No. It is a very relevant near equivalent. A square-circle is only possible in thought but not within the empirical rational reality.
The idea of God (note idea) is also possible in thought but not within the empirical rational reality. Otherwise produce the proof.
One can imagine empirical related illusions - e.g. a mirage with empirical elements. However one cannot imagine illusions that are impossibilities. To imagine one has to have images in the mind. Can you produce or draw and image of a square-circle or an ontological God?
As I have been arguing re OP, DNA wise ALL humans has the potential [innate] for an existential crisis where there is a critical psychological need [innate] for the majority to rely on a belief in God [the easiest and most effective] to to deal with the crisis in various degrees.
It is not evidence the brain can do more than one thing. Given there are no direct evidence of God, the neuronal evidence prove the God experience is nothing more than neuronal activities.
What is very obvious is these neuronal activities are driven by various psychological factors including proven mental illness, brain damage, drugs, hallucinogens, electrical wave stimulations, and other objective methods. I have provided evidences on research done in these areas.
That theists believe there is a real God [actually an illusion] existing out there is actually self-deception to ensure psychological security. This is because theists are ignorant of the fact of how the idea of God arise within their consciousness deep from their psyche as driven by psychological factors related to the existential crisis.
What theists actually experience is, a belief in a ‘real’ God enable them to feel psychological ease of mind and security, otherwise they feel very uneasy and uncomfortable.
I accept this is necessary given theists don’t have more efficient choices other than what they have now. But theists should not ignore the fact [psychological] which is a catch-22 and not an easy task to do.
You don’t seem to get the point from what I linked earlier.
Now if Science in its specific field of Neurotheology cannot answer the question of whether God exists “out there” or not, then what else can?
I bet you cannot have any better answers than ‘The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.’
I am very familiar with ‘objectivity is intersubjectivity’ and Popper who stated Scientific Theories are at best ‘polished conjectures’. Regardless of the above, the fact is Scientific theory works, are credible, repeatable, testable and justifiable.
The point is Science deal only with empirical based elements whilst supported by logic, mathematics and its Scientific Method and others.