# Pure reason dictates "an omnipotent being exists"

I told you that on the 2nd post of this thread, and in many other posts; and many other users did something similar.

1 Like

I already did. Because of the way things are formally defined in mathematics: the natural numbers (and many other sets) is an infinite countable set; even though that seems totally absurd; even to me.

Common sense is great for most things; but it can still be wrong.

1 Like

Your degree in maths tells you that you can count to infinity?
If you cannot count to infinity, then you cannot regress to infinity, can you?

I didnât say that. I said:

If you think itâs absurd, then reject it. Thatâs what you are rationally obliged to do. Find a non-absurd alternative. How can you understand, that which is by definition, not understandable? You cannot.

I accept that Infinity encompasses ALL possible numbers (of which there is an infinity of), but I cannot accept that we can count to infinity. Thatâs clearly absurd. You acknowledge this too. So why accept it? You should not accept x when x is absurd in the name of religion. Similarly, you should not accept x when x is absurd in the name of maths. If x is absurd, you are supposed to reject it.

I canât; because it is true. If you work out the details of the definitions, it is true.

Now you are equating absurd with not understandable? Fuck you.

So my question remains:

Can you count to infinity? If no, then you cannot believe an infinite regress lead to an infinite existence. Again, it is absurd to reject Existence as being infinite.

So you can read minds? You know what I can and can not believe? Fuck you.

2 Likes

Iâll give you an example. That is a round square. Round square = absurd. One cannot understand round square. One cannot make sense of a round square. A round square is not understandable, because it is absurd. What you believe is your choice. But you cannot believe in that which is absurd, because by definition itâs absurd. If x tells you god created something from nothing, you should tell x how can you believe in that which makes no sense? How can you believe in that which is by definition absurd/contradictory?

You donât know what makes sense to me and what does not. Fuck you.

You donât need to be able to read minds to know that x cannot understand four-sided triangles. Or that x cannot count to infinity. This is because counting to infinity, or a triangle having four sides, are instances of absurdities. Again, if x is absurd, then by definition x is not understandable.

Then we wouldnât be meaningfully able to communicate then would we? With that being said, I think Iâm done with our discussion.

1 Like

The fact that you have the audacity to try to tell us what absurd means after all that flip flopping is itself absurd (another example of something that is true, but absurd). Fuck you.

3 Likes

Isnât the whole idea of absurd subjective?

One could say our lives are absurd - yet here we are

[sarcasm]
I have it âon good authorityâ that absurd = impossibility. Making our lives are absurd the same as our lives are [an] impossibility!

So we arenât alive, but we are still typing; that means me must be zombies! Yes! We finally got a proof that zombies are real! Who would have guessed it would have come from pure reason?
[/sarcasm]

Absolutely

George Orwell expressed that power very eloquently in â1984â.EG:

##### â âOne does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.ââ

This thread also reminded me of Orwell. An essay of his:

Specifically the section labelled MEANINGLESS WORDS, maybe a couple pages in.

eta:
Iâd quote some of the better/shocking parts, but that would be the whole thing, imo.

Mate,I think we both know that anyone who has spent a couple of months on these pages gets used to these rectally inspired faux intellectuals with pretensions to intelligence and clarity of thought.

The fact is, which their dismally blinkered minds fail to grasp is that you cannot logic or reason oneâs choice of deity or creator thing into existence. Recycling any Cosmological âargumentâ , Aquinas, WLC and all the other failed attempts at doing so just demonstrates their mental paucacity and intellectual drabness.

I think we have seen them all, this latest âphilosopherâ character, is more rectally inspired than most and certainly deserves the descriptor of " Speak on sweet lips that never told a lie !". Trouble is it is all rather odiferous, sweaty air and no substance.

A resounding âfuck off you timesawasting twatâ, will probably eventuate.

1 Like

Even though that is commonly said here at AR; I think canât be stressed enough.

Even if god was real, it is hard to imagine exactly how someone could even make some kind of formal logical proof of gods existence. For example: how could we even get started? Often we build up logical arguments starting with the 3 basic building blocks:

None of those mention god. So Iâd presume that the very first line of any formal logical proof for god would address this somehow. But it never does. It is almost like they arenât serious.

Indeed. Why wait?

OT; Am i mistaken about our new little friend and his site? IS it Ok for him to push his little wagon here without contributing?

Further Of topic: Right now itâs 1608 Monday 25 January. Yesterday the temperature reached 41C (105F) At this moment itâs 80F and raining heavily. I think watering the roses last night caused it .