Rationally irrefutable proof of God's existence

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.

More attempts to verbalise a god of choice into existence. It doesn’t work.

Have you thought of deep sea diving or bricklaying as a wiser career choice?

1 Like

You admit that you assume that which you attempt to prove. Good. Now stop, because it won’t work, because that is your error (one of them). No wordsmithery and intricate formulations can wriggle your conclusions into safe logical ground. No matter how intricate your argumentation is, if your input data is garbage, your conclusion is garbage.

Oh, and by the way: you haven’t shown us any empirical evidence for the existence of a god yet.

Now I have to go to work, so please excuse me for the rest of the day.


I can’t even call this a deepity! This is just plain old bull-shit.

1 Like

Getting to the point… triangles can be measured and useful and demonstrated in “reality”. I don’t reject a triangle.

This god… demonstrable evidence?
Your thoughts are full of assumption and presupposition. That is demonstrable- the thing you are arguing for is not.

1 Like

Isn’t that one of Anselm’s arguments? God is a perfect being. If he didn’t exist, he wouldn’t be perfect in terms of existence. Therefore god exists.

The glaring hole in the argument is the assumption that god is perfect. There’s no grounds for that other than wishful thinking on the part of believers.

A triangle is an abstract concept that exists only in our minds. It is manifested in reality as the shape of physical objects in the real world.

God is also an abstract concept that exists only in people’s minds. Nowhere is that concept manifested in reality. Every physical phenomenon put forward as a sign of god has subsequently been explained by science. The gaps just keep on getting smaller.

And an imaginary god exists as an imaginary god… we need go no further. Thanks for playing. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
You are completely welcome to your “Semantic God.” Have fun with it.

You do not get to assert a god into existence or stretch existence to meet the needs of your “semantic deity.” Equally the fallacy of “No true understanding.” did not go unnoticed.

Hogwash from beginning to end.

1 Like

@Philosopher I don’t think religion is working out for you at all. Look at what it’s done to you. You’re acting all pent up and crazy. No one wants to hear that.

You’re on here spewing silly ideas like a drunk old bastard blabbing about gods and triangles like you just got preached at by a 2nd grade little boy. You’re better than that. You don’t want everyone to think you’re crazy do you?

I mean look at you. You can’t even think straight. I’m really fearing for your sanity. You poor thing.

Did you ever take a minute and think about taking up a different hobby like @Old_man_shouts_at_cl has stated?

I honestly think you might enjoy watching porn or going out to the local strip club. It really just sounds like you need to unplug man. Get some R&R. You really just need to take a moment. No more silly talk about gods and triangles like you got out of special ed, okay?

@Cognostic Don’t be too hard on him. He’s special. whispers in your ear I think he still believes in Santa Claus.

LOL, telling people what they can and can not doubt. That is a first, imo!


It’s risible nonsense. So pretty much what we’ve come to expect from your grandiose claims.

It was clear long before this latest bs, that you don’t have even a cursory understanding of informal logic.

An unevidenced claim, citing an arbitrary standard, assigned to an unevidenced deity.

I did not miss this lunatics posts at all.

It will if it violates the forum’s guidelines on self promotion, as did your previous link.

Try explaining why your proof of a deity has been missed by the entire world’s religions, the entire global scientific community, and the entire world’s press?

I doubt anyone’s particularly interested in your blog, reading what you write here is bad enough, as it’s nauseating grandiloquent and delusional.

and @Philosopher. When you answer @Sheldon’s questions. Please don’t come off crazy and retarded like you’ve been like the other posts. Those just make us all cringe.

No, the argument in the OP is different. And it’s not a case of assuming something in the sense that I think you are suggesting. For example, I do not assume triangles have three sides in the same way that I assume there are no unicorns on our planet. The former is a truth I recognise, the latter is an assumption whose truth is unknown to me (I am not omniscient with regards to what is and isn’t in our planet)

  1. Being three-sided is a semantical component of being triangular.

  2. Being infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent towards good, and omnimalevolent towards evil, are semantical components of being perfect.

The OP makes it clear that if there is one thing that you cannot meaningfully/semantically doubt in terms of existence, it is that which exists perfectly as an existent/being.

I think you’re either biased, or lacking in focus. Clearly, you have not understood what has been presented here, and I think I delivered and explained clearly enough for those who sufficiently value being sincere to truth.

No. You’re just aggravated because no one is buying into your bullshit, you stupid mother fucker. We read your bullshit and that’s what you keep giving back to back. No one is buying it. Don’t you get it?

You haven’t given shit. No evidence. NOTHING. That’s what you’re not getting. Now either pony up the evidence or piss off.

I think you’re the one that’s aggravated :slight_smile:

I’ll leave you to it.

Good. Because you have no evidence and you couldn’t prove it if you tried. All you do is run your mouth about shit you can’t prove. These members have told you it. I’ve told you it. At some point, you look like a fool when you can’t present evidence to back up your argument. Which you have not and cannot do.