Impossibilities [in various contexts] can be thought.
It is quite reasonable God could possibility exists via reason, i.e. primal crude reason in mind.
But as highlighted in the details [in that OP] I have highlighted God is an Impossibility within the empirical-rational reality.
- The signifier “God” is one of the most—arguably the most—objectively discussed concepts in history. The sheer weight of this evidence flatly denies legitimacy to placing “God” in the realm of impossibilities, as you have so often recklessly done. What remains is to determine what sort of existence the information “God” might be, but that’s a separate discussion, not relevant to the question of God being an impossibility.
Think the above over carefully , Prismatic…when finished you can give me a million thanks.
Btw, re you point 3, have you considered the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “argument to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: “If many believe so, it is so.”
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “argument to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: “If many believe so, it is so.”
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum (“appeal to the number”), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium (“agreement of the clans”). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb “three men make a tiger” concerns the same idea.
If you insist God exists within the empirical-rational reality, e.g. a God who can hear and answers prayers and the likes, then you have to provide the necessary evidences to justify your claim.
One of the interesting things to me about the power of prescriptive truth as presented in the op lies in its predictive abilities. For example, using the principles laid out there, one can, with some degree of accuracy, predict how people whose minds are made up and shut to superior evidence will respond to prescriptive truths they don’t want to hear. I run into this in discussions with fellow Christians all the time. And there have been many times in my own past I have toed the line and stubbornly defended “truths” I thought were fundamental, only to have them rather painfully eroded over time and replaced by higher truths I fought to keep out of my worldview. The analytical methods that can be drawn from the op might even suitably anticipate forthcoming responses in this thread.
Note there are tons of psychological research out there in explaining why and how,
You: how people whose minds are made up and shut to superior evidence will respond to prescriptive truths they don’t want to hear.
These findings are applicable to secular and theistic behaviors.
It’s also interesting to me that the principles noted in the op are tied closely to views and practices in various fields of psychology. For example, psychoanalysis is typically aimed at bringing patients to recognize and deal with (prescriptive) truths they don’t want to embrace. In the spiritual mechanics of truth, this has a very strong theoretical correspondence to the gradual restoration of some degree of falsity in the value content of the individual to a true state, suggesting at least some degree of capacity for human means of prescriptive value renovation—something traditionally thought in theological circles to be wholly beyond our abilities.
Know Thyself.
Since you mentioned ‘psychology’ I would suggest you look into the psychological basis of why the majority of people are clinging to theism where SOME will even kill, murder, commit genocides when they perceive their theism is threatened.
‘Psychoanalysis’ will be one of the useful tools to understand the above.
Note, I have mentioned somewhere,
there are tons of research relating to how the idea of God manifest in the minds of SOME people, e.g. the mentally sick, the brain damage, those taking drugs, chemicals, hallucinogen, various diseases, electronic brain stimulation etc.
(I have provided links to the above in some other posts)
These actual evidences and findings provide strong clues that the idea of God is a resultant of brain activity than a God existing as real within empirical-rational reality.
[/quote]
Prismatic: Perhaps we should adjust to the normalcy of the empirically rational world, where scepticism abounds even to the very minimal definition of normalcy.