Now, look at his typical, his stubbornly ignorant, his stupid reaction again:
This is again one of your stupid answers, and they also show clearly that I am right and that you have no argument. You have merely pseudo arguments, coward accusations, ad hominems, absolutely insubstantial phrases …
This ‘proof’ relies entirely upon how you (arbitrarily) define the word “God”, much like Anselms ontological ‘proof’.
However we define words it makes no difference whatsoever to what actually does or doesn’t exist in reality.
You haven’t really proved anything about God (maybe something about your own psychology, reasoning skills, etc.).
I agree that “perfection” is an ideal, something that exists only in the mind ( i.e. has no physical (empirical) existence), but many theists would NOT define the word “God” in precisely the same way as you have defined it.
Premiss two is false…
Your whole argument is a “non starter”.
What exactly is “empirical-rational reality”?
Does it differ from actual reality, if so how?
I suspect what he means is, “whatever scientists (or rather their media outlet) tell us to believe”, but he didn’t want to say or admit to that. His religion Secularism (which abhors and denies the fact that it is a religion), so he divides thought into “our righteous rational elite thoughts” and “your superstitious irrational foolish thoughts”. And if you don’t agree with him then you obviously belong in the second group (along with the rest of the world).
What is “purely in thought” supposed to mean? Is conceptualization empirically possible or “purely in thought”? Please define the term.
You have the square-circle idea right. The mind comprehends “square” and “circle” because both offer information to perception, but the mind slams shut when the two are put together. You need to define “purely in thoughts” such that it can be proven to belong in the same category as impossible things.
Conceptualization or concept passes the first step for possessing existence of some sort; it imparts information/meaning to minds. We can easily prove that you’re correct that impossibilities can’t be imagined by the glaring fact that impossibilities have no possibility of being discussed objectively. A square circle imparts no information or meaning. God on the other hand–like conceptualization or justice–though they’re abstractions, quite obviously all do impart information to minds. From an informational standpoint all three offer this common evidence of their existence. All three can be discussed objectively because they have informational structure. It appears you’ve exerted considerable effort just in this thread (and how many others?) discussing the very thing you lump into the category of impossibilities, blatantly contradicting and disproving your own words.
To me, this is yet another intellectual contraption. What on earth does it mean pertaining to an actual context in which moral values come into conflict.
Even relating to extreme behaviors like rape or murder or genocide, something is said to be evil from a particular point of view. Yet there are those able to rationalize them. Not only that but there are those who will insist that, say, aborting unborn babies is extremely evil. On the contrary say others what is extremely evil is forcing women to give birth.
Now, with God such behaviors are deemed to be or not to be sins. But what of a Godless world? How is evil encompassed then? In a world of conflicting goods?
This is where we just go around and around in circles.
“In your head” you have proven that God is an impossibilty. How? By insisting that the meaning that you give to the words used in your arguments/analyses/concepts are necessarily true. But you have absolutely no capacity to scour the entire universe in order to confirm that there is in fact No God. And you are still burdened with the gap that exist between what you think you know about all of this here and now and all that would need to be known by any mere mortal to know for sure.
Or, rather, as with folks like James Saint, you have not demonstrated to me that you have closed this gap.
You point out:
You need to take this up with others. My aim here is to consider the “concept” of God that others have concocted “in their head”; and then explore the extent to which this “world of words” can be intertwined into the world we live in when men and women come into conflict over value judgments. Either in a world with or without God.
Again, I have absolutely no idea what this conveys to us about conflicting human behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments in a No God world.
Note an example from your own life of late — an experience in which you can “flesh out” these points for us.
What Kant’s philosophy entriely avoids in my view is the manner in which I construe the meaning of conflicting goods. Encompassed here by William Barrett:
For the choice in…human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the the ultimate outcome and even—or most of all—our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.
Note where he focuses the beam that is human psychology. On the need to embody certainty in one or another rendition of objectivism.
Sure, one can speak of “evil” as though it can be calculated objectively. But, from my frame of mind, I wonder: how is this actually done sans God?
Sure, down the road [maybe hundreds of years from now] there will be a “universal standard” whereby each and every pregnant woman can be told by that era’s rendition of the philosopher-kings whether this particular abortion or that particular abortion is either “good” or “evil”.
As for how difficult this might be, why don’t you start us off by proposing such standards for an issue like abortion.
On the other hand, from my point of view, you will either take your “intellectual contraptions” above to the grave [and many, many have] or you will come to grasp just how immense that gap must be between what you think you know about God here and now and all that would need to be known about Existence itself in order to know this.
The irony [from my point of view] is the extent to which you fail to recognize just how much your own frame of mind here is actually in sync with the religionists as a psychological contraption.
In other words, it’s that you know more so than what you know.
Well, sans the part about immortality, salvation and divine justice.
Sort of like Plato imagining the ideal Republic. That is, conceptually, in a world of words.
This part I get.
As long as it all pertains to “general descriptions” of human interaction.
Just out of curiosity how do you imagine Buddhists confronting the arguments of those who advance the frame of mind that revolves around political economy.
This:
Political economy is the study of production and trade, and their relations with law, custom, and government, as well as with the distribution of national income and wealth.
In other words, do you imagine that they imagine themselves succeeding where the No God socialists and communists failed?
How in particular do Buddhists imagine “social justice” as this pertains to, among other things, “the market economy”, “democracy and the rule of law”, “controlling the means of production”?
How would Buddhists reconfigure the global economy? How would they confront the “show me the money!” moral nihilists who currently own and operate it?
Perhaps that’s because I have given considerable thought to the gap that clearly does exist between what I think about the existence of God here and now and all that I would need to know about Existence itself in order to be certain that I can demonstrate it to others.
As I point out over and over again, in that respect we are all in the same teeny, tiny boat: unimaginably infinitesimal specks afloat on the staggeringly vast expanse that is Reality itself.
I am just among the very few who actually do take at least some time to think about it “philosophically”. You know, instead of merely wallowing in pop culture and mass consumption; or in embracing one or another comforting and consoling shortcut that I call objectivism.
Or in simply struggling to subsist from day to day.
Note to others:
What the hell does that mean?!!! 
Well, you made me laugh. 
It is truly sad when I am able to reduce you down to this sort of “retort”.
Note to others:
It is, isn’t it?
Take it as a compliment.
And be grateful. [-o<
Thanks for helping clarify.
I have thought a great deal about the relationship between God and science, and particularly about what, if anything, science can tell us about the existence of God…
Long story short, science can’t tell us anything about Gods existence.
Prismatic’s opening post and almost all his/her other posts are full of logical fallacies and hollow phrases (there is nothing behind it). He/she does not define “God”, “absolute perfection”, “absolutely perfect”. Apart from this, he/she tries to magically “convince” every other stupid guy who reads his/her schizoid and delusionial “realities” (note, just for example, his/her schizoid and delusional term “empirical possible multiple realities”). A schizoid personality wants multiple realities, okay, but he/she is not able to prove or demonstrate his “multiple realities”.
And why is he/she so hostile just to theists? Why is he/she not capable of understanding that one does not have to be a theist in order to know what a logical fallacy is.
Note Prismatic’s “empirical possible multiple realities”. 
Or is he/she neither he nor she, but it? If so, then it must be a pretty false computer program. I guess, it is more a they, but at least a multiple personality with multiple ILP accounts.
Your above is a straw man.
Dumb … logic? What is wrong with my syllogism structure?
If you don’t agree with my premises, that is a common thing.
The premises in my arguments are not definitions they are soundly justified premises.
So far you have not been able to convince me my premises are baseless.
What you have argued, re ‘absolute,’ perfection, and the likes are very childish and philosophical immature. Note my point re the finer meaning of ‘absolute’ in relation to ‘God’ below.
Note ‘The Reality’ is another deceptive label for ‘God.’
Show me how your ‘The Reality’ is even possible within an empirical-rational reality.
I suppose you never read my posts carefully but countered blindly - confirmation bias.
Note I wrote this above;
Philosophical Realists like you claim reality as follows;
Philosophical Anti-Realists do not agree with the untenable Philosophical Realism and claim various anti-realist views.
Philosophical Realists [like you] claim there is only ONE Reality out there which humans attempt to correspond with evidences, concepts, principles, laws, etc.
You have no grounds to claim there is only ONE Reality, i.e. The Reality.
Otherwise show me your proofs?
Nb: I used ‘wiki’ as a convenience not as something carved in stone tablet. If you are doubtful, counter check with SEP, IEP and some other more credible philosophical sources.
Justifying my arguments strongly and stating fact is not “arrogant.”
The fact is your philosophical bases are too narrow and shallow. Otherwise prove it by bringing more groundings to your philosophical views.
That is only your bias opinion.
Yes, “absolute … something.”
But the claim with God is everything that is attributed to God is ‘absolute’.
This is why many theists label God as The Absolute [with Capital A].
I suggest you read the above carefully and let the point sink in.
Note this point;
“If the term absolute is understood in the strict sense, it rejects the relativity which is inherent to the mechanism of human cognition, understanding, and language.”
I have argued why ‘absolute’ and ‘perfection’ MUST [imperative] be taken in the strictest sense.
As such God as an absolutely perfect being is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.
I believe when I state “empirical-rational reality” you jump to the common understanding ‘reality’ is something as an object out there.
NO! the concept of “reality” in this case is not a pre-existing thing out there, it is an “emergence” that is independent with the self. In this sense, humans are the co-creator of that “reality” which they are a part of. Note this is not my personal opinion, I stand on ‘shoulders of philosopher-giants’ to ground my point.
I anticipate you will condemn blah -blah -blah as usual with your confirmation bias and that is because you lack the depths and widths of necessary philosophical knowledge to understand [not necessary agree with] deal with those refined issues.
I had claimed the basis for the idea of God is necessary to soothe the terrible psychological angst within.
For me, due to the real evidence of the potential of critical threats from the ideologies of theism, I [as a citizen of humanity] have a responsibility to critique theism.
I understand my very strong and soundly justified criticisms will trigger & threaten the psychological security of some theists but this is a necessary compromised and sacrifice for humanity sake.
I apologize if this is the case with you but I have to continue with my criticisms.
Note God as an Absolute-Perfect-Being is not my definition nor invention from the air.
I abstracted this from a ‘literature review’ of what most theists believe their God is.
I also argued why the ultimate God MUST be an ontological God.
Note my explanations [variously] re why ‘absolute’ and The Absolute is related to God. e.g.
viewtopic.php?p=2688036#p2688036
Also note:
newworldencyclopedia.org/ent … philosophy
I have explained above, repeat
Note Kant [Philosophical anti-realist] argued there is no such thing as thing-in-itself, i.e. in this case no reality-in-itself. Thus reality is reality-*with-myself or reality-with-ourselves.
*interdependent.
Buddhism-proper makes the same claim.
What exactly is “empirical-rational reality”?
First, wherever I mentioned the word ‘reality’ take note, it is not something out there to be corresponded with but rather in the sense of an ‘emergence’.
Scientific reality is based on purely the empirical, but it has its weaknesses.
Empirical-rational reality is merely empirical based plus critical philosophical judgement as a co-creator of what-is in which the self is a part of.
Thus my empirical-rational reality as emerges do not include a God existing as a white man with a beard in the sky above [empirically very unlikely] nor as an absolutely perfect being [empirically impossible].
This has been refuted so many times it would be pointless to do it again.
In science if a hypothesis cannot be subject to potential falsification then it is deemed to be invalid
And this would be the case where the hypothesis in question was to determine the existence of God
The simple fact of the matter is that there is no objective means by which this can be falsified or verified
As an atheist I dont think God exists because of lack of evidence but I cannot be absolutely certain of this
So any one claiming certainty either way is just expressing a subjective opinion masquerading as objective truth
Objective truth pertaining to physical reality has to be capable of verification else it is no more than an assertion
Of course it could still be true but without such verification it would be rather presumptuous to assume that it was
As a theist, I agree that “God” cannot be proved via reason or empirical evidence, but “lack of evidence” is not a valid reason to disbelieve. Evidence requires boundaries and boundaries indicate limitation. How many theists will agree that God is so bounded? Asking for evidence is like asking if God can make a rock too heavy to lift: it’s not a paradox, it’s nonsensical.