God is an Impossibility

Note mathematical, scientific, legal proofs are different from philosophical sense of ‘proofs’.
Btw, according to Russell [which I agree] there is no certainty in philosophical questions nor ‘proof’.

Thus for ‘proof’ is the philosophical sense, I meant reasonable and convincing arguments which in this case I have provided.

Basically my syllogism is very logical and sound.
I have also provided arguments and evidences for the two premises.

My arguments are not based purely on my own ‘blind’ introspection. My arguments are based on years of research and reflection from a wide range of knowledge. If I were to list all the relevant books, articles, etc. i.e. a Bibliography, it would come to at least a 1000++.
You will note in many of my threads and posts, I often support them with links. I don’t see many in your posts, i.e. you are probably just guessing.

As mentioned I applied rigor within a very wide range of knowledge to arrive at my conclusions.
If I were to list all the relevant books, articles, etc. i.e. a bibliography relevant to this OP, it would come to at least a 1000++.

Where? If there are I would not leave it open, unattended or uncountered.

I have agreed with my counter arguments that are convincing before. Generally it is due to my ignorance and omission on some knowledge. Since I have attempted to cover whatever knowledge that I am aware of.
Previously when I discussed Kant with others, I am often caught uninformed of Kant theories, so I make it a point to study Kant full time for 3 years so no one can pull a fast one on me as far as the philosophy of Kant is concerned.
When I critiqued Islam, they said I have not read the Quran nor know Arabic, so I learned up basis Quranic Arab and spent almost 3 years full time studying, researching and analyzing the Quran.
If you can show me what I am ignorant of, I will definitely study, read and research on what I am ignorant of.

Ok, an absolute perfect God is contrary to anything that is real. I have argued on that.

Note there are loads of powerful elements within Nature and they all can be proven to be real on an empirical-rational basis.
You can think ‘may or may not’ but such thoughts are pointless until you can provide proofs via an empirical-rational basis.

Note I used the term ‘absolute perfection’ in relation to God.
It is generic, logical and rational, the ultimate perfection claimed by all theists would be the absolute perfect God and nothing else less.
No theist-in-general [except the perverted] would compromise and concede on the one-up concept for their God to another theist. After all it is just as easy to tick and claim one God is the greatest of all that no other can be greater.

Note my OP is directed as those who claimed and will inevitable claim their God to be absolutely perfect.
Which Christian and Muslim would disagree with Jesus and Muhammad as an agent of God to spread God words in their holy texts respectively?
My point is to convince these theists, God is an impossibility to be real, thus no real prophets and the holy texts are man made, thus should be obeyed to commit evil and violence.

There is obvious a difference between what is claimed to be perfect within the empirical world, e.g. 100/100 in an objective tests and the perfection of God. Surely it is obvious no theists would accept empirical relative perfection as comparable to God’s perfection.

You are in denial of the difference as I had mentioned above.
I have argued if God absolute perfection is the same as human’s relative/conditional perfection, then one will downgrade one’s God’s perfection to being conditional thus expose to be inferior to another god relatively.

Above ‘universally accepted’ is a bad argument, note the rejection of the once universally accepted ‘flat earth’ theory.
In addition whatever universal is intersubjective.
I have argued my premises are logical and rational within critical thinking extending to psychological knowledge of one self and others.

First it is a very tenable hypothesis that can be easily inferred from the evidences mentioned which at least represent one of the main purpose of all religions. This is undeniable. Can you prove I am wrong?
To me, based on all the extensive research I have done, the existential crisis is main purpose.
Note this is not a wild imagination, the Buddhists and many non-theistic approach agree with me. It is a matter of time others will come to accept this thesis.

As far as the brain is concerned, I have been updating my database on the relation between brain and spirituality for many years.
So far whatever new knowledge that I have arisen in the field, they are reconcilable to my original thesis.
I believe when the Human Connectome Project advances, it will make greater confirmation of my thesis, i.e. it all all in the brain and there is no real God.

Isn’t this very obvious.
It is so evident, the Jihadists [human brains] have been quoting and relying on their holy texts to justify their evil and violent acts. You cannot be that ignorant on such facts??

This is not a medical or engineering problem.
It is a philosophical problem and we are in philosophical forum.
I have stated the ‘currency’ here is ‘sound arguments’ with critical thinking.
So far I have done that. Show me where I am wrong?

If teenager can why not you?

I have asked why are the cons of theism that secular elements cannot provide?

Note I have researched on the root cause of theism. I believe resolving the root cause solve the problem of theistic-based evil and violent acts. The root cause of theism is psychological which is inherent and unavoidable. As such it can only be resolved on a massive scale by replacing theism with fool proofs approaches. I understand such replacements will take time because we do not effective replacements and alternatives at present. This will take time but first me must understand the problem before we can start to deal with the problem on a massive scale.

Note at the mirco scale there are already thousands of theists turning to non-theism, so it is possible for humanity to wean off theism with fool proof replacements.

Yes some theists do not do evil because of the suppressing from God’s words but the numbers are not significant.
Without theism we will get rid of all theistic-based evils and violence which at the extreme could exterminate the humans species if Islamist get access to cheap WMDs.

Without God, some ex-theists by their evil nature will have a strong tendency to commit evil but the numbers are small. In any case, humanity will replace foolproofs approaches to replace theism to ensure there are not strays ex-theists.

The point is I have done more study on the Quran and other holy texts than you. Thus I claim I understand more than you do in this particular case.

Re “What God Is” since you have written quite a lot in it, I would suggest you start a new thread to present your detail argument.

Here I am arguing God is an impossibility to be real.
The idea of God is moot and thus a non-starter.
If would be more effective re this OP for you to counter my very specific argument.

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C… Therefore God is an impossibility to be real

To counter my argument is very easy, i.e. just prove either P1 and/or P2 is wrong.
Note I have provided and countered all arguments against my P1 and P2 in the various posts within this thread.

How can one know, “one know nothing” if one has not known oneself.

I am surprised you want to stay ignorant on what is going on inside your brain and how the mechanisms work in your behaviors and actions.

Prismatic,

I don’t have the time reference the specific arguments, but I think there were some or even many valid counter-arguments. You countered, but I don’t think you we’re correct.

What do you mean by “contrary to anything that is real”? God is not purported to be a physical being, rather a “spirit”. How can you be absolutely certain that “spiritual” things don’t exist? You don’t have to believe that such things exist, neither do I really, but you can’t prove with logic that they don’t. The most you can say is that there is no empirical evidence for that purported aspect of reality, which in itself doesn’t prove anything. If non-empirical things exist, empirical methods of measurement aren’t going to be of any use in detecting them. You can shout from the highest rooftop, present any type of argument you want, but you can’t prove anything axiomatically, which is essentially what your argument attempts to do.

“Pointless” in the sense you’re applying it is purely a matter of perspective. You can’t arbitrarily decide such things for others, that is beyond your purview.

Perfection has one meaning. No matter how you apply it means the same thing. If you say “God is perfect” there is no difference in saying that God is “absolutely perfect”, unless you want to emphasise.

No I’m not, I’m using the correct meaning of the word. You can research this if you like, check the major dictionaries.

Within the context of what the guy is actually saying, I think its a very good point. I think that axioms are the closest we can get to logical proofs. If your argument is sound, then it should be self-evidently correct. The fact that you’ve encountered so many disagreements should tell you something.

Im not surprised at how weak your attempt to ward off this issue is.

Im merely pointing to the fact that you’re confusing the Delphian temple complex with Socrates, which means your whole argument against God is actually an argument for God.

I am impartial as to the whole issue. I don’t care what you think. Its just interesting how you erred.

We all err from time to time. Deal with it.

I have countered it already of which you apparently do not understand. You can study the book all you want, just like I have but until you understand yourself you will not understand it, in the method of which it is meant to be understood, so you’re arguing for and against something you do not fully understand, unless you understand yourself. I am trying to help guide you to yourself but only you may make the decision ultimately of which may grant you vision of and for God.

A hammer will not give you an understanding of how to use such if one thinks it’s meant to be used as a screwdriver. It is simple yet can become complex and misleading, especially if everyone is telling you to use it as a screwdriver. It will not be until /you/ use the hammer and through trial and error of its use that you may discover and understand that it is not meant to be used as a screwdriver all along but as a hammer.

This is an analogy for the texts and “god”.

“God” is perfect, it is what is and what you are. Self and the system of which self interacts with. The very creative power one realizes that is within self is the very god one may worship along with the architecture of what is, without ever realizing such.

“god” isn’t a one thing, it is in and of everything. So if you believe it is not perfect then you will only see imperfection in self and in reality. You must understand self before you understand “god” otherwise you argue and dabble in things you do not understand by merely knowing and the key is to understand what one may know.

There’s my counter to both P1 and P2.

I have been studying religions, mythology, self and all of this for at the very least, 8 years. I’m pretty confident in what I understand So far.

You should have noted I have put in a lot of time and effort to present my thesis.
As I had stated, I maintain a high standard of intellectual integrity, thus there is no way I will leave any ‘hole’ [countered argument] unattended.

What is real is empirical, rational and anchored philosophically.

If it is empirical alone, then one will have to be like Dawkins who had no choice but by empirical default has to be an agnostic [his 1/7th provision God may exists]. If you claim God is empirical, then I will accept the possibility an empirical God may exists. As with Dawkins it is 99.999% unlikely theists to produce evidence for an empirical God with the qualities they had assigned to their God.
The final test and conclusion is to bring the empirical evidence to justify an empirical God exists.

However the consideration for the existence God should not be confined to the empirical but we have to take into account the rational perspective i.e. logically, sound, critically reviewed, etc.
Logically and rationally, I have argued the empirical God [that answers prayers, deliver holy text] must be absolutely perfect.
But absolute perfection is an impossibility within the empirical perspective.

Example, one can produce a perfect empirical circle, but this is only a relatively perfect empirical circle. There is the near absolute perfect circle which is geometrical and mathematically perfect, i.e. a rational ideal which cannot be empirical.

In this case, the absolute rational perfect/ideal circle is contrary [impossibly] to a possible perfect empirical circle.

Similarly, an absolute perfect God is impossible to be real.

This is very basic.
You can think imagine anything, but,
if you claim any empirical thing exists, you have to provide empirical evidence to justify its existence.

In a way, I want to emphasize the critical difference.
Note my explanation above on the difference between,

  1. the ideal rational absolute perfect circle -in geometry theory
  2. the empirically perfect circle - drawn and measured to be perfect.
    No matter how, the empirical perfect circle drawn and measured by humans will never be 100% perfect to the theoretical perfect circle represented by its geometric measurements.

The meaning of absolute perfection and relative perfection is very obvious.
Re God, Absolute perfection = totally unconditional while relative perfect is relative to subjects [humans].
Btw, as usual, I will not leave any stone unturned, I have researched extensively on the term ‘perfection’ since it was brought up.

I am not surprised by the disagreements but you cannot simply conclude from that, fallacy of ad populum.
Throughout history, for anything that is novelty [true or false], it is very natural to encounter resistance and disagreements. This is a safety valve to facilitate survival.

My strong point is I have provided very sound and rational arguments.

I have also provided alternative arguments why theists are so clingy to an illusory based on faith, i.e. it is because of a desperate psychology re an inherent existential crisis.

Perhaps in the past, the pros of theism overweigh it cons, but towards the future of our evolving humanity, there is a trend the cons of theism are outweighing the pros of theism.

Note the Jihadists could like exterminate the human species if they get access to cheap WMDs in the win-win path to heaven regardless if Earth is destroyed or nuked.

Note the recent hoo…hah.
If God is convinced to be an impossibility, there would be no grounds for the Sultan of Brunei to enact God-imposed barbaric laws to stone adulterers and homosexual to death.

Your leaving room for the possibility of the existence of a real God is in a way complicit to the all the evil and violence committed by SOME [100 millions] evil prone theists in the name of their God to gain merit for an eternal life.

You are not on target re my P1 and P2.

It is not my [a non-theist] idea of God that I am arguing for.
The idea of God I am referring to is inferred and framed from the Abrahamic, Hinduism [certain] and some others’ perspectives re their specific idea and concept of perfection, i.e. absolute perfection and relative perfection. I believe I have understood their idea of what their God is.
From my understanding of what their God is, I am arguing their God is an impossibility as real.

You on the other hand is presenting your own idea of God. This is why I suggest you open a thread to justify the existence of God as you view it and in addition you can show why the Abrahamic God is wrongly idealized.

In some ways, I [once a long time pantheist] understand your idea of God [consciousness, subconscious, etc.] which I believe is benign and agreed by an insignificant number of theists e.g. mystics, spiritualists, pantheist, panentheist, etc.
This thread is not applicable your type of theism.

This thread is more to the malignant [potentially] absolute perfect God as claimed by the Abrahamic, Hinduism, some others which comprised more than 50% of the world populations and [especially Islam] are contributing to terrible evil and violent acts upon non-believers.

No intent to be one-up for ego sake, factually I have studied the above for more than 40 years intensively and extensively plus much more.

You can confirm with Fanman, both of us were already debating religion and theism intensively and deeply almost 10 years ago in another forum.

Prismatic,

The fact that you countered, doesn’t mean that you did so successfully.

When did you become the arbiter of reality?

It really isn’t that complex, people disagree with you because they think you’re wrong, why would it be anything deeper than that? I am not claiming that you’re wrong because a lot of people disagree with you. My point is that if your argument is, as you claim, perfect, how would anyone be able to disagree.

That’s the thing, I don’t believe. I only know. I stay away from belief unless it may lead down a path and isn’t a wall. The only wall one should come to is an understanding and higher perception, which shows pathways to many different things artistically, so a wall of which has a door to many possibilities. There is no “I have proven god as an impossibility” because then we would not be here at all. Reality is what you perceive it to be and if one wishes to stay trapped in impossiblilities instead of a humble approach to knowing and then understanding that knowing, with a balance between logic and reason. Science/intellect, body/ego/perception and spirit/subconsciousness and it’s primordial imagery then one has chosen to live in death, a state of unchanging ego/identity and it’s association with many ideas.

So you dismiss my argument as me trying to claim “what God is” and state it should be put in another thread, why? It is the disproval of your argument, which you posted in the religion/spirituality section of the forums.

I only deal with facts and what I know. It may be hard to accept the fact that I understand my self and my interaction with reality in a more full image than you. This is apparent as we go through the argument/discussion.

You can’t dismiss my counter argument and try to paint it as a whole separate subject when it is what is. Just because you do not understand my method of explanation and many analogies to represent how your argument is based off of a misinterpretation of the very god in which you’re trying to argue for or become yourself. I am telling you the /how/ to get past the wall in which you’re trying to prove as truth when in reality, it’s a wall without doors. We are possible and we have possibilities, this understanding is the very god and perfection you try to disprove.

That’s you’re issue, you’re not balanced between science and spirituality/self. So you think only for science(a literal, concrete evidence only style of thought, not able to correlate metaphorical context to a full extent), which is not reasonable.

Balance of perception and self, is reasonable.

In simple terms, you’re attempting at evading and hiding from my counter argument out of an embedded fear/ego that you may be wrong and have wasted your time with your attempt at disproving what is, however you do not see it was never a waste of time for it lead you to this point now.

Since I have put in the reasonable critical analysis and soundness, I am confident I am successful, until someone can show me ‘holes’ in my argument.
So far no one has been able to show my argument is not sound.

Can you argue with the above otherwise as regard what is real?

Note it is very obvious justified empirical evidence represent 90% of what is supposed to be real. The 10% reservation is provision for empirical illusions. Do you dispute this?

The 10% uncertainty within the empirical perspective is covered by rationality and critical thinking which is anchored within philosophy-proper.

Note I often produced the quote from Russell where he claimed,
“Perhaps there is no table (objective) at all”
This doubt can only be supported by rational and critically anchored philosophically.

I did not claim my argument to be absolutely perfect as with theists who claimed their God is absolutely [unconditionally] perfect.

My argument is relatively perfect and conditional to the respective perspective and Framework.
First my syllogism is logically perfect in accordance to the rules of logic.
In addition, I have provided sound arguments for my P1 and P2.

Thus if you disagree, then prove my P1 and/or P2 is wrong and false.

I am giving you a very frank opinion.

If you want to disprove my argument, you have to start with the argument,
i.e.

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C… Therefore God is an impossibility to be real

You can proceed by specifically arguing against my
PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
Do you dispute this?
Do you think absolute perfection is a possibility within reality?
Explain why the above statement is false?

and
P2. God IMPERATIVELY must be absolutely perfect
Do you dispute this?
Explain with your counter argument why the above is false.
Note many has countered with theirs and many gods are not claimed to be absolutely perfect, i have countered that effectively.

It is so simple in theory,
if you can prove any one or both are false, then I can close shop with the OP.

What you have presented do not address my P1 and P2 directly.

Your point is you claim God exists.
Then you have to present your proposal, God exists as what?
There were claims God exists as that bearded man in the sky, this is obviously not convincing given the current knowledge we have.
Some claim God exists as spirit, energy, being, unknown substance, Absolute etc.
There are those who claim God is simply ‘existence’ or “is.”

Seemingly you believe God exists as consciousness? subconsciousness? or ??
Whatever you believe God exists as …, say X.
then you have to justify what is X.
This is why I suggest you prove your case in a separate thread.

If you can prove your claim is true and real, thus possible, then yes it will counter my argument from the absolute perfection perspective.

But I am aware whatever claim you made of God, it is not a possibility to be real, and it will end up with the usual long drawn ‘till the cows come home’ scenario. This is why I do not want your approach to mess up with my thread which is specifically based on the absolute perfection perspective and not your intended perspective.

Prismatic,

Where reality is concerned I tend not to think in such binary or absolute terms as you seem to do. I think that empirical evidence is very important and tells us a great deal about the nature of reality. But I don’t rule out the possibility that things can exist beyond the scope of what empirical methods of examination are able to find. For me, reality is both empirical and experiential, I’m not trying to prove anything. I am just a person in a Universe that is absolutely massive. How can I possibly hope to be making absolute claims about what is universally real and what is not?

This is not right from my perspective. How can I prove that your argument is wrong if you believe that it is perfect? Do you not see the problem?

I can agree it is possible there at things beyond our what is currently justified to be empirical [science being the most reliable]. But the main point is what is possible beyond the empirical must be empirically possible.
For example I can believe it is possible for human-like aliens* living in a planet 3 billion light years away. Note all the bolded elements in the statement are empirically possible to be verified empirically if empirical evidence can be produced for verification.
(* or other living things, dinosaurs, monkeys, elephants, whales, etc.)

It is not possible for a square-circle [non empirical] to exist here on Earth or anywhere light years from Earth.
It is the same for the absolutely perfect God [i.e. irrational, illusory, non-empirical], i.e. it is impossible to exist as real anywhere, Earth or elsewhere.

What is empirical is fundamentally experiential.
There is no way one can experience an square-circle.
According to Kant, one can think [thoughts only] but one cannot imagine [reserve for empirical and intuitional only ] a square-circle or an absolutely perfect God.

I don’t have to claim my argument is perfect.
Note my argument stand by itself as logically solid and sound.

In the past, the majority claim with arrogance their argument for a flat earth theory was perfect. Does that meant no one could argued against it?
The truth will always prevails and the flat earth theory [regardless how perfect it was claimed to be] was subsequently proven wrong with evidence and arguments.

It is very easy, you can prove my argument is wrong by exposing holes in my P1 or P2.

Prismatic,

From my perspective this both too binary, and absolute. How can something be both beyond empirical and empirical, isn’t that a contradiction of terms? I do not put reality into a little box, and then define the criteria of what that box can and cannot contain, because it is impossible for any human being to know absolutely what is and is not possible. We have accurate frameworks and referential systems, but these do not attempt to tell us what is ultimately possible and impossible, just what is. We infer what can and cannot be using those frameworks, but they are certainly not comprehensive of all reality, our knowledge is not complete, which means that yours isn’t either.

You have claimed that your argument is perfect, which it isn’t in my view, but as has been stated perfection is subjective. So if you believe that, then what can anyone do? I don’t really understand how you can attempt to create a sound objective argument on the basis of a subjective premise.

Context, application and relevancy, Prismatic. The flat earth theory was due to a lack of empirical evidence. Your argument is purely logic based. Your logic isn’t universally correct, it is subject to error, just like everyone else. If anything, the flat earth theory should demonstrate to you how far purely logic based conclusions can err.

Your argument is based upon the premise that absolute perfection cannot exist, I don’t believe that is a sound premise. It makes it seem as though you think you know completely what is possible and what is not, but as I said, human methods of understanding reality are not comprehensive.

Either you don’t understand or you are pretending not to understand. If your argument is perfect, it cannot be countered, perfection is the absolute. So what you’re claiming whether you know it or not, is that your argument is the absolute best that logic can achieve. You cannot both claim that your argument is perfect, and then accept that may can contain holes, again that is self-contradictory. Its like you’re asking to be proven wrong, whilst firmly believing that you cannot be - the whole gist of your dialogue regarding your argument conveys that. You’re setting up everyone to fail.

I did not state a thing can both beyond empirical and existing empirically in the present at the same time.
I meant there are justified and proven empirical things.
Anything that is beyond proven empirical justifications at present can only be speculated to exists but it has to be empirically possible.
I can accept God is a that bearded man in the sky, because the bolded are empirically-based, what is left for those who claim such to bring the empirical evidence for verification.

I would not reject the claim there is a tea pot flying around a planet 100 light years away, because this is based on a speculated statement which is empirically possible but not likely. Point is I cannot reject such a claim. This may be proven empirically when humans can reach that planet 100 light years away.

If you claim for anything empirically, then it is possible. What is left to be done is await the evidence to verify the empirical possibility. So it is possible for anyone to agree on what is empirically possible as long as the thing is empirically based.

Note there are empirical framework and systems, e.g. Science, legal, etc. which must be based on empirical evidence and justifications.
We have framework and systems for thoughts, empirically-mixed and pure thoughts.
Note Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason which generates illusory such as a soul, Whole-Universe and God. A major part of my argument is banking on Kant’s theories.

We cannot claim a pure-rational-thought_out thing is possible because firstly it is not empirical-based, thus cannot be tested empirically to count as real.
As I had stated the idea of God must be an absolute perfection which cannot be empirical at all, thus never empirically possible [a 90% basis for reality].

What is objective is subjected to a Framework and System.
I have given an objective conclusion within the Framework and System of Logic.
I have claimed my argument is perfect [not absolutely perfect], i.e. qualified to the Framework and System of Logic.
My syllogism is relatively perfect, you cannot dispute that?

I did not claim the soundness of my argument is perfect, but the evidences and arguments for the two P1 and P2 speak for themselves.
If you do not agree, the onus is on you to prove they [one or both] are wrong.

It is worst for theists who has not provided any empirical evidence since the idea of God emerged within human consciousness. Note the strength of the belief in God is based on faith, not empirical evidence and not by reason.

My syllogism is perfect relative to the framework and system of logic.
Regardless, repeat, you can disprove my argument by proving my P1 or P2 is wrong, using empirical evidence or logical approaches.

I have argued absolute perfection cannot exists within the empirical world which is 90% reality.
Your belief don’t count, what count are your valid and sound arguments if any.

I have stated many times, I did not claim my argument is of absolute perfection.
Rather it is relatively perfect, i.e. conditioned upon the framework and system of logic.

You are equivocating here and kept insisting in conflating absolute with relative perfection.
I believe the bottle-neck in your resistance is you do not understand the significance of this conflation.

Note I claimed my argument is relative perfect and I [personally] DID NOT claim my premises contain holes. I am confident they do not contain any holes or falsehoods.
What I meant was, if you do not accept my argument, then prove to me there are holes [fallacies] in my premises.

Prismatic,

Your first and second premises are subjective, but conversely, your conclusion is objective, that doesn’t seem right to me. How can you reach an objective conclusion based upon subjective premises? If the premises are subjective, your conclusion is going to be an opinion or subjective, isn’t that how logic works?

How can you accept the possibility that your argument may not be perfectly sound, yet claim that it is perfect relative to the framework and system of logic, does that make sense to you? Soundness is probably the most important aspect of a logical argument if you’re looking for validity, you’re really stretching things here.

The same problem arises here, if you think that you’ve proven that absolute perfection is an impossibility, perfectly within the remit of logic, how are you going to accept any logical refutation? If anyone presents something as actually being “absolutely perfect”, you’re just going to argue that it is a subjective opinion, or not really absolutely perfect, but that would be your subjective perspective, not an objective fact. You use the term perfection a lot, but I don’t think that you understand it well enough.

This is circular. You have rejected every counter-argument given, as such I don’t think that I can state anything that I or others more intelligent than me have already said. As I’ve said, I think there are many valid refutations, but you don’t agree. That is where we are and that is probably how things are going to stay. You can’t counter the perfect argument, so I’m not going to waste time trying to convince you that it isn’t, only to be told that I haven’t said anything valid.

Note there are a few perspectives to the point.
As I had stated my syllogism is relatively perfect, thus the conclusion in relation to the rules of logic.

The next perspective is whether my premises are sound or not.
It is not my opinion that the premises are sound, rather I believe with justifications, my premises are sound.
At this stage it is up to you or anyone to dispute my premises are not sound.
So far [from my assessment] you have not been able to show they are unsound.

Thus the final state at present is;

  1. My syllogism is relatively perfect subject to the rules of basic logic.
  2. No one has provided any counter to my P1 and/or P2

Therefore as far as I am concern I am waiting for anyone to counter my premises.
If none, then the above state stands.

Note the two stages to logical syllogism and arguments, i.e.

  1. The syllogistic structures
  2. The soundness of the premises, thus the whole argument.

You cannot conflate the two above and they have to dealt with sequentially.

As I had stated, you have to show my premises are false and unsound.

for example, if I present the following premises;

  1. The earth is flat and not round/spherical
  2. The Sun is square and not round

Surely you can show my above premises are false.

However my premise ‘Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real’ is much more refine than the above type of premises.
Note I have already justified how my premise is sound.

If you present anything as absolute perfect, then you have to prove your statement is sound. Fact is you cannot show anything is absolutely perfect as real except as in a psychological driven thought
To start, try arguing against Kant ‘thing-in-itself’ which is claimed by others as absolutely perfect to be real.

I have rejected every counter-argument because they are unsound.
Many valid refutations, where?

Note I have argued God is an impossibility to be real.
The main reason why the idea of an illusory emerged in thought is due a compulsive impulse triggered from an existential crisis which is psychological.
There are spiritual approaches that address this issue effectively.
I believe in time, my argument will be proven true with the advancement of the
The Human Genome Project
The Human Connectome Project
and other advance knowledge and technology.

You should consider why you are being straight jacketed by an inherent defense mechanism to resist further exploration of your own self [Know Thyself].

Note by feeding and stoking the flame of the idea-of-God [illusory and an impossibility] within the consciousness of the majority, you are complicit to the terrible evils and violent acts committed by SOME theists in the name of an illusory God.