Pure reason dictates "an omnipotent being exists"

No it doesn’t, at all.

I find that claim very dubious

1 Like

Yes! .:joy::joy:

I went from reading your response to me, about the way you work, to this. I read his proposal through, ticking off all the things wrong with it and mentally noting my replies and then I got to you and Sheldon and thought, I’m wasting my time. It’s done.

When are these supposed intellectuals going to stop re-wording Aquinas and Anselm in order to convince us of their God and their own intelligence and try to come up with something original that hasn’t been countered so many times?

Sheldon, there is no difference between them. I made the point to you so that you might engage in a sincere manner and see for yourself. But I see you deflecting.

I already did it. If you can’t see it already, then I think it’s unwise for me to just repeat myself again.

So now you’re contradicting the dictionary, seldom a good sign.

It’s your claim there’s no difference, and you’re the one deflecting as you have avoided the dictionary definition which shows you are wrong, but I’ll play along and do your leg work for you, for now.


  1. the quality or state of being ridiculous or wildly unreasonable.


  1. a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.


  1. not able to occur, exist, or be done.

So this few seconds of Googling demonstrates they are not the same, as the definitions clearly contain differences.

Will you now insist I post the definitions of same and different?

You still haven’t answered if you can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?

It’s a simple question.

1 Like

You did not answer me, just rambled on about 10th sense, which I’d not mentioned. A cryptic non sequitur is not an answer.

If you don’t want to debate then don’t come to a debate forum and start making unevidenced claims.

Still no answer to that question either.

Please demonstrate some objective evidence for this claim.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate objective evidence for that claim as well.

Please demonstrate some objective evidence that omnipotence is possible.

Yep. One of the reasons my posts get colorful. Now, what is really fun to watch is when Sheldon goes off the deep end. He is very patient and he just hangs in there, debunking comment after comment and then, all of a sudden, something in him just snaps and it is hilarious to see. When Sheldon rips into someone it’s basically time to boot them from the site.

Remember this the next time a theist tells you infinite regresses are impossible.

What are the chances that @Philosopher paradoxically thinks infinite regresses are impossible?


@ Philosopher
At least in my experience with English, what is absurd is an opinion.

I can think of two ways to explain why someone would equate an opinion with what is (or isn’t) logically possible:

  1. A disagreement on terminology.
  2. An attempt to elevate their opinions to pure reason (as advertised in the thread title), essentially making themselves god.

You seem to be rejecting #1. Can you suggest an alternative to #2?

Another way of phrasing it:

If you think what is absurd is an opinion; you shouldn’t be equating it with logic.

If you think what is absurd is NOT an opinion, if you think what is absurd is the same thing as what is logically impossible; then you should be able to simply exchange the terms to get rid of the term absurd (and thereby get rid of the controversy). This shouldn’t make any difference to your argument since you have insisted they mean the same thing. This is what I suggested in the 2nd post of the thread.

1 Like

I shall watch with eager anticipation :joy:

There are a couple of candidates riding the edge of my patience at the moment…



Thank you for that clarification. I will keep it in mind the next time I use those words, and I apologise to you for not looking at a dictionary when you advised me to. Just so you know, the following example is why I argued that they all meant the same thing:

x is a married bachelor. x is an absurdity/impossibility/irrationality x = absurd/impossible/irrational. Therefore absurdity = impossibility = irrationality

Also, I did not think paradoxes were just what seemed absurd. I thought paradox = contradiction. Again, I apologise for wasting your time regarding this. This was my bad.

Can you count to infinity? No. Therefore an infinite regress does not lead to an infinite existence does it? An infinite regress does not solve the absurdity of existence coming from non-existence does it?

Existence has always existed and will always exist. In other words, Existence is infinite. It is absurd to reject this because Existence coming from non-existence is absurd. Non-existence has never existed and will never exist, just as married bachelors have never existed and will never exist. This is because both married bachelors and non-existence are absurdities/impossibilities/falsehoods. They are not true of Existence.

So do you still believe in an infinite regress? Do you believe in Existence being finite?

Here’s hoping there will be sincerity to reason (which logically entails not embracing absurdities)

Ok, so let’s first be clear on what the semantics of ‘possible’ entail (as it is important to my argument). Once we agree on this, then we can move to the next point.

Consider the following sentence:

It’s possible that time travel is possible.

The first possible entails that we don’t know if time travel is possible or not. So to us, it’s possible that time travel is possible. In clearer words, to us, the possibility of time travel is unknown to us. So do you see how possibility = don’t know = unknown here?

The first possible has got nothing to do with true possibility at all. The first possible just highlights that we are unaware as to whether x is the case or y is the case. Therefore it’s possible (as opposed to impossible) to us that either y or x is the case. Note that we cannot say it’s possible to us that round-squares are impossible. This is because it’s not possible to us that round-squares are impossible to us. It is certain/known to us that round-squares are impossible. It’s not unknown to us. Again do you see how possible = don’t know = unknown?

As for the second possible:

The second possible means true potentiality. A true possibility. I can raise my hand. It’s possible for me to raise my hand. By saying this, I am saying the potential is there for me to raise my hand. There is no absurdity in me saying this. I am talking about a true possibility. Contrast this with it’s possible that it’s possible for me to raise my hand. If I am unaware of whether or not such a thing can happen or not, then I say it’s possible that x is possible.

So are we in agreement on the following:

Possible = unknown to us = not known to us
Possible = true potentiality. Something that can attain reality. Something that can actually happen
Impossibility/absurdity = Something that cannot attain reality. Something that is never true of Existence.

My suggestion is that we repack possible for unknown so that we do not confuse possible for possible. So instead of saying it’s possible that time travel is possible, we should just say the possibility of time travel, is unknown to us.

1 Like

Not on my fingers, no. That being said, any set that has the same number of elements as the natural numbers; is (somewhat absurdly) infinite, and countable.

Smoking crack is bad, imo.


No. This is what we’ve been trying to tell you.

1 Like

It’s not countable. Who told you this? We can understand infinity. This understanding encompasses the following: We cannot count to infinity. Nothing can expand to the point of infinity. Nothing can become infinite. Do you see how infinity and existence are inseparable?

Existence has no beginning and no end. Nothing can become Existence. Existence was/is/always will be Existence. Existence did not expand to become Existence. Again, you cannot count or expand to infinity. Infinity and Existence necessarily denote the exact same Thing.

Existence is the set of all existing things. Per the dictates of pure reason, there are an infinite number of semantics or meaningful items of thought. This is just the way Existence Is. We are in It, and this is the way it is. If we say ‘infinite regress’, we are saying that existence is not infinite. This is absurd. Agree? Again, we cannot get to Infinity by beginning to count to infinity. Existence cannot begin to exist in non-existence by beginning to exist in non-existence. Existence has no beginning and no end. Only Existence is necessarily truly infinite. There is nothing absurd about Existence being infinite. But there is literally everything absurd about the rejection of this.

Well I guess I’ll engage in an appeal to authority (since you didn’t even read the source I linked I posted): my degree in mathematics.

Can you give me an example of something that’s absurd, but not impossible?

Actually you know what, you might be right.

If x is being absurd, then this is not necessarily the same as x being impossible.

If Jack believes triangles have four sides, or that existence came from non-existence, then jack is being absurd. He is not necessarily being impossible.

1 Like