On this post, the discussion revolves around the argument that “God is an impossibility”.
So, is this a rational thing to argue?
How would you define the meaning of “rational” here if someone were to ask you, “is it rational to believe this”?
Me, I make the distinction between that which seems able to be established as a true, rational statement – that this thread and this exchange does in fact exist here and now at ILP.
As opposed to those who argue that in fact God is an impossibility; or those who argue that not only is God, in fact, a possibility, but that their God is the one and only existing God.
Then I’m back again to this:
My own point revolves around the assumption that, however highly skilled you are cognitively in discussing the possibility that a God, the God, my God exists, that’s not nearly the same as demonstrating empirically that this is something that all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe. Why? Because it has been shown that in fact He does exist.
What’s next then: Define empirical?
I mean, come on, after the definitions are said to establish the meaning of the words used in any argument about the existence of God, the actual existence of God Himself seems no less profoundly problematic.
Or, rather, so it seems to me.