I must have missed it, no intention to ignore any reasonable challenges.
An Impossibility can’t be imagined because we live in an existence of structured information. Example: A square circle imparts no information or meaning and is an example of an impossibility. From an informational standpoint only “square” and “circle” are able to inform conceptualization because they possess the structured information of existents. The mind slams shut when it tries to comprehend square circle. A square circle is an impossibility; it fails to offer information to [fails to in-form] a perceiving mind.
Point is humans can think of anything as a thought, even the impossible.
So ‘impossibility’ can be thought, even defined by the intellect and reason.
A thought can only be an imagination, if it can be imaged from possible images.
For a thing to be imaged and imagine, it has to be empirical and conceptualized.
A thought that cannot be imagined ‘conceptualized’ is an idea [note philosophical] like Plato’s ideas, forms and universals.
Therefore the mind can think and idealize a thought such as a square-circle.
God on the other hand–along with concepts like redness or justice–though abstractions, all impart information to minds. Thus, all three offer this common evidence of existence of some sort. All three can be discussed objectively (just as you’re discussing God in this and other threads) because they have informational structure. It appears by this standard that both your first premise and conclusion above are false.
Your thoughts?
Just like a thought of an idea of square-circle is inferred from its empirical attributes of square and circle abstracted from empirical squares and circles,
God is also a thought of an idea of a perfect being inferred from its empirical attributes and “predicated” to God, i.e.
God [subject or object] + empirical predicates = thought of an idea.
In this case, the empirical predicates can be justified empirically, but that do not prove God exists as real empirically and philosophically.
If I assigned all sorts of empirical attributes to person X, we still need the physical-alive person X to appear to be empirically verified he is alive as a person.
When “Superman” [comic] is assigned with superpowers, if any one insist ‘Superman’ is real, then he will have to produce [to be verified empirically] a physical-alive Superman who can perform all the super feats Superman is claimed to be able to perform.
There are many cases of the mentally ill, e.g. schizos who claim ‘God’ [or Satan] with all its omnipotent powers ordered them to kill humans and they did kill people. It is obvious no court will recognize such a claim.
Note my P2, in the case of God, the qualities attributed to God are absolute;
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
Ultimately and rationally [logically] no theists will accept a conditional God that is not totally unconditional. God has to be absolutely perfect. [Reasons given]
But absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real.
To be real, the thing must be verifiable empirically and philosophically.
Therefore God which must be absolutely perfect is empirically and philosophically impossible to be real.