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:
1 Like
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.
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.
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
Yes, I also do this here:
Triangle = that which has three sides that are perfectly straight. Where is the proof? It’s in the semantic. Rejecting this is contradictory (semantically-inconsistent).
This is the way reason and semantics work. You assume that meanings actually mean what they mean, and you do/judge/act with sincerity to the semantics that you are aware of (if you are seeking to be sincere to truth).
If you are unaware of the semantic of triangle, then you will not understand what a triangle is. If you are unaware of the semantic of God or a perfect being (or that which perfectly exists), then you will not understand the OP.
Where you are not absolute with your semantics:
An imagined triangle does exist, just not perfectly/truly/indubitably.
An imaginary human, exists as an imaginary human. A human on planet earth, exists as a human on planet earth.
Round-squares do not exist. Lies and contradictory statements exist, what they describe does not.
Where you are absolute with your semantics:
You cannot doubt the existence of that which perfectly exists (see the OP).
Only God (that which perfectly exists) truly exists (just as only a perfect triangle is truly triangular). Everything else is sustained as a result of his existence. We do not instantiate existence (contrary to solipsism). It is not us who indubitably exist (contrary to Descartes’ cogito). It is God.
The first time I have found something you post that I agree with. Well done.