpretation, says that a quantum system remains in superposition until it interacts with, or is observed by the external world. When this happens, the superposition collapses into one or another of the possible definite states.

The double slit experiment, and the delayed choice quantum eraser, are in my opinion the best of what science has to offer and I am most in agreement with the Copenhagen interpretation regarding this matter (I believe the main alternative is the many worlds interpretation, which I disagree with).

What the above empirical observations (experiments) show, is how a wave of possibilities exist at any given point in time (according to the Copenhagen interpretation). All hypothetical possibilities are possible because of the Nature of Existence and the delayed choice quantum eraser empirically hints at this a priori truth in my opinion.

That which is Omnipresent encompasses all time and space. To me, the delayed choice quantum eraser is like observing Existence give you a hint of Its Omnipresence and Potentiality. I say Omnipresence because it is like the past and the future are connected such that It (Existence) Knows what decisions or occurrences could/will occur in the future, and Organises events to ensure consistency between the past and the future. Where x is Omnipresent, it encompasses ALL time and space. Different people will have different interpretations of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. To me, it is like watching Existence say, ‘you cannot outmanoeuvre Me or trick Me or cheat Me. I Know what you reveal and what you hide. I Know what you decide and why decide and under what circumstances you would decide. I Know your intentions (good or otherwise)’. Evidently, my interpretation of this experiment is in line with Existence Being Perfect because I believe this to be an a priori truth (because I see rejection of Existence Being Perfect as being semantically inconsistent).

Note that neither the Copenhagen interpretation or the many worlds theory present a theory that is immediately semantically inconsistent as far as we can tell now. But we know that both of them cannot be correct, so objectively speaking, at least one of them is semantically inconsistent, we just don’t know which yet. It’s like hearing one person say Jack is at the park now, and another saying Jack is at home now. ALL PREMISES/THINGS considered, they cannot be both semantically consistent. At least one of them is saying what is contradictory (semantically inconsistent) in relation to the matter at hand.

So when I say neither of the above theories are immediately semantically inconsistent, I mean to say they do not say one thing is two different things at the same time (which is immediately semantically inconsistent and in no need of further empirical observation or semantical consideration to rule out. One thing not being two different things at the same time, is a matter of pure reason (a priori principles). It is not something you accept or reject via empirical observation. Empirical observations are interpreted with such principles in mind to form coherent theories that are not immediately semantically inconsistent). They interpret the observation in a meaningful manner (as opposed to in a manner that is immediately contradictory in meaning)). Which one is true, is unknown to us. What is certainly true, is that you cannot have an interpretation/theory that is semantically inconsistent describe what is true of Existence. Think about it:

If a famous scientist comes out and says we’ve just observed a round square or a cat that is both alive and dead at the same time, the rational people would say, this cannot be true. Some alternate explanation must be the case. It does not matter how famous this scientist is. What he is suggesting is absurd/irrational/impossible to be true of Existence/Reality.

Again, when a belief/theory is semantically inconsistent (which can be revealed as a result of an empirical observation), it is reconciled such that it is no longer semantically inconsistent. Check why we have paradigm shifts in science. So if x observes something like the double slit experiment, he concludes something like the Copenhagen interpretation does, or the many worlds theory if he is any good at being a scientist or exercising reason. He does not conclude that which is immediately contradictory. He does not conclude that which is by definition, not understandable to ALL beings.

340

i got fed up with this faux intellectual twaddle, reworking and rewording WLC’s Kalam by the second post. Told him so.

Intellectually stunted and utterly dishonest this thread should be closed. the Philosopher has evaded or ignored every single direct question or refutation, merely repeating his comparisons. It is nonsense. I am beginning to think that Breezy has brought himself back to the forums and this was his great proof of his choice of deity.

1 Like
341

I suggest we might be able to get a good estimate of how crazy someone is by the number of words they go out of their way to capitalize incorrectly. I count 20 23 in that paragraph.

1 Like
342

More repetition, no acknowledgment of the objections, or the flaws in your argument, and now you’re implying that existence is sentient as well.

You’ve also skipped over the last few posts where your claim…

Was roundly refuted.

What deity are you claiming to believe is real?

You seem unwilling to answer this?