God is an Impossibility

You might want to note, even count, how many disagree with you and eventually see no point in trying to reason with you. They have all explained precisely why. You ignore and then lie about how you defeated them. Arrested Adolescence…

As I had stated I don’t give a damn with your above opinions.

If any, fine, but my main purpose is I am not expecting anyone to agree with me. This is a discussion forum, those who agree [if any] are not likely to be involved in a serious discussion on this issue.

What is important to me is for someone to raise credible counters against my arguments. I appreciate you and others have raised objections, but they are not strong ones.

While me and Prismatic don’t agree on much as an atheist I also believe that existence of God is impossible in terms of physical evidence existing separate from mind where faith or belief is not grounds of evidence at all.

As a theist, I agree.

Well if that is so, how do you trust and rely on faith alone? That would be my next question.

You don’t. Loyal to a fault; if you never doubt your faith, it’s not faith and then it becomes faith in your own self, which is just as unreliable, and trust? Some times the only reason we trust is because we have no choice.

It’s like relying on just one sense, take eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin; let’s talk about trusting your heart, or your wits, your gut or having a spine; having a pair. Rely on just one alone? What do you rely on when all are knocked out, what then but an invisible hand and what if that doesn’t even cover at some times? What is it are you looking for?

Sounds like blind faith to me, if I am going to believe in anything I need something a bit more to reinforce my belief or commitment.

Honestly, you might be stuck thinking in base terms of a removal of all of these things, which is on the rare occasion and isn’t ‘blind’. At the point, it’s being caught up in the motion of life and living and having it harder to explain how these components come into play during our lives and how we just keep going through whatever gets in our way whether we still feel like victim or survivor, etcetera, many different perceptions and many variations of situations. What I’m explaining is more like relying on all the senses and even the ones you can’t and it becomes so much not being able to trust any single one of them or all of them or even any ‘new’ ones that might come up and having to, anyway.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lIimQcOJQI[/youtube]

There is no living creature void of faith … in something.

It is not necessary to be an atheists or an antitheists or a theists in order to know that Prismatic is wrong.

This is true: physical evidence is impossible due to the very nature of evidence. Faith or belief is not evidence, either, but I don’t need evidence to conclude my toe hurts when it hurts.

Nah, all non-human living things rely on instincts.

Yes, ALL human beings rely on faith [varying degrees], here is Aristotle’s ‘anger’ applied to ‘faith’,

Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
[list]with the right person and
to the right degree and
at the right time and
for the right purpose, and
in the right way -
that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy. -Aristotle[/list:u]

In the above replace ‘angry’ with ‘faith’.
What is critical is ‘degree.’

Even with Science which has the highest degree of objectivity and credibility, there is still an element of faith but in very low degrees, say 1-2%. The laymen [who did not participate in the proving] who trust the Scientists’ theory use a higher degree of faith [say 20%] that Scientific theories are true.

OTOH, with theists [in psychological desperation] it is 99.9999% faith in their belief in a God-as-real when in fact God is an impossibility and there no need even to initiate any hypothesis to prove it.

How do you know your pain is not imaginary?

Faith and beliefs [unjustified] are never credible and reliable.
Would you accept if a prosecutor [in a court] has faith and believed you are a murderer, rapists, and the likes?

I understand theism is a critical necessity for the majority at present [not future] and there are no easy alternatives at the present to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
Theism is not a significant issues if theists keep their faith and beliefs private and personal.

But theism and theists as a whole has the potential and had already committed the most abominable evils. This is because of certain [real to theists] God[s] deliver commands in holy books via messengers that contain evil laden elements [per evidences] that inspire SOME natural evil prone theists to commit terrible evils and violence on non-believers [glaring evidence].

These real terrible evils committed on non-believers and others and the potential of theism [re Islam] to exterminate the human species is grounded on what? - answer: a made-belief illusory God that is an impossibility.

The above are the reasons why humanity must critique and question theism.

Here is one view and give one an idea of what is ‘Perfection’;

Still irrational and still irrelevant, Prismatic.

Actually something just occurred to me:

If, as stated in P1, absolute perfection is impossible, then it must be impossible that the given proof is valid, because any truly valid proof is a perfect proof and thus must be impossible.
:sunglasses:

Note the term absolute perfection.

A truly valid proof is a relative/conditional perfect proof in compliance and as conditioned to logic and syllogism rules. It is not an absolute [totally unconditional] perfection.

It may have intended an irony. An very good irony makes for a tough search and near impossibility to see the ironic.

There has to be more to the irony between language and logic, and perhaps for want of such irony, language may not survive its nemesis: logic.

But it did,(survive it) therefore minimally , there is an added dimension. (To enable it to survive)

So your syllogism is not absolutely perfect.
Didn’t think so.
Thus proves nothing.

Absolutely, my syllogism is not absolutely [totally unconditioned] perfect because it is conditioned by the rules of logic and syllogism construction.

My syllogism is perfect within the rules of the framework of logic, syllogism construction, rational and philosophical.

My perfect [relative] syllogism is sufficient to rule out the possibility of the existence of an absolutely perfect God within empirical-rational reality. It proves the idea of God is a moot, a non-starter and an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.