Philosopher19

You're posting a reply to another person. Do you not see that you have hurled insults at me accusing me of not giving you proof and suggesting that yo...

It is in the definition of the semantic of "set" that you can have a set of ALL things of which you can have more than one of. Examples of such things...

You don't define something into existence. You simply acknowledge the existence of that which perfectly exists. You don't define something into being ...

You define something other than God as a perfect being/existent without running into contradictions (if you are meaningfully/semantically able to), an...

Ok. Ok, so that means that D necessarily contains A, B, and C. Ok. D not containing itself or not being a member of itself is a contradiction because ...

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. The OP shows that God's non-existence is as semantically/meaningfully contradictory as a perfect triangl...

You have not proven this. You have just stated it. Here's my response: Call the set of all sets X. Call any set that is not X, a Y. X contains all Ys ...

If I say I did x, and you say I did not do x, and neither of us changes his position, this means that we agree to disagree on this. I hope that's clea...

I see your argument. What would you say to the following: The list of all lists, lists all lists (including itself). So this list contains itself as a...

You're welcome. I think I get what you're saying, and I recognise that what you say holds true when N is finite. But when N is not finite, what you sa...

How you interpret your empirical experiences, is your responsibility. It is not my concern.

I refuse to agree with you. I don't see you as having a choice in this matter. This is why I suggested that we agree to disagree. If I choose to disag...

ZF implies incompleteness in proof, theory or system. Perhaps some are happy with such standards, I am not. In any case, your last reply to me suggest...

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Everyone recognises such a set is contradictory. What you and mainstream set theorists seem to think is that this logically entails that the set of al...

I believe I've understood your point, but I don't think you have understood mine. So from my point of view, this is what you are doing. I have shown t...

It does not have such a subset as evidenced by such a subset being clearly contradictory. However, it is the set that contains all sets (rejecting thi...

This is not what I suppose. I definitely believe in a set being a member of itself. I think it is a logical necessity. I understand why it looks as th...

Yes I know. It's a contradiction for something to be a member of itself twice. I am saying that this is the logical consequence of a set of all sets t...

That's the part I believe everyone has overlooked. I will try and show this clearly: x, y and z, are sets that are not members of themselves. I am try...

What if you view it this way: The set of all sets encompasses all sets. It encompasses all sets that are not members of themselves, and it is a member...

I'm going back to the root of the matter. The problem occurred because there wasn't enough clarity with regards to what it is for a set to be a member...

But my point is that x, y, and z are not members of themselves, whereas x = {x, y, z} means that x is a member of itself. Hence why I have to write so...

My argument is purely focused on semantics. If x is a contradictory (semantically inconsistent) belief/theory/statement, then x is certainly false and...

I'm not trying to discuss religion here (though I value religion). Just matters of pure reason. We can doubt ourselves, but we cannot doubt God's exis...

Then what I should have said is if that's what you call reasoning...

Because it is semantically inconsistent for there to be two omnipresent beings. For there to be two omnipresent being, non-existence would have to sep...

If you think creating round squares is "something" that an omnipotent being should be able to, then consistency would have you believe that geometry s...

Yes, but only for non-God beings. Any weight that any non-God being can lift, God can lift that weight plus more. So God can create a rock so heavy th...

I think you fail to treat contradictions as contradictions, and as a result of this, you present contradictory objections as though they are non-contr...

You cannot have more than one perfect being because you cannot have more than one omnipresent being.

God cannot create himself. God cannot create an omnipotent being. God cannot create a round-square or a married-bachelor. Omnipotence = being able to ...

If x is not perfect, then x is not the true/real God. You cannot be lacking in might and call yourself THE God. x might call himself a god if he think...

If x is not omnipotent and omniscient, then x is not truly free. Nor is he able to ensure that everyone gets what they truly deserve. If x is not omni...

I think I have addressed Kant. Again, what I am proposing is not what Descartes proposed. I make a distinction between that which perfectly/truly exis...

Three dollar notes exist (not in your mind or my mind because we (or our minds) are not the sustainers of an infinite number of semantics or hypotheti...

So you say: I'd say a human that is merely imagined has being, but does not exist. Going by the non-absolute standard: You're saying the imagined huma...

Either we take an absolute approach with regards to existence, or we take a non-absolute approach. If we do the former, then only one thing truly exis...

How is that not contradictory? Does a Sherlock Holmes exist on this planet? Unknown (very unlikely). Does a Sherlock Holmes at least exist as a charac...

Yes, and I believe I addressed it.

Do you agree with the following: To be an imaginary human, is to exist an imaginary human? To be a human on planet earth, it to exist as a human on pl...

Triangularity and existence/being/existing are both meaningful, and I believe I have been sincere to those semantics. If I asked you what's perfectly ...

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 t...

I'm well aware of Kant and Descartes. But my argument is different. You are not addressing my argument directly. Quote something directly from the OP ...

If x is not omnipotent and omnipresent, then x is not a perfect being (or perfectly existing), because better being/existents than it can be conceived...

Only one thing is truly existing. The link has more info on the OP if you are interested.

We know what it is to be perfectly triangular. I then asked "what is it to perfectly exist?" and the answer is clear: Real good/benefit is better than...

One just has to be sincere to the semantics that they are aware of without bias and prejudice. If you think there is/exists something better than God ...

If one is sincere to the semantics that they are aware of, then they are not insincere to the truth. We are aware of the semantic of triangle. We are ...

This is neither Descartes' or Anselm's ontological argument. Their instincts and intentions may have been right, but their execution not through enoug...