God 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:

James is a moron who thinks that beliefs can transcend probability.
In other words, that beliefs can be more than merely more or less probable.
Basically, a dumb absolutist who thinks that if he’s 100% certain about something that that something has no choice but to happen.

I am not too sure with the above.

I can agree with, the word “impossible” means “highly improbable”.

Kant differentiated between ‘possible’ and ‘impossible’ to exist in the widest sense.
What is possible must have a related empirical reality.
For example, human-like aliens in a planet billion light years away are a possibility, albeit it is of low probability. Note the words in bold are empirically possible as observed.

If meaning = “the end, purpose, or significance of something:”
dictionary.com/browse/meaning
then human-liked aliens has meaning but has a low degree of meaning.

A square-circle is an impossibility because it is a contradiction and has no rational and empirical backing at all. It is also something meaningless [as defined].

God is an impossibility because its imperative necessity of absolute perfection which is an impossibility, but the “idea” [philosophical] of God do has meaning [as defined above], i.e. useful psychological meaning that drove the majority of theists to believe and cling to a god.

Human Zombies are a possibility [empirical elements] but they are of low possibility/probability and low on meaning. There are no evidence of any confirmed corpse coming back to life.

The above are my points re impossibility/improbability in relation to ‘meaning’ and taking into account intensity and degrees.

I am sure it is the other way round. Ever since the “idea” [philosophical] of God emerged no person has ever proved God exists as real positively.

History of mankind?? once it was so obvious “the Earth is flat” as based on normal observation, but that has been proven wrong with additional knowledge. God’s existence at present is so obvious to the majority, but with additional knowledge and thinking power, God is an impossibility.

As I had demonstrated, the idea of God persisted only because it has a critical psychological utility to deal with an inherent existential crisis.

As for my syllogism “God is an impossibility” show me where has I failed on this argument?

“I’ve literally never heard any religion person??”
Maybe your exposure is to lay-religious believers who are merely “sheeps”.
Try researching on theologian philosophers on their views of an ontological supremely perfect being.
I suggest you read up on the ontological God.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto … arguments/

Another fallacy will show up in your definition of “perfect” (not to mention your definition of a “god”).

So you are also one of those who have failed.

And also the other way round: No person has ever proved God does not exist.

The flat Earth has not much to do with the existence of God, with the theodicy.

Please, read that part of my post again. It is obvious that you did not understand what I wrote:

This means that humans have always believed in God, because they have always believed in a possibility, in God as a possibilitiy!

Again, this is the other way round. And, unfortunately or fortuantely, the majority believes in God, and the number of this majority increases from day to day.

I have shown it. You have not shown a syllogism, but a wishful thinking.

Show me that “God is a contradiction” (one of your false premises).
Show me that a “contradiction is impossible” (one of your false premises).
Show me that “absolute perfection is an impossibility” (one of your false premises).
Show me that “God is an impossibility” (one of your false conclusions).

Magnus,

As you know, my own interest in God and religion revolves almost entirely around the existential relationship between the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave and our imagined fate on the other side of it.

And then in closing the gap between what we profess to believe about it “in our head” and the extent to which we able to demonstrate to others that what we believe is true is that which all rational men and women are, in turn, obligated to believe as well.

In that context, how then are you not as well an absolutist [or what I call an objectivist] in regard to your own value judgments “here and now”?

What would really intrigue me, in other words, is a discussion between you and James in which you connect the dots [substantively] between a moral narrative relating to a “conflicting good” that we are all likely to be familiar with, and your respective beliefs about the role that God [or No God] plays in the behaviors that you choose.

On another thread perhaps.

Though I do agree with you that James’s “100% certain” convictions seem clearly to be embedded in the assumption that if he thinks something is true that makes it true.

Though, admittedly, that, as well, is predicated only on the extent to which I really do understand either one of you.

The word “meaning” has many different . . . meanings. And these meanings cannot be reduced to a single meaning. We should accept that fact instead of trying to reduce the irreducible.

The concept of perfect circle is meaningless in the sense that it does not refer to anything that can be experienced. Human-like aliens, zombies, etc are all meaningful words because they refer to something that can be experienced even though the probability of experiencing these things is extremely low.

Does simply having an opinion make you an absolutist? No. In order to be an absolutist you must think that your opinion regarding some state of reality cannot turn out to be wrong.

Beliefs can only be more or less probable/likely. When someone comes along and denies this you can be sure you are dealing with an absolutist.

I think that if you don’t drink water for more than a week that you will die. But this is not an absolute truth. This is merely an outcome with an extremely high probability. As Hume said, the future is under no obligation to mimic the past. It can be anything it wants. If it wants to, it can give us humans who can go without water for months or even years.