What you have posted is a hot mess.
If you now are going to assume that the people who can’t understand your hot mess aren’t sincere; you are going to find that you are the only sincere person on this website; perhaps the entire planet. 
So you withhold belief in a unicorn? 
Lol 
Being fuzzy, purple maned and the ability to fly; rubbing the horn to grant wishes are semantical components of being a perfect unicorn.
Convincing isn’t it???
These aren’t perfect unicorns, btw:
2 Likes
And I think you don’t even realize what you have said. I completely agreed with you. Your god is as useless as a god that does not exist. You are welcome to your silly idea. Ideas are not real and you can not think a god into existance. No one gives a shit if your idea of god is real. I have some ideas about you and they are every bit as real as your god. ha ha ha ha …
1 Like
And don’t forget… “Farting Rainbows.” Most of us have actually seen this unicorn around here. ** I know he had a name … hmmm… what was it? **
1 Like
@Whitefire13 eloquently made it clear that
Fuzziness is better than non-fuzziness, purple-maned is better than non-purple-maned, flying is better than non-flying, and grant-wishing hurn-rubbing is better than non-grant-wishing horn-rubbing. Thus it is better to be the real Unicorn than to exist as just an illusion/image of a Unicorn (the real Unicorn is better than all humans or pretend unicorns). We are meaningfully/semantically aware that something perfectly/indubitably exists, semantics dictate that this is the real/true Unicorn (of which there can only be one. You cannot have two really/truly awesome beings).
Having contradictory (semantically-inconsistent) beliefs/theories is wrong by definition/semantics.
Rejecting the Unicorn 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.
And so on. This constitutes the rationally irrefutable (albeit abbreviated) proof of the Unicorn’s existence.
1 Like
Hey! Taylor Swifts Caticorn is much cooler than any unicorn in imaginary existence!
If I farted rainbows. I’d go on America Has Talent like Sethward!
Irrelevant, since you cannot…
- Demonstrate a deity is possible.
- Demonstrate if it were, that it has these characteristics you assert are perfect.
I see no relevance in your blathering nonsense about triangles.
The OP is laughably and demonstrably wrong. Even were it not, to insist an unevidenced deity is perfection, and insist perfection must exist, and thus a deity exists, is the most risible example of a circular reasoning fallacy one can imagine.
I think that statement is risible bias, and lacks focus.
Umm, please forgive me if I’ve missed the point.
From being perfect, theists tend to then ascribe their god with infinite qualities, such as mercy and compassion. That in turn leads directly to the problem of evil, which no theist has ever been able to justify. I’m very fond of Epicurus’ on Evil. it’s only short, but worth looking up.
I’ve often stated that religions always reflect the culture which invents them. That religions tend to evolve as their society evolves. A favourite example is the evolution of El, a petty Sumerian weather/war god with a wife (Asherah) to YHWH, the monster of the Torah, to YHWH the sole, creator god and lord of the universe.
If you describe your god as the ultimate perfection of existence, the epitome of pure excellence, why the fuck would it need to create totally imperfect hairy smelly fornicating simian beasts in need of evolutionary improvement to worship and adore it? No, Cog, I’m not looking at you, really…put the banana tree down.
Perfection is just another state of stagnation…or does your god adapt…if so then it can’t fit your definition of perfection…tell me now that perfection implies change…why then doesn’t the perfect triangle change? Honestly I think you are making this all up. I dont doubt you are smart and intelligent but you’ve just backed up into some lofty perfectly meaningless theological dead-end that started with the mother of all presuppositions; that a god exists that with pure thought and reason can be argued into existence.
You are simply intellectualising the concept of god and declaring those who question your authority as perfectly ignorant.
I see perfection in chaos, not immutability. Perfection is not a natural goal, its hubris.
His name is ERIC…and he lives with Walter the perfect square pooping Wombat in my garage.
Also the assumption a deity exists, that a deity is possible, that perfection is an arbitrary set of characteristics based on subjective human superstition.
Then there’s the assumption we will be fooled his woo woo word salad is rational because he says so. Oh, and the assumption we, like him, won’t recognise logical fallacies, or understand that their use or inclusion emphatically destroys his claim his woo woo is rational.
I’m tired now, but I may come back and list some more unevidenced assumptions he’s made.
But but but, triangles have 3 sides, n’stuff?
So this isn’t the deity in either bible or koran then.
Well, what a pile of utter bollocks that OP was.
Also, “When goodness is the standard, nothing is better than the real God or a really perfect existence.”
Bone cancer in children… is he really perfect? Or if God were in actuality real, a cruel and capacious entity that happily allows the most innocent if our species to suffer.
1 Like
You don’t know if the child is innocent or not. You’re assuming you do. For all you know, the child with cancer was evil in a past life (this is a hypothetical possibility). The child not being innocent does not result in contradictions. A triangle not having three sides results in contradictions. God not existing results in contradictions (as highlighted in the OP).
Pure reason is that which you cannot rationally deny. Empirical observations are open to interpretation. So long as they don’t contradict pure reason, then the theory/interpretation is not wrong. If the theory/interpretation contradicts pure reason, then it’s definitely wrong.
Unreasonable/irrational/absurd people embrace absurd/contradictory beliefs. They are insincere to the truth.
There are those who are emotional and immature in their reasoning, and there are those who are rational. The latter are better than the former.
All you’ve written is “hypothetical”…and another assumption/presupposition to support your form of reason.
Yes 
finally some self-awareness. You are very detached from what is real and reality. You have no interest in getting to “what is true (as close as humanly possible)”. You are hell-bent on your lala woo beliefs.
You would have to prove they indeed had a past life… that would be a very bold claim
Can you offer any evidence to back that claim?
A triangle does have three sides, an object without three equal sides is just simply, not a triangle.
There is nothing rational in your OP and if this is the very best that theists can come up with… I.e. logical argument, for proof of your god, then you are in massive trouble.
The bible is inconsistent and does not stand up to scrutiny, the stories and fables contained within I.e. the flood, have been proven to be completely untrue.
There is 99.9% of the preponderance of evidence to suggest there is no god, no supernatural shenanigans etc… yet the same percentage applies in favor, for things conforming to laws of nature and natural causality.
It is no wonder that the number of those of an atheistic inclination is accelerating.
The mere possibility of the child being innocent pokes a glaring hole into the goodness of your goodness-god. For you to claim your scribblings as a proof, you have to prove that your god full of perfect goodness does not punish innocents. The burden of proof is on you, since it is your claim. So therefore, where is your proof that all babies that get cancer and die were e.g. evil in a past life?
And again, where is your empirical evidence for the existence of your god? We’re still waiting for it.
May I tack on to that, is it morally good and just to have someone who may have had a bad prior life, be punished as a child in a next life?
What about the pain not only inflicted upon the child but also unto the family?
Is that morally just? Or morally good?
If so, then I claim to be more moral then this God, because it is simply the act of a capricious, spiteful and horrible being that deserves absolutely zero respect.
To enable that level of suffering on to someone is nothing short of evil.