God is an Impossibility

It has no direct connection to the ‘problem of evil’ where God is supposedly omni-benevolent, thus an all-powerful God should not allow evil to happen. Yet, evil exists in reality.

Ultimately it is related because a perfect God would not allow imperfection, i.e. in this case evil to exists.
But ‘perfection’ is more general and extensive than the element of evil.

I believe my argument from ‘perfection’ is a very convincing one which is difficult to be countered by theists.

I don’t see how this argument applies to just a god. Seems like if it were true, then nothing could be perfect, then the word itself would be lacking any real referent. At best, you’re saying, “a god that has to be defined as perfect, and with perfect defined in this way would be impossible”.

The idea of God has to be perfect, else it is an inferior god. I believe the idea of god as perfect is implicit in the definition of God.

When a theist is made aware of the possibility their God is inferior to another’s God and given the reasoning they will definitely opt for the perfect God, given it is only a matter of thought and choice.

God has to be absolutely perfect and everything else need not be absolutely perfect.
Nb: everything can be relatively perfect, but this is not the topic.

On the question of real referent, there are no absolute independent referent.
Whatever referent is conditioned upon the subjects on an interdependent basis.
This is big another critical issue within the philosophical community between the Philosophical Realists and Philosophical anti-realists [my views]. Has to discuss this separately.

Yeah but if you’re saying perfection is unattainable/impossible or whatever, then how would there be a perfect god to be better than the other god that would end up with the inferiority complex?

You get what I’m saying? You can’t have it both ways, because if perfection is required, and impossible, then you’re just saying that nothing fits your definition. If you try and reinforce that definition as the correct one by pointing to a perfect god that would be better than another god, then you’ve contradicted yourself. You’re saying that a perfect god, or one that fits whatever definition of perfection is impossible, but still possible because to be inferior, something has to be superior, and in this case that superior thing would be a perfect god which you say can’t exist on the one hand, but then on the other hand you have part of your argument relying on its existence.

And about real referents…what about rigid designators? What about maximally specific propositions? At what point can we say that one object has been distinguished from others sufficiently? If the answer is never, then we’ve got a bigger problem than whether or not there’s a god and/or if its a perfect one. The problem with simply putting together a syllogism where perfection is concluded to be impossible is in that by making that universally the case, for the sake of argument even, you’ve made it impotent as a criticism for any given object which lacks perfection. Am I making sense here? It’s like…if we define asshole broadly enough to encompass everyone, then calling someone an asshole doesn’t really mean much. If we define perfection as impossible, then saying something isn’t perfect doesn’t amount to much of a criticism.

Zombies exist only theoretically. Perfect circles don’t. Perfect circles is a sequence of words without any meaning.

He’s speaking against absolute perfection.
An object is said to be absolutely perfect if there is no other object within all of the eternity more perfect than it.
Absolute perfection = the highest point of perfection.

He is not speaking against relative perfection.
An object is said to be relatively perfect if there is some other object that is less perfect than it.
For example, LeBron James is perfect in the sense that he’s a more perfect basketball player than most other people.
Relative perfection = a higher point of perfection.

The problem is the word “absolute” which is strictly speaking meaningless because it is all-exclusive.
You cannot point to a single person who is absolutely perfect in some regard because in order to know that someone is perfect in some regard you have to verify that there is no other person more perfect than him within the entire universe.

I would say that your conclusion is not mutually exclusive with the statement “God is a possibility”. God encompassing both the impossible and possible.

I think your premises and conclusions are good, we could just add a whole bunch more premises and conclusions that make the argument less significant.

It is not me who is claiming perfection. I am not claiming a perfect god exists.

It is the theists [based on their own reasoning] who claim their God exists and is perfect as an ontological God.

What I am countering is, on a finer scrutiny, their belief is false, i.e. a perfect God is an impossibility, because perfection is an impossibility.

That is what I am saying, perfect circles do not exist in the empirical world.
Perfect circle exists geometrically which is supported by definition, principle and computations.

That is my point.
It is the same for a perfect god, which is a sequence of words without any meaning and has no real corresponding referent.
Therefore God is an impossibility.

God a contradiction?
A contradiction is impossible. [if same sense, time and conditions]
Therefore God is an impossibility.

Alternatively God is only a possibility for believers to deal with desperate [subliminal] psychological impulses which are driven by an existential dilemma caused by “zombie parasites”.

Whichever way one define God, it will eventually lead to an ontological God which implicitly is perfect.
No genuine theist would settle for an imperfect God [weakling god compare to others] if s/he knows a perfect God or ‘perfection’ is easily available via mental choice.

Note the evolution of the idea of God, from natural elements to bearded-man-in-the-sky, cosmological god, pantheistic god and ultimately the ontological God [perfect].

Prismatic, you’re doing the old shift the burden of proof thing, which in another basic thing that people do with this debate. Problem is, I’m not sure who you’re countering because you started the thread and made these initial claims.

Are you saying because god can’t make a rock so heavy tjat he can’t move it, that there can’t be a god?

A god would only be impossible by human definition. Any god worth his/her salt woudn’t even pay attention to such a claim. Omnipotence is omnipotence and that is what makes a god a god.

BUT… All or nothing.
All and nothing
All is nothing
Repeat as meditation mantra or as a sleeping aid.

Not so.
I am not shifting the burden of proof at all.
Theists insist God exists as real, I am countering this claim with my syllogism above.

I am proving by sound logic why God is an impossibility.
Note my syllogism above and the related explanations for each premise.
Can you point to any flaws in my premises and syllogism.

The “… rock so heavy …” argument is merely playing with words and empirical elements. It does draw attention to the question of the existence of God but it is not sufficient nor very convincing. God is claimed to be beyond the empirical and is not effected by gravity in space, thus ‘heavy’ has no meaning for an ontological God.

Until you get someone here to make those claims, I’ll refer you to my previous post. Look man, if you don’t want to believe in a god, that’s ok. But I’m not gonna let you get by with bad arguments. I’ve literally never heard any religious person make the claims you’re making in their name about any god. So you should be able to see why I’m skeptical about your argument, even without acknowledging the thing about needing a god to be impossible, then needing that impossible god to prove your point, and even without the whole burden or proof game.

I am making a very subtle point that does not refute but strengthens your point.
It makes it resistant to certain kind of attacks.
The word “impossible” means “highly improbable”.
In order to say that what some word refers to is impossible that word must refer to something specific – something that can be experienced.
If it does not then it makes no sense to say it is impossible.
Perfect circles aren’t impossible/improbable. They are simply without any meaning.
To say that perfect circles are improbable is to suggest that the concept of perfect circles is a meaningful one.
It is to say that perfect circles can exist although they don’t.
Zombies are impossible/improbable.
The concept of zombies is a meaningful one.
Zombies can exist although they don’t.
Justice for zombies.

There are people who think that impossibility and improbability are two different things.
According to these people, an event is said to be impossible if there is not a single of instance of it within the entire universe.

Many people have tried to show that “God is an impossibility”. All of them have failed. That does not prove the existence of God, but it shows clearly that God is a possibility. And there is another evidence: History of mankind. It is full of several beliefs in the same old possibility named “God”.

Yup

God a contradiction? Sure
God being a contradiction? Sure
God making a contradiction? Sure
God making a contraction possible? Sure
God changing the rules so that the same sense, time, and conditions are irrelevant? Sure

Are you getting my approach yet? Negate what you say, and attribute that power to God.

Again, your affirmations are not wrong in my opinion. They’re just not exhaustive/sufficient in defining God.

Is love possible?
Does hate contradict love?
Is hate possible?

Why should God be a contradiction?
Nobody knows whether God is a contradiction.

Why should a contradiction be impossible?
Most of us know that contradictions are possible.

Why should an absolute perfection not be possible?
An absolute perfection is possible. As an ideal, it is possible, can become real; whether it does or not is a different question.

Your premises are not valid, thus false.

As James already said: