God is an Impossibility

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.

Not even close. You cannot use unproven premises. And of course, you can’t use nonsense phrases for statements either.

You proof is invalid from the get-go.

Prism, this is the reference that you have given for “perfect”;

Note that there is no conditional, but there is a “description of an ideal”. So we are back to the fact that your definitions are screwy.

When I first explained that to you, you refused it, saying that such a definition involving an ideal is only “conditional”. And yet right there from your own reference, it clearly states “absolute”.

And as explained to you long ago, there is no “absolutely perfect” because that is redundant;
absolutely conforming absolutely to the description of an ideal”.
Nor is there a “conditionally perfect” as that would be an oxymoron;
conditionally conforming absolutely to the description of an ideal.

But beyond that, the term “absolute perfection” has no descriptor or ideal mentioned. It is an incomplete thought. And thus certainly not a definition of anything.

So when you say,
“P1- Absolute perfection is impossible”
You have made a nonsense statement (as was explanation to you from the beginning). It is like saying;
“P1- Absolutely Larger than is impossible”

The first premise that you give is false
“P1- Absolute perfection is impossible”

And even if it made sense, you would not be able to prove it to be true. It would still be an invalid premise.

[list]Thus your syllogism is INVALID.[/list:u]
And all of this was explained to you long ago. But now even YOU provided a correct definition which shows WHY you have been wrong this entire time.
[/quote]

You are trying to pull a fast one here.
I have highlighted your deception on this before.
Why are you relying on only one meaning when there are so many other meanings, some which are relevant to the point?

The highlighted meanings above are relevant to my use of ‘perfect’ in relation to God.

Explain what?
Where I disagreed is because you are off point like the above where you refer ‘perfect’ to ONLY one meaning.

As I had highlighted many times, perfection can be relative or absolute.
Relative perfection is like perfect score in diving, ten pin bowling, gymnastic and other expressions of ‘perfection’ that are conditioned to a set of criteria or framework.

As for God which is claimed to of the utmost, any perfection or overall perfection attributed to God cannot be the same as those attributed to humans [fallible and conditional] thus whatever is attributed to God has to be totally unconditional - absolute, thus God is absolutely perfect and I had explained why God must be absolutely perfect to avoid kissing the arse of another more inferior God.

Absolutely perfect is can only be thought of and reasoned using primal reasoning.
Because an absolutely perfect god can only be based on reason, it is impossible for the idea of absolutely perfect [which God must be] to be real within an empirical-rational reality.
What is wrong with this logic?

As argued above, what is wrong with this premise?

I have proven it to be rationally true by reason.
As I had defended above, I was not wrong but you were actually deceptive in ignoring the many other related and relevant meanings of ‘perfect’ above.
It is me who raised the argument and premises, so it is up to me to decide what are the relevant meanings re ‘perfect’ not you. You can critique my interpretation but as above your critique is way off and using deception.

Since ‘God is an impossibility’ as proven true based on reason, it is a moot and a non-starter even to be considered as a hypothesis for empirical-rational reality. Thus there is no need to prove God is true and real within empirical-rational reality.

You keep imagining your are right and on target to prove my premises are invalid, but based on the above you are way off point.

Try again.

Quite the opposite.

All of those defining clauses are meant to agree. Why are you leaving out the two that contradict your nonsense claim? You are trying to use a limited clause so as to deceive the reader into nonsense.

Again,
Your syllogism is a deception, invalid.
Apparently intentional now.

Again you are insulting your own intelligence.
Dictionaries provide a range of meanings to a word and some can related within a set and some can be totally contrasting and not related at all.
E.g. “Gay” which could mean

  1. homosexuality or
  2. being lively, joyful

Therefore for any meaning one has to choose those that are related my intended meaning.

Which two?
The highlighted ones in blue?
If so, not I did not leave them out in my earlier post, I did highlight them in bold.

As for the other meanings, they are not very relevant, e.g. 7 [umixed] and 9. But in this case, I can assign them to God in some ways without any contradiction.

And Prism, let’s not forget;

By your own definition of “Truth”, “intersubjective consensus”, you are wrong because everyone here agrees that you are wrong.

Everyone?? where is the proof?

Even if it is every one here [10+ or so posters] I am not bothered as long as my argument is rational and sound and has consensus [intersubjectively] within the greater philosophical community i.e. the giants and members of Western, Eastern, etc.

If Copernicus had succumbed to the ‘truths’ of the majority, we may still be believing the Sun physically revolves around the Earth.

Oh, oh, I see. So do you have the poll of that exclusive community so as to prove that you are holy and right?

As long as you are here and saying those same things, HERE you are going to be wrong.

But you are correct in that YOU don’t care.

We have all seen how arrogant and narcissistic you are with your sermons.

And as I told you, everyone one of those defining clauses are meant to agree. They are not different uses for the same word, merely varied ways of explaining it. You attempt to leave out the two that clarify the issue because they prove you wrong.

Do you have a consensus “within the greater philosophical community”?

Isn’t the real consensus that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved?