Pure reason dictates "an omnipotent being exists"

If that puts you off debating, then I’m ok with that.

If a books say God/Existence Created a round square, or that It Created something from nothing, then that book is saying what is not understandable. Something coming from nothing, or round squares are hypothetically impossible. They cannot be understood. It doesn’t matter if someone says it or writes it. What is written or said is not understandable because it is a hypothetically impossibility. So you have not given me an example of something that is hypothetically impossible, yet meaningful at the same time.

Which exact scientific law, or logical principle or whatever, would that violate? No one can ever seem to tell me.


Contrary to the fictional characters of Sherlock Holmes and Mr Spock, logic rarely dictates. Although there are exceptions, logic is an unreliable way to arrive at a truth. If it were reliable I would not insist on empirical evidence for the existence of god.

1 Like

Like your posts for instance?

1 Like


You seem to want to keep ignoring these questions, that’s not honest debate.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your claim omnipotence is possible?

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your claim that unicorns are hypothetically possible?

Precisely, I’ve seen countless theists come here and try to bludgeon us with their unevidenced claims, all the while oozing pretentious philosophical credentials.

News flash…

  1. You cannot reason something into existence…least of all, if your reasoning is based on unevidenced assumptions.

  2. If someone had a rational argument for a deity, what are the fucking odds the entire theistic world has missed it, and it’s breaking here first?


It’s not logic by definition, as it is riddled with begging the question fallacies, as I’ve been pointing out from @Philosopher’s opening post, and he’s been ignoring.

It’s absurd to imagine reason can bypass the need for objective evidence, and it’s irrational to make unevidenced assumption in an argument, about the very thing your arguing for.

This kind of arrogant falsehood isn’t going to help your cause. You’re not debating, you’re preaching a priori beliefs at us, dressed up in pretentious semantics you seem to find philosophically impressive.

Accurately define the deity you are asserting is real, demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for all claims relating to that explanation, if you continue to use begging the question fallacies to define it, I’ll continue to point out your argument is irrational.

Or clockwise and counter-clockwise at the same time? Or on and off at the same time?

How about this…

Reality. Demonstrable evidence.

Take some time… just google “spin quantum number clockwise and anticlockwise”

Edited to add: the above google suggestion is to demonstrate that their are fields of knowledge that require time and effort and study to understand and practice.

…this is why I read and leave logical (the real ones) to you guys… I should have said more accurately “your reasoning”.

1 Like

It’s a common weakness in religious apologetics. Just because a deductive conclusion is the logical result of an argument, doesn’t make it true, for that the argument’s premises must also be valid.

Let’s try an example to get a feel for @Philosopher’s dishonesty here.

  1. Everything that exists is material or natural
  2. Gods are supernatural

Therefore gods don’t exist.

Now it takes seconds to see I’ve made two unevidenced claims in my premises.

So naturally I’m asked to evidence them.

This is where @Philosopher’s dihonesty is manifest, as he refuses to demonstrate any evidence, and is using semantics and argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies to try and shift the burden of proof. Even redefining simple word definitions.

It’s not nearly as impressive as he seems to think, and of course as others have been keen to point out, you cannot argue something into existence, so his thread title is a highly dubious claim to begin with.

1 Like

Consider the meanings ‘Infinity’ and ‘Existence’. Is Existence at least as real as we are? Is something Infinite at least as real as us? Is non-existence at least as real as us? If you say no to the last question, you have to say yes two the other two questions. Otherwise you are inconsistent in your beliefs.

Can you meaningfully reason ‘Infinity’ out of Existence? As in can you say Existence is finite? (which is what you’d have to do to reason Infinity out of Existence. If Existence is finite, then Infinity is impossible)

They commit the same sin as atheists. They reject truth so they can justify their own beliefs. You go to a misguided mullah or priest and tell him it’s impossible for God to create something from nothing, he will reject it and say you know nothing about God. You go to a misguided atheist and tell him Existence cannot come from non-existence, he will commit the same sin. He will say you know nothing about Existence. At which point you should think to myself, I am not the one believing in nothingness/non-existence existing. I am not the one rejecting truth and reason.

Good science adheres to the dictates of pure reason. Good any thing adheres to the dictates of pure reason. If a scientific theory is contradictory (like if it asserts Existence can come from non-existence, or if it asserts that x can be a triangle and a square at the same time), that theory is either reformulated, or abandoned for another one that does not have a contradictory interpretation of empirical observations.

Check philosophy of science. Specifically, check why we have paradigm shifts in science if you don’t believe what I’m saying.

No, we now move away from philosophical absolutes to real world probabilities. To get to the end of this long argument, anything can be postulated to exist, anything is possible. But the question now moves onto “what is more probable”?

Should I assume you won’t be answering my question? Like I said, many theists have told me what you told me. Zero of them have answered this question.

If 1 and 2 are true, then you are right. If you define God or Existence or Infinity or Perfection or any other concept as supernatural (whilst defining every other existing thing as natural), then you can consistently say God does not exist. The question is, can you make that move? Can you make those definitions whilst being sincere to semantics with those definitions? In other words, are those definitions meaningful?

You cannot make that move with Existence because it leads to contradictions in semantics (if you need me to show you proof of this too, then ask and I will give you one)
You cannot make that move with Infinity because it leads to contradictions in semantics (for reasons already shown)
You cannot make that move with Perfection because it leads to contradictions in semantics (for reasons already show)

IF God necessarily denotes Infinity/Existence/Perfection, then you cannot make that move with God either. Infinity and Perfection necessarily denote Existence (see the argument I put to you). I think if x is Perfect, then x is God. Call it what you want. So long as it does not contradict the semantic of Perfection, you are not being irrational or insincere to meaning or semantics.

Here is what you asked of me:

Which exact scientific law, or logical principle or whatever, would that violate? No one can ever seem to tell me.

Do you consider existence coming from non-existence as being a violation in logic? Considering the semantic/meaning of ‘Existence’, can it’s rejection be true? In other words, can non-existence exist?

If you are aware of the semantic of Existence, then you will see the point that I’m making. If you are unaware of the semantic of Existence, then I don’t know what to say.

Round squares cannot be postulated to exist. Unicorns are postulated to at least exist/be hypothetically possible beings. Whether there are unicorns in our galaxy or not, is a matter of probability and empirical observation. Whether they are meaningful or not, is a matter of semantics and pure reason. Pure reason says they are meaningful/understandable. Rejection of pure reason says they are meaningless (not understandable).

Any possible thing is possible precisely because Existence is Infinite. This literally means that all possibilities are possible. How can all possibilities exist, how can all possibilities be what they are (possiblities), if Existence was not Infinite? An existence that is finite in potential, or a potentially finite existence, cannot make an infinity of possibilities, truly possible. If x is not truly a possibility, then x is not a possibility.

Existence is such that all potentialities/possibilities truly exist. Which ones are truly real or will attain reality in relation to us, is another matter. Hypothetical impossibilities do not exist in any way shape or form. This is purely because of the nature of Existence.

I don’t know of any principle it violates, so maybe it can happen, or maybe there is something to prevent it and I just don’t know about it yet (that is why I keep asking, and the theists keep refusing); who knows.

What I’m not going to do is just accept that statement without something behind it. Without it being built up from the basic foundations of logic (the 3 traditional laws), or some other system; so it can be independently checked. You know, so I can have some confidence what I’m being told is true.

Do you consider non-existence existing as being a violation in logic?
Do you consider not-existence existing as being a violation in logic?

Do you see why it is hypothetically impossible for Existence to have once been not/non-existent?
Do you see why it is hypothetically impossible for not/non-Existence to have once existed?

If you can see the above, then you can see that it is hypothetically impossible or meaningless to believe in Existence coming from non-existence. This is because of the inconsistency between semantics. When you don’t attribute the semantic of Infinity to Existence, and instead attribute the semantic of finite to Existence, this inconsistency in semantics creates a logical contradiction. So you fix it. You say Existence has always existed and will always exist because not/non-existence has never existed and will never exist. You say Existence is Infinite. Then what you says is true/meaningful as opposed to hypothetically impossible/contradictory/inconsistent/meaningless.

I sincerely hope that helps.