Pure reason dictates "an omnipotent being exists"

Yah - I mentioned the thought of it exists at least in your imagination BUT he did write it down. Now it exists out “here” …

Proofs lay in the consistency of semantics. That is what I presented.

You are aware of the semantics of Existence, Infinity, and Perfection. Existence = that which all things exist because of. That which is Omnipresent. Call it E or whatever you want. So long as you are consistent with the semantics, then you don’t have an inconsistency in your belief about being or existing. Note, ‘Omnipresent’ is another semantic. If you ascribe or attribute it to anything other than that which exists everywhere (hence why I call it Existence), you will have inconsistencies in your belief system. You will have inconsistencies in the semantics that you are aware of. And if you describe Existence or the Omnipresent as not being Infinite, again the same problem arises. A mismatching of semantics. An inconsistency.

The earlier argument I presented twice in a numbered format, explains how the semantic of Perfection, cannot denote anything other than Existence (just as the semantic of Infinity and Existence and Omnipresent, cannot semantically/logically denote anything other than Existence).

‘Infinity’ and ‘Perfection’ are semantical components of Existence, just as ‘three-sided’ and ‘angles add up to 180 degrees’ are semantical components of a euclidean triangle.

Lies and inconsistencies and contradictions exist because sentences or theories that are not true of Existence, exist. In other words, liars exist, what they claim does not (hence why it is a lie). We are here to distinguish truth from falsehood. Semantical consistency from semantical inconsistency. If it is semantically inconsistent (whether it’s a sentence, a theory, a movie, a person) then that sentence, movie, or person, is describing what is semantically inconsistent. In other words, it is describing what is hypothetically impossible. None can understand hypothetical impossibilities, precisely because hypothetical impossibilities cannot exist, just as lies cannot be true of Existence.

Liars exist, what they claim, does not. They are liars because they say what is a lie. They say what is not true of Existence. They say what is hypothetically impossible. If you see your friend at the park (and you are sure that it’s him), and he’s messaging you saying I’m at home, then he is saying what is not true of Existence. You cannot understand him as being both at home and at the park at the same time. That is hypothetically impossible. It cannot be true of Existence. It is a semantical inconsistency for Jack to be both at the park and at home at the same time. It’s got to be one or the other, or neither (perhaps you mistook your friend for someone else (a clone of him, a twin of him, or just you didn’t see him properly) and jack was lying when he said he was at home. Which makes neither the truth).

Again, because finite and imperfect cannot be true of Existence because it leads to semantical inconsistencies. It leads to the contradictory conclusion that we can understand hypothetical impossibilities.

For what it is worth:
180 degrees in a triangle is a human convention

so if you find like a race of Vulcans (from Star Trek) or something; it is very unlikely that will think a triangle has 180 degrees.

I understand that just fine. You should really stop trying to tell other people what they do and don’t understand.

So you think an alien race will have access to the semantic of euclidean triangle but believe that the angles in a triangle do not add up to 180 degrees?

You are questioning semantics. Different languages exist because the same semantics exist for everyone. People have different labels for different semantics. But the semantics they label are the same. That is why you can translate languages.

If a nation or alien race existed that believed triangles have four sides, you’d think “they must have labelled the semantic of ‘square’ triangle”. This is because semantical inconsistencies cannot exist. x cannot meaningfully believe in a round square. If the angles in a triangle don’t add up to 180 degrees, then by definition, you are not talking about a euclidean triangle, just as if the shape does not have three sides, then by definition you are not talking about a triangle. Or if it is not Infinite, then you are not talking about Existence.

Again, semantical consistency is the minimum requirement for truth. It is what reason and logic demand. It is what any good theory or belief should possess if it is to have any hope of being true of Existence.

yes, that is exactly right

I’ll tell you what, seeing as you believe that you understand Jack being both at the park and at home at the same time, AND think that it’s wrong of me to tell you that you cannot understand such a thing, I will leave you to your beliefs.

Cool. Yeah see Jack went to pet a llama at the park, and the llama bit his arm off so he ran home. Later Jack’s dad asks “where is Jack”. And Jack’s mother, who has a dark sense of humor says: “why he’s at the park and at home”. But don’t worry, they called the doctor and Jack was stitched back into one piece, so now he is just at home, making a recovery.


1 Like

I will respond even though you have not said why they are contradictory. I’ll guess as to why you think they are contradictory and try to address that guess. I’d rather have not guessed though. In any case, if you still see a contradiction between those two semantics after the following, then make clear what the contradiction is:

Justice = Everyone getting what they deserve

Mercy = Forgiving someone for doing something wrong.

If x is evil in relation to you, then you either punish him, or you forgive him. x asks you for forgiveness and mercy. Two things can happen:

  1. You punish him
  2. You forgive him (show him mercy)

If you commit to 1, then that’s an eye for an eye.
If you commit to 2, then you may have done in an unjust manner. In the case of 2, whether you did in a just or unjust manner, depends on the following:

You have a soul/character reader. You can tell if x is genuinely sorry or not. If he is genuinely sorry, then he is no longer evil. This does not take away from the fact that he was evil. Which leads to the following:

If you forgiving x results in you being harmed/wronged in any way, then you should not forgive him because that would be a case of injustice. That would be a case of you sacrificing the innocent (in this case yourself) for x’s past evil in relation to you. That would be a case of sacrificing good for evil. It should be x who should be sacrificing for you. It should be evil that should be sacrificed for good.

If you forgiving him results in you not being wronged/harmed at all, then, IF you know that x is genuinely sorry such that he is no longer evil, then the better thing to do would be to show him mercy. He is no longer evil, and his past evil did not harm you in any way. So nobody was wronged/harmed except x because he is now genuinely in regret. So by you forgiving him, you show him mercy whilst not being unjust. You were not wronged/harmed, x was wronged/harmed.

Existence is Perfect and Infinite. You cannot harm or benefit Existence (otherwise it would be imperfect and non-omnipotent). Existence can Harm or Benefit you (Karma). If you are evil and unrepentant, Existence/God is Just and Unforgiving. This is what’s Perfection in relation to unrepentant evil. If you were evil but then you genuinely/sincerely repented, then It is Just and Forgiving/Merciful. This is what’s Perfection in relation to that which has sought Perfection’s/God’s Forgiveness and Mercy with sincerity. God/Perfection was not harmed in any way, so It can afford to be Merciful without being unjust to Itself. If x was pretending to repent, or pretending to be sorry for being evil (making no effort towards being good), then Perfection would be to not Forgive it. To Forgive unrepentant evil is for evil to be better of by being evil. Evil should be better off by being good, not evil. Perfection Guarantees this. In relation to such a being (unrepentant evil), Hell is Perfection. It never repents, it’s always evil. It’s Perfection for evil to suffer (as in it’s what Satisfies Perfection). Hence Hell.

Whoa… can you provide a link or a source outside yourself for this extra addition of “…because of”.

And an outside accepted source of omnipresent being linked to existence?

And you say call it “E” or whatever I want. But that’s my point. You can’t just call things whatever you want without an agreement. I don’t agree that “omnipresence” is a quality of existence as defined in reality.

No and no.

Proofs say via law…evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

“you will be asked to give proof of your identity” - say a driver’s licence or birth certificate or fingerprints…

Semantics- “ the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics , which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics , which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics , which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.”

Words. The study of words in context and “meaning”

  • very important but should not be twisted to have no meaning either “where it’s just semantics” (quibbling over words)

I DO NOT accept your use of “existence”
AS you are describing and using it. You are presupposing onto a word and distorting meaning.

Why not just say god? Why are you using existence?

Again - presupposes “I am aware” BUT NO not this usage or meaning you are adding on to it.

…but you didn’t address that I don’t believe in “perfect” in reality. It is an ideal that I’m sure falls short in reality and any use of the word “perfect” is subjective.

Not true. The friend exists. He is apart of existence. He lies. As apart of existing and existence the lie he told is apart of “it”.

I understand he is bold face lieing. It’s not a matter of not understanding- it’s that there is demonstrable evidence that he is not where he says he is.

Anyone could be texting me using his phone. That’s the logical conclusion.

Why start now?

I was not simply expressing my opinion, but a basic principle I was taught in philosphy101 at university. I make no claims to being a philosopher because I only took a year.

Ad hominem fallacy. IE “you don’t agree with me because you’re ignorant.”

I notice you haven’t answered my question ,so I’ll ask again. Where did you study philosophy and for how long? IE do you have an undergraduate degree, in philosophy or anything else?


Do you not believe that Existence exists everywhere (omnipresently)? Do you not believe that the source of all truths and semantics, is Existence? What’s the alternative? That Existence does not exist everywhere (which logically amounts to the hypothetical impossibility of non-Existence exists everywhere). That Existence is not the source of all truths and semantics (which logically amounts to the hypothetical impossibility of non-existence being the source of all truths and semantics). If not Existence, then non-existence. Not Existence = non-Existence = Not true of Existence = Hypothetical impossibility

If you need an outside source to verify this, I don’t know of any off hand. If you believe that it’s possible for Existence to be non-omnipresent, or to not exist everywhere, then we won’t be able to progress in this discussion. We’ll have to agree to disagree. To me it’s contradictory to deny Existence as being non-omnipresent. It is hypothetically impossible for Existence to be non-omnipresent. If we can’t agree on this, we’ll to agree to disagree on everything else.

And if the argument that is presented is not semantically consistent, what happens then? Is that argument accepted or rejected?

As with any theory or belief or statement, if it is not semantically consistent, then it is by definition, false. It is by definition, not true of Existence.

And I did not say that that’s what you believe. I said IF that’s what you believe. Look again at my reply to you.

What I said was:

How can I reason with someone who does not see the logical inconsistency in denying logic as a necessary tool for arriving at truth?

I did not say that that someone was you. I said that I cannot reason with someone who does not see the logical inconsistency in denying logic as a necessary tool for arriving at truth. This does not = an attack on your character.

The rest of your questions are irrelevant. The argument speaks for itself. It does not matter what my credentials are. You don’t need to be a philosopher or mathematician to recognise the inconsistency in believing in hypothetical impossibilities as being meaningful or possible or true of Existence. You just need sincerity to reason and truth and semantics.

In any case, I studied philosophy at the University of Hull. I did a degree (that lasts three years).

Does your soul reader work over the internet/zoom? :rofl:

A distinction without a difference and still an ad homimen attack. IE any person is wrong if they do not agree with you. I’ve made it clear that I do not.

I have said more than once that logic is not a reliable tool to arrive at a truth.

The reason for that claim is that I was taught that in formal logic, arguments begin with IF A then—. That is to say that a logical inference can only be true if the premise is true. This is a broad principle, to which there are exceptions.

Consequently, although a logical inference may be true, it is not necessarily true. To me, that means that one may not reasonably claim that “logic is a necessary tool for arriving at a truth”

I obviously lack your depth of understanding, so I’ll stop here.

You seem to have ignored my questions about your claims again…

Says the man who contradicts the dictionary. Care to quote a belief I’ve offered? I’m guessing not.