Rationally irrefutable proof of God's existence

The shape a four year old drew without a ruler, is imperfect as a triangle. Some would argue it’s not even a triangle at all. Resembling a perfect triangle (being an imperfect triangle) and being a true triangle (a perfect triangle) are two different truths.

A) Whatever’s perfectly x, is indubitably x (an imperfect triangle’s triangularity can either be rejected or doubted. A perfect triangle’s triangularity cannot ).

B) Whatever’s perfectly existing, is indubitably existing (just as whatever’s perfectly triangular, is indubitably triangular).

We know what it is for x to be perfectly triangular. What is it for x to be perfectly existing? To be, is to exist (to be an imaginary human, dream, or “real” human, is to exist as an imaginary human, dream, or “real” human. Denying this would be both logically and semantically inconsistent). Thus, to be imperfect, is to exist as an imperfect being/existent. An imperfect triangle exists imperfectly as a triangle and as an existent (better triangles and existents than it can be conceived of).

Nothing is better than a perfect triangle when triangularity is the reference or standard . When goodness is the standard, nothing is better than the real God or a really perfect existence. I do not want a pretend/imaginary god on my side because he cannot sustain a really perfect existence for me to exist in. Real good is better than pretend good, and pretend evil/harm is better than real evil, unless of course one wants Hell (it takes absurdity/irrationality/insanity/evil to want this). When existing is the standard, nothing is better than God. It is better to be the real God than to exist as just an illusion/image of God (the real God is better than all humans or image/imaginary/pretend gods). We are meaningfully/semantically aware that something perfectly/indubitably exists, semantics dictate that this is the real/true God (of which there can only be one. You cannot have two really/truly omnipotent beings).

Having contradictory (semantically-inconsistent) beliefs/theories is wrong by definition/semantics.

Rejecting God as being perfectly real, or perfectly existing, is contradictory (semantically-inconsistent) like rejecting a triangle having three sides. These are the dictates of pure reason and semantics.

For more on the above: :REMOVED BY MOD WARNING

You cannot assume a god into existence. And you have used undefined terms. Fail.
And: where is your empirical evidence?

1 Like

@Philosopher You’re making a claim that God is real without any strong evidence of any kind.

That’s what they call bullshit in academic writing. You’re obviously trying to come off intelligent. But there’s nothing intelligent about what you just said. It just screams bullshit.

Claim.

Claim.

Claim.

That’s another CLAIM and the rest is bullshit filler that you just threw in to make your statement sound intellectual.

It’s going to be fun to see the other members pick apart your claims and assertions and feed them back to you one bite at a time. Have fun.

2 Likes

Right.

At best it is a collection of exceedingly strange postulates; which we have no way of telling if they are true or not, only have the author’s word. Like the following hot mess:

Yeah. A triangle is by definition a three-sided polygon. An “imperfect triangle” cannot be a three-sided polygon (otherwise it would be a triangle). Thus it is something else, and not a triangle. The author tries to be clever with weird definitions, but forgot about the actual meaning of words. So the whole thing implodes rather quickly.

For some reason my first thoughts when I read the post was that Philosopher was trying to throw in basic geometry in the mix with Christianity and then I guess he thought throwing around definitions like semantic and triangularity would give his argument more flare? Is that it?

Yeah, sure seems like it. At first I couldn’t make neither head nor tail out of it because it threw weird definitions around. But I noticed that undefined terms were used. It wasn’t until I had the part @Nyarlathotep quoted isolated that it was clear to me that it is really just contradictory definitions being thrown together in a blender together with buzzwords from mathematics and logic. Later on, “Philosopher” introduces “God” without defining what God is. The concept of “perfect existence” is just as malformed as that of “imperfect triangle”, although I must admit I am a bit at loss at words to explain it better.

Oh, and I repeat: the whole “argument” lacks references to empirical results. No empirical data, no god.

Yair

Is it just me, or are others dubious about that bloke’s claim to being a philosopher? In my experience, self taught philosophers who have anything to say are rare. So far, this one doesn’t seem to have reached the stage of clear English expression.

I knew you rang a bell!!!

hehehehehehe

Butterfly guy… :butterfly: @Calilasseia your squeeky toy is back!!!

Dear oh dear.

Another infantile attempt to wordsmith a god of choice into reality.

That is an F, once again. Try woodwork or welding, it might suit you better.

My favorite part of what I quoted earlier was the parenthesis; look closely:

Spoiler

The set of parenthesis has “overflowed” into the next sentence. It’s like a Frankenstein’s monster!

I provided a link for further reading, but it was removed.

You’re either sincere to the semantics that you are aware of, or you are not.

The reason you can tell that x is better than y in terms of triangularity, is because x is greater in resembling perfect triangularity (or a perfect triangle).

The reason you can tell that x is better than y in being/existing, is because x is greater in resembling a perfect being.

It’s not random or magic that you can tell which is a better triangle
It’s not random or magic that you can tell which is a better being.
Good and evil is not a matter of randomness or magic. Evil is that which is insincere to truth, goodness, and God.

Any given theory or belief or statement that is contradictory (semantically-inconsistent), is contradictory or false by definition/semantics. It’s just the way existence is. Anyone who believes in that which is contradictory is absurd/contradictory/unreasonable/evil.

I’d provide the link, but I reckon it’ll just get removed again. I’m guessing the mod accepts responsibility for doing this.

I looked at the link before it was removed, and it was more of the same gobbledegook.

If you want to argue semantics, you’d better get your own semantics right first. A triangle is by definition a three-sided polygon. Something that only resembles a triangle is not a triangle. Resemblance is not the same as equality. Your argument is, abbreviated, “X resembles Y, therefore X is Y”. Which is nonsense. You cannot approximate a god into existence.

And we still haven’t seen any imperical evidence for the existence of a god.

1 Like

Then I don’t think you read what I wrote in the link I provided.

If you want to be absolute with your semantics, then the following is true:

Triangle = that which has three sides with its interior angles totalling 180 degrees.
Perfection = that which is perfect. The perfect being. That which perfectly exists.

It is not us who exist. We are sustained by existence (or that which completely/truly/perfectly/indubitably exists). We can doubt ourselves, but we cannot doubt existence.

If you don’t want to be absolute with your semantics, then the following is true:

An imperfect triangle is a triangle, it’s just not a perfect triangle
A human is still a being, it’s just not a perfect being.

@Philosopher We read everything you posted in this thread. We heard you and we’ve decided it’s bullshit. You’re talking in circles and your debate sucks.

1 Like

Indeed.

@Philosopher ; well, where is it?

You’ve already been told more than once, that god cannot be argued into existence. Every claim I’ve seen about god(s) has been shown to be unfalsifiable.

Time to piss or get off the pot.

An “imperfect triangle” (whatever that is) is clearly not a three-sided polygon. Thus it is not a triangle (three-sided polygon). By its very definition. And yur argument is still “X resembles Y, therefore X is Y”, which is a logical error. Your argument fails (even semantically), as you cannot approximate a god into existence. And you haven’t defined the term “perfect being.”

And you still have not provided us with empirical evidence for the existence of a god.

1 Like

I addressed your point on perfect triangle versus imperfect triangle.

That which perfectly exists = God (the infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibeneovlent towards good, omnimalevolent towards evil) or a truly perfect existence (they both denote the same thing: omnipresence, infiniteness, and omnipotence are all required to instantiate a truly perfect existence). You cannot have a truly perfect existence independently of God. Again, if you are interested in this, then follow the link if it’s in your history. There are other posts on my blog that discuss these issues.

Now you assume what you try to prove. Try again.

1 Like

Demonstrate there is such a thing as a “Perfect Triangle” outside of what can be imagined. Has there ever been a “perfect triangle,” and even if there were such a thing, how would an imperfect mind perceive it?

You don’t get to imagine a perfect triangle into existence. If you do, you must admit that it is an imagined triangle as one does not actually exist. If it did you would be able to show it to me. Failing that, we have no reason at all to make such an assumption.