Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[M.D. Rawlings]

I take it that you do not like

We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums

So how bout

Theology and Philosophy

Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there. Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!

Yeah. Got it. And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine? Since when? That overthrows the ad absurdum of the irreducible mind? How could that be? The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place. It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims: human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent. LOL!

Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!

By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge? Still working on that? Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin?

Good luck with that.

But, really, what caused the singularity?

Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

. . . unto infinity and beyond!

Understand what you are asking:

What caused the singularity?

That cannot be conclusively determined. I can only form conjectures here, and to choose any one thing out of the possibilty of something else is subjectivity. Any other words, we could label it "God" and leave open what actually is. The reason is simple, we do not know what definitively caused the Big Bang. (Note: I used as an example that some people could very well call the Big Bang the first Cause that led to the development our Universe. Under that assumption, The Big Bang is God. However, That is not what is being suggested in the question given. )

You, on the other hand, assume it has to be a sentient being. That is not being objective.

As An example, I can demonstrate how even suggesting that question shows that you're not objective. For instance, it can be assumed that that the Big Bang is neither cause 1 nor cause 2!!

What does this say about the Cause that caused the Big Bang? Apparently it is not God according to the Cosmological Argument. So why are you even asking about what that cause is if it can be assumed it is not God as well?

So 2 problems arises:

1) It is possibly irrelevant to ask the question "What cause the Big Bang?" when it is the First Cause that is being sought and what cause the Big Bang may not be the first cause. Note: This stands outside what is being described in the cosmological model for our universe, and is left to speculation.

2)Whatever is the first Cause, as argued in the Cosmological argument, may or may not be one sentient being. In other words, you have to determine what those characteristics are, not just ssume those characteristics.




You need to find characterististics of the first cause, .Which, in this case, is no longer possible in terms of natural science.

Amrchaos: "You, on the other hand, assume it has to be a sentient being. That is not being objective."

That statement is false. Objectively speaking, I assume no such thing. Objectively speaking, The Seven Things assume no such thing.

So what are you imposing on them that's not there?

Knock, knock. Anybody home?

You're not really reading or thinking about these things on their own terms, are you?

I take it that you do not like

We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums

So how bout

Theology and Philosophy

Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there. Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!

Yeah. Got it. And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine? Since when? That overthrows the ad absurdum of the irreducible mind? How could that be? The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place. It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims: human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent. LOL!

Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!

By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge? Still working on that? Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin?

Good luck with that.

But, really, what caused the singularity?

Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

. . . unto infinity and beyond!

Understand what you are asking:

What caused the singularity?

That cannot be conclusively determined. I can only form conjectures here, and to choose any one thing out of the possibilty of something else is subjectivity. Any other words, we could label it "God" and leave open what actually is. The reason is simple, we do not know what definitively caused the Big Bang. (Note: I used as an example that some people could very well call the Big Bang the first Cause that led to the development our Universe. Under that assumption, The Big Bang is God. However, That is not what is being suggested in the question given. )

You, on the other hand, assume it has to be a sentient being. That is not being objective.

As An example, I can demonstrate how even suggesting that question shows that you're not objective. For instance, it can be assumed that that the Big Bang is neither cause 1 nor cause 2!!

What does this say about the Cause that caused the Big Bang? Apparently it is not God according to the Cosmological Argument. So why are you even asking about what that cause is if it can be assumed it is not God as well?

So 2 problems arises:

1) It is possibly irrelevant to ask the question "What cause the Big Bang?" when it is the First Cause that is being sought and what cause the Big Bang may not be the first cause. Note: This stands outside what is being described in the cosmological model for our universe, and is left to speculation.

2)Whatever is the first Cause, as argued in the Cosmological argument, may or may not be one sentient being. In other words, you have to determine what those characteristics are, not just ssume those characteristics.




You need to find characterististics of the first cause, .Which, in this case, is no longer possible in terms of natural science.

Amrchaos: "You, on the other hand, assume it has to be a sentient being. That is not being objective."

That statement is false. Objectively speaking, I assume no such thing. Objectively speaking, The Seven Things assume no such thing.

So what are you imposing on them that's not there?

Knock, knock. Anybody home?

You're not really reading or thinking about these things on their own terms, are you?

Question: Does the 7 things have an objective voice?

Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.

The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.

hmmm, my atheism is predicated upon the Judaic description of God, in which sentients is a part of the that definition.

So, it seems you are correct. However, that is not the only problem I have with the Judaic God.

Just remember this--I can give a definition of God that neither you nor I can reject because it does exist nd observable!!. But those "Gods" are not the Judaic God. Sentients, by itself, is not the problem.

Edit: I forgot to add, and those gods are sentient!

Yeah. You called the Big Bang, a contingent event, God, which is immediately rejected as nonsense because according to your logic the singularity would have to be God, not the Big Bang. But wait a minute! The singularity can't be God, according to your logic, because the quantum vacuum would have to be God. . . .

 

[amrchaos]

I take it that you do not like

We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums

So how bout

Theology and Philosophy

Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there. Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!

Yeah. Got it. And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine? Since when? That overthrows the ad absurdum of the irreducible mind? How could that be? The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place. It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims: human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent. LOL!

Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!

By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge? Still working on that? Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin?

Good luck with that.

But, really, what caused the singularity?

Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

. . . unto infinity and beyond!

Understand what you are asking:

What caused the singularity?

That cannot be conclusively determined. I can only form conjectures here, and to choose any one thing out of the possibilty of something else is subjectivity. Any other words, we could label it "God" and leave open what actually is. The reason is simple, we do not know what definitively caused the Big Bang. (Note: I used as an example that some people could very well call the Big Bang the first Cause that led to the development our Universe. Under that assumption, The Big Bang is God. However, That is not what is being suggested in the question given. )

You, on the other hand, assume it has to be a sentient being. That is not being objective.

As An example, I can demonstrate how even suggesting that question shows that you're not objective. For instance, it can be assumed that that the Big Bang is neither cause 1 nor cause 2!!

What does this say about the Cause that caused the Big Bang? Apparently it is not God according to the Cosmological Argument. So why are you even asking about what that cause is if it can be assumed it is not God as well?

So 2 problems arises:

1) It is possibly irrelevant to ask the question "What cause the Big Bang?" when it is the First Cause that is being sought and what cause the Big Bang may not be the first cause. Note: This stands outside what is being described in the cosmological model for our universe, and is left to speculation.

2)Whatever is the first Cause, as argued in the Cosmological argument, may or may not be one sentient being. In other words, you have to determine what those characteristics are, not just ssume those characteristics.




You need to find characterististics of the first cause, .Which, in this case, is no longer possible in terms of natural science.

Amrchaos: "You, on the other hand, assume it has to be a sentient being. That is not being objective."

That statement is false. Objectively speaking, I assume no such thing. Objectively speaking, The Seven Things assume no such thing.

So what are you imposing on them that's not there?

Knock, knock. Anybody home?

You're not really reading or thinking about these things on their own terms, are you?

I take it that you do not like

We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums

So how bout

Theology and Philosophy

Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there. Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!

Yeah. Got it. And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine? Since when? That overthrows the ad absurdum of the irreducible mind? How could that be? The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place. It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims: human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent. LOL!

Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!

By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge? Still working on that? Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin?

Good luck with that.

But, really, what caused the singularity?

Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

. . . unto infinity and beyond!

Understand what you are asking:

What caused the singularity?

That cannot be conclusively determined. I can only form conjectures here, and to choose any one thing out of the possibilty of something else is subjectivity. Any other words, we could label it "God" and leave open what actually is. The reason is simple, we do not know what definitively caused the Big Bang. (Note: I used as an example that some people could very well call the Big Bang the first Cause that led to the development our Universe. Under that assumption, The Big Bang is God. However, That is not what is being suggested in the question given. )

You, on the other hand, assume it has to be a sentient being. That is not being objective.

As An example, I can demonstrate how even suggesting that question shows that you're not objective. For instance, it can be assumed that that the Big Bang is neither cause 1 nor cause 2!!

What does this say about the Cause that caused the Big Bang? Apparently it is not God according to the Cosmological Argument. So why are you even asking about what that cause is if it can be assumed it is not God as well?

So 2 problems arises:

1) It is possibly irrelevant to ask the question "What cause the Big Bang?" when it is the First Cause that is being sought and what cause the Big Bang may not be the first cause. Note: This stands outside what is being described in the cosmological model for our universe, and is left to speculation.

2)Whatever is the first Cause, as argued in the Cosmological argument, may or may not be one sentient being. In other words, you have to determine what those characteristics are, not just ssume those characteristics.




You need to find characterististics of the first cause, .Which, in this case, is no longer possible in terms of natural science.

Amrchaos: "You, on the other hand, assume it has to be a sentient being. That is not being objective."

That statement is false. Objectively speaking, I assume no such thing. Objectively speaking, The Seven Things assume no such thing.

So what are you imposing on them that's not there?

Knock, knock. Anybody home?

You're not really reading or thinking about these things on their own terms, are you?

Question: Does the 7 things have an objective voice?

Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.

The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.

hmmm, my atheism is predicated upon the Judaic description of God, in which sentients is a part of the that definition.

So, it seems you are correct. However, that is not the only problem I have with the Judaic God.

Just remember this--I can give a definition of God that neither you nor I can reject because it does exist nd observable!!. But those "Gods" are not the Judaic God. Sentients, by itself, is not the problem.

Edit: I forgot to add, and those gods are sentient!

Yeah. You called the Big Bang, a contingent event, God, which is immediately rejected as nonsense because according to your logic the singularity would have to be God, not the Big Bang. But wait minute! The singularity can't be God, according to your logic, because the quantum vacuum would have to be God. . . .

Good luck in finding sentients at the end of a sequence of seemingly non-sentient things.

 

[Boss]

Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.

The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.

hmmm, my atheism is predicated upon the Judaic description of God, in which sentients is a part of the that definition.

So, it seems you are correct. However, that is not the only problem I have with the Judaic God.

Just remember this--I can give a definition of God that neither you nor I can reject because it does exist nd observable!!. But those "Gods" are not the Judaic God. Sentients, by itself, is not the problem.

Edit: I forgot to add, and those gods are sentient!

Ahh... okay, well I don't have a dog in the hunt here because My God isn't a religious incarnation of any kind, but I am always intrigued with atheist arguments against Christianity, it's a little hobby of mine. Judaic religion uses The Bible, last I checked. Can you please show me the Scripture where The Bible says God is a 'sentient being'? I did a search at Bible.com but came up lacking any hits with that term. Therefore, if the Bible doesn't say it, then why do you claim it does?

What humans very often do, and Christians do this all the time, is attribute a lot of human-like attributes to God, when God has no logical reason to need such attributes. But it often causes confusion among Atheists who reject spiritual nature, because they can't rationalize spiritual existence. Sentience, however, is what Rawlings is defining as "cognition" and this is a human attribute. Humans need sentience, God doesn't. God is a Spiritual power beyond sentience. It created Sentience. God is also technically not a "being" because that would denote a physical being, which is all an Atheist can imagine anyway. So basically, you have an invalid descriptor with "sentient being" when applied to God.

 

[G.T.]

The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!


But, really, what caused the singularity?

"So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!

.

are you saying Flora has no consciousness - you are certain consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems ... realy


"But, really, what caused the singularity"

the end becoming the beginning ....

.

I just answered that question. Do you have something objectively apprehensible to add to that, something I don't known?

Also, I didn't claim that consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems, did I?

See. This is what I'm talking about. This is the one of the biggest problems that humans have. They read or think their biases into things rather than simply backing out of their paradigms and , objectively, taking things as they come at them.

Answer: No the 7 things do not have an objective voice because much of it is the subjective opinion of the poster. To say "Objectively speaking" is really to talk about nothing when referencing the 7 things.

More meaningless philosophical bullshit. Objectively speaking is an idiom that means that the speaker's/thinker's personal bias is irrelevant to the apparent fact of the matter.

You alleged that I assume in the expression of #3 of The Seven Things that God is sentient, which is what you've been going on about. There is no such assumption expressed in #3. You assumed that. You assumed something not expressed at all. I wonder why. You don't know why or how you did that?

That's weird.

 

[amrchaos]

You can take GT response s basically my answer.

OH, and by the way. The issue of sentience in terms of the 7 things is really about point 3. It is being assumed that God is sentient by the statement, and I suggested not implying but leave it OPEN by using a definition.

i.e. the question is not whether or not God is sentient, the question is why imply God is sentient when it has not been properly argued for?

 

[amrchaos]

"So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!


But, really, what caused the singularity?

"So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!

.

are you saying Flora has no consciousness - you are certain consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems ... realy


"But, really, what caused the singularity"

the end becoming the beginning ....

.

I just answered that question. Do you have something objectively apprehensible to add to that, something I don't known?

Also, I didn't claim that consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems, did I?

See. This is what I'm talking about. This is the one of the biggest problems that humans have. They read or think their biases into things rather than simply backing out of their paradigms and , objectively, taking things as they come at them.

Answer: No the 7 things do not have an objective voice because much of it is the subjective opinion of the poster. To say "Objectively speaking" is really to talk about nothing when referencing the 7 things.

More meaningless philosophical bullshit. Objectively speaking is an idiom that means that the speaker's/thinker's personal bias is irrelevant to the apparent fact of the matter.

You alleged that I assume in the expression of #3 of The Seven Things that God is sentient, which is what you've been going on about. There is no such assumption expressed in #3. You assumed that. You assumed something not expressed at all. I wonder why. You don't know why or how you did that?

That's weird.

By using the term creator, you make an implication of sentience
Then by referencing what you mean by creator, you use sentience in your very questionable argument for sentience in creator.

Now you argue that you did not imply sentience. So does that mean you dictated that concept?

Again, you can use an open definition that does not assume anything.

Yet you wish to argue a point that you tried to prove and then try to place the burden on me to disprove it when what I suggested avoids such argument.

It is like your 7 things is meant to cause argument, and your tactic is try to bully(although, highly unsuccessively) others into accepting your position.

 

[amrchaos]

"So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!


But, really, what caused the singularity?

"So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!

.

are you saying Flora has no consciousness - you are certain consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems ... realy


"But, really, what caused the singularity"

the end becoming the beginning ....

.

I just answered that question. Do you have something objectively apprehensible to add to that, something I don't known?

Also, I didn't claim that consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems, did I?

See. This is what I'm talking about. This is the one of the biggest problems that humans have. They read or think their biases into things rather than simply backing out of their paradigms and , objectively, taking things as they come at them.

Answer: No the 7 things do not have an objective voice because much of it is the subjective opinion of the poster. To say "Objectively speaking" is really to talk about nothing when referencing the 7 things.

More meaningless philosophical bullshit. Objectively speaking is an idiom that means that the speaker's/thinker's personal bias is irrelevant to the apparent fact of the matter.

You alleged that I assume in the expression of #3 of The Seven Things that God is sentient, which is what you've been going on about. There is no such assumption expressed in #3. You assumed that. You assumed something not expressed at all. I wonder why. You don't know why or how you did that?

That's weird.

By using the term creator, you make an implication of sentience
Then by referencing what you mean by creator(not posted in 7 things, there is another post he reference for arguing #3), you use sentience in your very questionable argument for sentience in creator.

Now you argue that you did not imply sentience. So does that mean you dictated that concept?

Again, you can use an open definition that does not assume anything.

Yet you wish to argue a point that you tried to prove and then try to place the burden on me to disprove it when what I suggested avoids such argument.

It is like your 7 things is meant to cause argument, and your tactic is try to bully(although, highly unsuccessively) others into accepting your position.

 

[amrchaos]

Great, I wrote a second post!!

 

[Boss]

​

 

[G.T.]

​

This was actually pretty dope tbh

 

[Boss]

The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.

No, that is your interpretation.

 

[G.T.]

The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.

No, that is your interpretation.

No, it is verbatim scripture and an understanding of what the term sentient is defined as.

 

[Boss]

By using the term creator, you make an implication of sentience

No you don't. YOU assume sentience because you can't imagine anything else. Nothing implies a creator requires sentience. The Creator is omnipotent, which trumps sentience.

 

[G.T.]

By using the term creator, you make an implication of sentience

No you don't. YOU assume sentience because you can't imagine anything else. Nothing implies a creator requires sentience. The Creator is omnipotent, which trumps sentience.

That crack rock must be great.

Sentience is simply an ability to perceive. Omnipotence is unlimited power.

Unlimited power doesn't include the power to perceive on boss planet?

Shut up dude, you're falling into the annoying contrarian category.

 

[Hollie]

Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.

The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.

No we don't. We assume god(s) don't exist dumbass. It is most THEISTS who say god made us in his image.

Its just another problem with the theist story.

I have a spirit. Does that prove a god exists? Nope. In fact my spirit says there is no god. But its ok if your spirit thinks there is a god. It won't make any difference when we're both dead. And if it makes you feel better about your life then allah akbar dumbass.

You assume God don't exist because you think God has to be a sentient being, you don't comprehend spiritual nature. Except for you, silly boob... you accept spiritual nature, believe in Karma, admit that you have a spirit... but don't believe in God and think we made that up. But that's okay because we all know what your deal is here, you hate religion and religious people. It is your hatred for religion and religious people which causes you to be an Atheist/Agnostic Activist.

By using the term creator, you make an implication of sentience

No you don't. YOU assume sentience because you can't imagine anything else. Nothing implies a creator requires sentience. The Creator is omnipotent, which trumps sentience.

So basically, you have created your gawds to be a bigger, badder version of the competing gawds.

How, umm... stereotypical.

 

[Boss]

The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.

No, that is your interpretation.

No, it is verbatim scripture and an understanding of what the term sentient is defined as.

We've established the verbatim scripture doesn't say God is a sentient being. I don't doubt that you interpret God as a sentient being, I'm sure that's why you posted it. It doesn't matter how you interpret sentience, unless sentience applies itself to omnipotent omniscient spiritual entities somehow. As far as I am aware, it only applies to physical life.

 

[G.T.]

The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.

No, that is your interpretation.

No, it is verbatim scripture and an understanding of what the term sentient is defined as.

We've established the verbatim scripture doesn't say God is a sentient being. I don't doubt that you interpret God as a sentient being, I'm sure that's why you posted it. It doesn't matter how you interpret sentience, unless sentience applies itself to omnipotent omniscient spiritual entities somehow. As far as I am aware, it only applies to physical life.

As far as you're concerned, Unlimited power has The limitation of not being able to perceive.

Unlimited.


Limitation.



That's why I can only assume crack addict

 

[Boss]

Unlimited power doesn't include the power to...

Ahem... careful here.... it's VERY tricky.... What is the KEYWORD? Think G.T.... Think!!

 

[G.T.]

Unlimited power doesn't include the power to...

Ahem... careful here.... it's VERY tricky.... What is the KEYWORD? Think G.T.... Think!!

Umm, you're the one who imposed a limitation on omnipotence by saying that an omnipotent being is not sentient.

Which is a contradiction in terms you're having.