atheism is irrational

[65] Your argument appears to be the following :

P1. If one claims “God does not exist”, one assumes the nonexistent can be perceived.

P2. The nonexistent cannot be perceived.

P3. A claim made based on a false assumption is irrational.

C. Therefore, the claim “God does not exist” is irrational.

Is that indeed your argument ?

[66] How does the nonexistence of Spino, the spinosaur fishing in my bathroom sink, prevent me from knowing Spino does not exist ?

[67] Can you prove that everything is perceptible ? Can you prove that everything that is perceptible exists ?

The meaning of the term existence or the verb to exist for physical things like God is clear.

For abstract concepts like numbers is it not.

Whether numbers exist

is as much a question about the nature of numbers

I haven't seen zedvictor4 claim that the imagined is irrational, logically inconsistent and non-existent.

What is tee ?

Christians sometimes make seemingly inconsistent claims about God. For example,

- God being perfectly loving.

- God is perfectly just.

- God is love.

- God is omnipotent.

- God is omniscient.

- Despite the above two God is allegedly incapable of mitigating lots of problems.

- God cannot lie.

The above claims seem hard to reconcile. Moreover, God supposedly can violate the laws of physics.

Nonexistence is not irrational either.

You keep missing the point. The question is whether it is (ir)rational to claim such a god does not exist.

why should god care about us :

1. we are less than 1% of our planet

2.our planet is less than 1% of our solar system 

3.our solar system is less than 1% of our galaxy 

 4.our galaxy is less than 1% of our galaxy cluster 

5.our galaxy cluster is less than 1 over a billion of our universe  

and we are god's favorite planet's people

===================================

would god punish people based on where they were born or who there parents are ?

would you claim that you're not  following a certain religion just because you're parents choose that religion for you ?

wouldn't you be defending an entirely different religion had god choose a different pair to be your parents ?

the same way you're defending your current one ?

I admit that there are few converting from religion to another from time to time but usually those people weren't religious to begin with 

most people stay under the effect of the brainwashing which was done to them when they were children

more 90% of people stay on the religion they were born at and die believing in it , what does that indicates ?

 now let me repeat the first question would god punish people based on where they were born or who there parents are ?

you didn't choose you own religion it was chosen for you before you were born 

 I'm am a theist, but I don't subscribe to any particular religion. What does that say?

It says that you are intelligent.y

 now let me repeat the first question would god punish people based on where they were born or who there parents are ?

According to the Bible, yes.

I'm not religious. Both of my parents are. I'm am a theist, but I don't subscribe to any particular religion. What does that say?

many religions have that claim and 99% of religious people which became religious due to their parents indoctrination remain and die on that religion

do you have any Idea how near impossible it's to make those people change their faith/beliefs ?

some of the people who get out expect the people they are preaching to, to question their own beliefs , without  holding the same expectation towards themselves 

organized religion divides people . what's far worse is that after the religion part , you'll get sects and then sects within sects , and sects within sects within sects ........etc

you might feel like they are united when facing an atheist/agnostic but as soon as they begin facing each others , you'll find them extremely divided -even within one religion- with each division claiming to be the only way to heaven 

the irony lays at the fact that many of those sects didn't exist at the origination of the religion but came many years later , and they still manage to divide people 

Why would they question their own beliefs? If they're asking others to consider their beliefs using their own beliefs as the metric, then why would they question their beliefs by, I guess the word for it would be "impartial" methods? Are religious people claiming to be impartial?

You people act like no atheist has ever gone to religion like no one religious has ever been an atheist before. You act like people of other religions have never been Christians like people don't convert from Christianity to other religions and vice versa. You want to know why you get crap in the religion forum?

It's the religion forum. And you basically come here to tell us we're wrong, stupid, unintelligent, we've been called worm people, we've been called mentally ill,we've been called homicidal, genocidal, we've been called evil. I mean at what point are we supposed to be open-minded about the people that come here to talk to us.

they they're asking others to consider their beliefs but have they considered the beliefs of others ?

they didn't considered the chance that their religion could be the wrong one while the others are right

and let us not forget about self-deception 

Athias 290 to Amoranemix :

Not everyone.

[selfquote of post 117 :]

The statement, "God does not exist," is irrational. (If one wants to know the reason, I'm willing to oblige.) So if one premises one's belief on an irrational statement, then I suppose one could argue that the belief itself is irrational. With that said, one's beliefs don't have to be rational.

Amoranemix 381 :

Who doesn't agree and why haven't they attempted to defend that position ?

Athias 382 :

I don't agree; I haven't attempted to "defend" that position because sustaining a belief isn't necessarily measured by its being rationally defensible, but the value placed by the individual who sustains said belief.[68] I neither object nor contend against atheists who don't believe in a God or gods. My only contention is the statement "God Does Not Exist" is logically coherent/consistent/sound.[69]

Amoranemix 381 to Tarik :

Choosing normally qualifies as subjective.[a] The standard may be objective, but not its choice.[b] If ones is lenient on objective morality and using an objective moral standard qualifies as objective morality, then – contrary to what sadolite suggested - God does not have a monopoly on objective morality.

Tarik 384 :

[a] Normally isn’t always, especially in reference to God.

[b] Then who/what does?

Amoranemix 381 to Tarik :

I am not actively participating in the discussion about morality here as it is off topic.[c] Nonetheless it shows that there is good reason to be suspicious about the Christian position. Therefore it is rational to be suspicious. Being suspicious about the claims of a popular religion aligns well with atheism.

Tarik 384 :

[c] But you are, otherwise you wouldn’t have @ me making arguments pertaining to objective morality (or lack thereof).

Amoranemix 381 :

You are assuming Double_R's hypothetical is incoherent. Assumptions must be demonstrated. Go ahead

Tarik 384 :

…But I did, your inability to comprehend it isn’t equivalent to me not giving it. Taking someone’s arguments for reality and using it to suit a hypothetical narrative that hasn’t and won’t ever happen isn’t coherency because reality and hypotheticals against reality don’t mix/match. Consistency is an element of coherency that shouldn’t be ignored unless your being incoherent, if my redundancy hasn’t registered with you then perhaps it never will which is a you problem.

Double_R 405 :

focus the conversation on something I never said.

Tarik 404

By ignoring context and lying on my behalf in the process, hence why I put emphasis on implications because it seemed like you were losing track of the narrative to suit your own (which I still don’t know what that is because your all over the place) and if you were to ask me what’s the difference between the two statements I provided then I would say none at all, if you disagree mind explaining that difference?

Double_R 406 :

If you don’t understand what a concept is by now and the relationship between  X  and  the concept of X

Tarik 407 :

It’s not an issue of what I understand, it’s an issue of what you said.

Double_R 406 :

Conflating two things does not have to be explicit

Tarik 407 :

Coming from the guy that also said

[quote of Double_R 393] "But that’s a deduction you’re making, that’s not what the message the person speaking is pointing to."

Again, contradiction at its finest because the former embraces implications and the latter claims it’s separate from the message, which one is it dude because again your all over the place and with all this hypocrisy in your statements

Double_R 410 :

The narrative was never the conflation of belief/acceptance, that’s something you made up and were having a conversation with yourself about. It was never my point nor had anything to do with anything I was arguing.

Tarik 412 :

See #363

Double_R 410 :

And what about this over-simplified example makes you think I was avoiding anything, other than a 4 syllable word to ensure this example was as simple as I could possibly make it?

Tarik 412 :

Well how about you do yourself a favor and don’t use any more examples going forward, because they’re never on target (or simple for that matter) and you just end up confusing yourself and everybody else involved, not to mention you requesting me to make sense of your own stupidity, I’m not having it period.

Amoranemix 420 :

[65] Your argument appears to be the following :

P1. If one claims “God does not exist”, one assumes the nonexistent can be perceived.[a]

P2. The nonexistent cannot be perceived.[b]

P3. A claim made based on a false assumption is irrational.[c]

C. Therefore, the claim “God does not exist” is irrational.[d]

Is that indeed your argument ?[e]

Athias 421 :

[a] Yes.

[b] Exactly.

[c] No. A claim based on an assumption (false or not) can still be rational if it's inductive. That is not the issue here. A claim based on an irrational premise is irrational.

[d] Non sequitur.

[e] No.

Amoranemix 420 :

[66] How does the nonexistence of Spino, the spinosaur fishing in my bathroom sink, prevent me from knowing Spino does not exist ?

Athias 421 :

You are alluding to spatial placement, not "existence."

Amoranemix 420 :

[67] Can you prove that everything is perceptible ? Can you prove that everything that is perceptible exists ?

Athias 421 :

Simply put: Everything is the opposite of nothing; nothing does not exist; nothing is imperceptible, given that nothing provides no information; information is perceptible data; as the opposite of nothing, everything provides perceptible data.

Your argument now appears to be the following :

P1. If one claims “God does not exist”, one assumes the nonexistent can be perceived.

P2. It is false that the nonexistent can be perceived.

P3. A false premise is irrational.

P4. Therefore, the premise that the nonexistent can be perceived is irrational.

P5. A claim based on an irrational premise is irrational.

C. Therefore, the claim “God does not exist” is irrational.

Is that indeed your argument ?

[68] It is complicated due to the triple negation.

The position is : “Atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible position.”

You hold the negation of that position : “It is false that the position of atheism being irrational is not a rationally defensible position.”

in other words, you hold the position : “Atheism is irrational is a rationally defensible position.”

You don't defend that position of yours because “sustaining a belief isn't necessarily measured by its being rationally defensible.” The belief in question is your position and the reason you don't defend it is because it is not rationally defensible. So you disagreement is not rationally defensible. You merely sustain that belief because you place value on it.

Hence we agree that the position that “atheism is irrational being a rationally defensible position” is not a rationally defensible position.

That comes close to what I said in post 289.

[69] You just mentioned another contention that you couldn't rationally defend. You also said that “God does not exist.” is irrational.

I was alluding to both.

Spino is also the spinosaur that walked three times around the city walls of Jerusalem to make them fall. How does his nonexistence prevent me from knowing Spino does not exist ?

If you also exclude that the history of something can define it, then your criticism of the claim “God does not exist” being irrational my not apply, for those who make that claim may consider that anything that failed to do the actions ascribed to Yahweh in the Bible is not God. God is also said to be omnipresent.

P1. Nothing is better than a cold beer.

P2. A warm beer is better than nothing.

C. Therefore, a warm beer is better than a cold beer.

Your argument appears to be the following :

P1. If X is imperceptible, then the opposite of X is perceptible.

P2. Everything is the opposite of nothing.

P3. Nothing is imperceptible.

C. Therefore, everything is perceptible.

Is that indeed your argument ? If so, please demonstrate P1.

You forgot to answer my second question : Can you prove that everything that is perceptible exists ?

You consider that choosing can be objective, but you failed to justify special pleading for God.

No one has a monopoly on objective morality.

What is that hypothetical of Double_R that you had allegedly proven to be incoherent ?

I too find it hard to make sense of the things you are saying.

a you problem.

The issue is that you are nebulous about what you do(n't) understand.

If so, then that is an interesting theorem you have presented. Please demonstrate it.

your inability to comprehend it isn’t equivalent to me not giving it.

Try basing your beliefs on reason and evidence. That is what skeptics do.

It is difficult to say for certain, for I have read the conversation only once, but it looks like most of the rubbish comes from you by a large margin. You certainly have made little effort to make or keep the discussion constructive. You must be Christian.

Amoranemix 420 :

The meaning of the term existence or the verb to exist for physical things like God is clear.[a] For abstract concepts like numbers is it not.[b] Whether numbers exist [c] is as much a question about the nature of numbers as about the meaning of term existence.[d]

I haven't seen zedvictor4 claim that the imagined is irrational, logically inconsistent and non-existent.[e]

Athias 421 :

[a] Why are you modifying "God" with the descriptive, "physical"?[68] And please cite this definition of existence which clarifies this specification.

[b] Once again, cite the definition to which you are referring.

[c] Numbers do exist. If one claims that numbers don't exist, not only would that be irrational, but it would also undermine the physical laws which are informed by them.

[d] Numbers don't have a "nature." They are conceptual. Then again, "nature," would be conceptual as well.

[e] No, he has only concluded as much based on his reasoning.

zedvictor4 333 :

And numbers and mathematics are a completely different kettle of fish, to imaginary entities.

Athias 334 [corrected] :

No, they are not. Math is logically consistent to a tee for sure, but it's still abstract.

Amoranemix 420 :

Christians sometimes make seemingly inconsistent claims about God. For example,

- God being perfectly loving.

- God is perfectly just.

- God is love.

- God is omnipotent.

- God is omniscient.

- Despite the above two God is allegedly incapable of mitigating lots of problems.

- God cannot lie.

The above claims seem hard to reconcile. Moreover, God supposedly can violate the laws of physics.

Athias 421 :

“Seem" is not an argument. You are welcome to demonstrate the inconsistency of these alleged claims.

Athias 370 to Double_R :

Nonexistence serves of the purpose of merely being the negation of existence. Nonexistence is not rational. And that does not apply to just God(s). It can be applied to Santa Klaus, the Tooth Fairy, Diet Soda, Colors, Numbers, even you and me.

Amoranemix 420 :

Nonexistence is not irrational either.

Athias 421 :

Yes it is. Nonexistence provides nothing to rationalize because it's the absence or void of everything.

Amoranemix 420 :

You keep missing the point. The question is whether it is (ir)rational to claim such a god does not exist.

Athias 421 :

I do not gauge the rationality of intentions; only arguments.[69] And the claim that "God does not exist" is based on an irrational premise. We are not pigeonholed to "physicality." This concerns ONTOLOGY.

Lunar108 432 to Athias :

they're asking others to consider their beliefs but have they  considered the beliefs of others ?

Athias 436 :

But why would they? If one believes one is "right" wouldn't considering a possible contradictory point undermine that?

Amoranemix 439 :

Your argument now appears to be the following :

P1. If one claims “God does not exist”, one assumes the nonexistent can be perceived.

P2. It is false that the nonexistent can be perceived.

P3. A false premise is irrational.

P4. Therefore, the premise that the nonexistent can be perceived is irrational.

P5. A claim based on an irrational premise is irrational.

C. Therefore, the claim “God does not exist” is irrational.

Is that indeed your argument ?

Athias 436 :

P3. A false premise and its extension are irrational.

P5 is redundant.

Other than that, all checks out.

Amoranemix 439 to Athias 290 :

[68] It is complicated due to the triple negation.

The position is : “Atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible position.”

You hold the negation of that position : “It is false that the position of atheism being irrational is not a rationally defensible position.”

in other words, you hold the position : “Atheism is irrational is a rationally defensible position.”

You don't defend that position of yours because “sustaining a belief isn't necessarily measured by its being rationally defensible.” The belief in question is your position and the reason you don't defend it is because it is not rationally defensible. So you disagreement is not rationally defensible. You merely sustain that belief because you place value on it.

Hence we agree that the position that “atheism is irrational being a rationally defensible position” is not a rationally defensible position.

That comes close to what I said in post 289.

[69] You just mentioned another contention that you couldn't rationally defend. You also said that “God does not exist.” is irrational.

Athias 440 :

I create distinctions between "believe in" and "argue for." That is, the disbelief in God or gods as an expression of value needs not be "rationally defensible" because it's a declaration of one's private gnosis. As an argument, however, the proposition of a claim needs to be rationally defensible because argumentation is intended to resolve disputes between conflicting private gnoses using a consistent (not objective) standard as its measure. So, "I don't believe in God" needs not be rationally defensible; however, "God does not exist"--an argument--needs to be. And it isn't rationally defensible for the reasons I've mentioned.

Athias 421 :

You are alluding to spatial placement, not "existence."

Amoranemix 439 :

I was alluding to both.[a] It is a matter of what you consider to be part of the definition of something or not.

Spino is also the spinosaur that walked three times around the city walls of Jerusalem to make them fall. How does his nonexistence prevent me from knowing Spino does not exist ?[b]

If you also exclude that the history of something can define it, then your criticism of the claim “God does not exist” being irrational my not apply, for those who make that claim may consider that anything that failed to do the actions ascribed to Yahweh in the Bible is not God. God is also said to be omnipresent.[c]

Athias 440 :

[a] All material placement bears existence; not all existence bears material placement. In other words, all material placement =/= all existence.

[b] Because the nonexistent does not exist. The nonexistent provides no information. How does one identify a "Spino" if its nonexistence renders information on itself logically incoherent?

[c] Please delineate both the history and alleged failures.

[68] I am not. I put God in a different category than numbers. Physical may not be the right word.

The meaning of the term existence or the verb to exist for concrete things like God is clear.

[b] I am not referring to any definition.

[e] Where has zedvictor4 concluded that the imagined is irrational, logically inconsistent and non-existent ?

Imaginary entities are not abstract

Nonexistent is different from abstract.

I haven't claimed “seem” is an argument.

- Omniscience appears inconsistent with the inability to do something.

- God is a person.

Therefore, God cannot be love.

Being perfectly loving and perfectly just appear inconsistent.

- God apparently, despite unparalleled abilities, fails to distribute perfect love and perfect justice.

- Any experimental physicist can testify that violating the laws of physics is impossible.

If you think you can make the case that all the claims I listed can apply to a single being, then go ahead.

If I understand correctly, your argument is the following :

P1. Nonexistence is the absence or void of everything.

P2. Nonexistence does not and cannot provide anything to rationalize.

C. Therefore, nonexistence is irrational.

[69] You are mistaken. You also gauge the rationality of claims.

A valid argument is the following.

A. X is impossible.

P1. For any Y, claiming Y does not exist is irrational.

C. Therefore, claiming X does not exist is irrational.

Under assumption A, since you stand by P1, for you that is a sound argument.

Skeptics, understandably, dispute P1.

Please demonstrate it is irrational to claim impossible concepts do not exist.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” – Bertrand Russel

P1. If one claims “God does not exist”, one assumes the nonexistent can be perceived.

P2. It is false that the nonexistent can be perceived.

P3. A false premise and its extensions are irrational.

P4. Therefore, the premise that the nonexistent can be perceived is irrational.

C. Therefore, the claim “God does not exist” is irrational.

In post 289 I terminated with the claim :

“In the mean time everyone agrees, either tacitly or explicitely, that the position that atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible one.”

You disagreed with that claim. You say that with that disagreement you merely shared your internal gnosis [1.], which in that instance is not rationally defensible [2.] You merely hold that belief because you value it [3.] You now argue that you don't have to rationally defend that belief because you didn't make any claim other than sharing your belief [4.]

[b] One does not identify Spino. I defined him.

You are assuming that knowing something about X, requires information from X. Please demonstrate that assumption.

[c] You want me to explain the history of God from the Bible and the errors in that history ? That seems to be a lot of work. Why would I do that ?

for those who make that claim [that God does not exist] may consider that anything that failed to do the actions ascribed to Yahweh in the Bible is not God. God is also said to be omnipresent.

Zeus is the sky and thunder god in ancient Greek religion, who rules as king of the gods of Mount Olympus. Do you think he exists?

Amoranemix 439 :

Your argument appears to be the following :

P1. If X is imperceptible, then the opposite of X is perceptible.

P2. Everything is the opposite of nothing.

P3. Nothing is imperceptible.

C. Therefore, everything is perceptible.

Is that indeed your argument ? If so, please demonstrate P1.

You forgot to answer my second question : Can you prove that everything that is perceptible exists ?

Athias 440 :

First, let's define exist:

exist: To have real being whether material or spiritual.

Let's also provide some supplementary definitions:

real: true or actual.

material: denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit.

spiritual: relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

Do you object to the descriptions as delineated by these definitions? If so, substantiate your objection.

Amoranemix 439 to Tarik :

[a] You misunderstood the meaning of the word 'normally' in that context. Language is conventional. People usually understand that the meanings of the words 'to choose' and 'objective' as being incompatible, unless some objective method of choosing is chosen (which shifts the subjectivity to the choice of that method). You consider that choosing can be objective, but you failed to justify special pleading for God.

[b] No one has a monopoly on objective morality.

Tarik 441 :

[a] Because God is objective.

[b] Seriously dude, if you don’t believe in objective morality you could’ve saved us both the time and started with that but if your arguing that objective morality exists without God then I’ll gladly like to hear your argument for that one.

Amoranemix 439 :

What is that hypothetical of Double_R that you had allegedly proven to be incoherent ?

Tarik 441 :

…Again seriously dude, your gonna accuse me of making assumptions about a hypothetical and not demonstrating it and you have no idea what the hypothetical even is?[70] That makes no sense,[71] before you can accuse me of anything pertaining to assumptions on a hypothetical topic knowing said hypothetical topic at hand is required.[72]

Amoranemix 439 to Tarik :

If I understand correctly, your argument is the following :

P1. If statement A embraces implications and

P2. if statement B claims the implications of any statement X are separate from the message of X,

C. then statements A and B are inconsistent.

Is that indeed your argument ?

If so, then that is an interesting theorem you have presented. Please demonstrate it.

Tarik 441 :

You literally quoted my demonstration, again.[72]

your inability to comprehend it isn’t equivalent to me not giving it.[73]

Amoranemix 439 :

Try basing your beliefs on reason and evidence. That is what skeptics do.

Tarik 441 :

Except skepticism is contrary to belief.

Amoranemix 439 :

It is difficult to say for certain, for I have read the conversation only once, but it looks like most of the rubbish comes from you by a large margin. You certainly have made little effort to make or keep the discussion constructive. You must be Christian.

Tarik 441 :

Your right that is difficult to say for certain, contrary to that second to last sentence.[74] One thing you and your boyfriend have in common is the contradictory element of your arguments and inability to comprehend logic.[75] You must be a relativist.

Amoranemix 444 to Athias :

[68] I am not. I put God in a different category than numbers. Physical may not be the right word.

The meaning of the term existence or the verb to exist for concrete things like God is clear.

[b] I am not referring to any definition.

[e] Where has zedvictor4 concluded that the imagined is irrational, logically inconsistent and non-existent ?

Athias 445 :

[68] What would be the right descriptive?

[b] Please submit and delineate the clear meaning of the term, existence.

[e] In previous discussions. I would have to comb through my previous interactions with him to find it.

Amoranemix 444 :

I haven't claimed “seem” is an argument.[a]

- Omniscience appears inconsistent with the inability to do something.[b]

- God is a person.[c] Love is not a person. Therefore, God cannot be love.[d]

- Being perfectly loving and perfectly just appear inconsistent.

- God apparently, despite unparalleled abilities, fails to distribute perfect love and perfect justice.[e]

- Any experimental physicist can testify that violating the laws of physics is impossible.[f]

If you think you can make the case that all the claims I listed can apply to a single being, then go ahead.[g]

Athias 445 :

[a] You don't have to claim "seem" is an argument; only use it in argumentation to warrant my scrutiny. "Seem" is an impression. And neither of us are held accountable for impressions.

[b] "Appears" is synonymous with "seem," and neither is an argument.

[c] Please substantiate.

[d] This is metaphorical--i.e. God is all-loving. If you operate on this premise, you have an opportunity to demonstrate contradiction.[d*]

[e] Please substantiate.

[f] Experimental physicists aren't gods. They can tell you that the actions of God in the bible are not consistent with a mathematically-based framework which dictates their description of "physical law." Experimental Physicists however cannot inform you of that for which they lack observational data.

[g] Why would "I" make the case?[g*] Is it not your onus to substantiate your contention of inconsistency?[g**]

Amoranemix 444 :

If I understand correctly, your argument is the following :

P1. Nonexistence is the absence or void of everything.

P2. Therefore, nonexistence provides nothing to rationalize.

C. Therefore, nonexistence is irrational.

Is that indeed your argument ?

If so, please demonstrate P2 implies C.

Athias 445 :

No, that isn't my argument. But before we proceed, let's define nonexistence:

the absence of existence; the negation of being; nothingness; unreality, etc.

Do you bear any objections to this description as I've delineated it?

Athias 445 edited quoting Amoranemix :

If I understand correctly, your argument is the following :

P1. Nonexistence is the absence or void of everything.

P2. Nonexistence does not and cannot provide anything to rationalize.

C. Therefore, nonexistence is irrational.

Fixed it.

Amoranemix 444 :

[69] You are mistaken. You also gauge the rationality of claims.

A valid argument is the following.

A. X is impossible.

P1. For any Y, claiming Y does not exist is irrational.

C. Therefore, claiming X does not exist is irrational.

Under assumption A, since you stand by P1, for you that is a sound argument.

Skeptics, understandably, dispute P1.

Please demonstrate it is irrational to claim impossible concepts do not exist.

Athias 445 :

First, we do not argue from ignorance--i.e. hinging the validation of your argument based on your opponent's capacity to disprove your argument. Second, your description of "impossible" is contingent on physicality and yet to be defined logical parameters.[76] Third, I have no intention of demonstrating an argument for which a premise is neither delineated nor substantiated.[77]

Why are you referring to mind or spirit in your definitions ?

Why treat mind or spirit to be the relevant alternative to physical objects ?

The sufficiency of a definition depends on its use.

Something useful to define seems everything.

Does it include nonexistent things ?

Does it include impossible things?

Another useful term to define is opposite, such that can be established whether X is the opposite of Y. The dictionary is again too vague.

Yet another useful concept to define would be to perceive, e.g. to establish whether imagining something qualifies as perceiving.

[68] I don't know. I made a suggestion though.

[b] The dictionary derives it from the verb to exist.

For concrete things, to exist is to be part of the real world.

For abstract things I don't know. You, on the other hand, were adamant that numbers exist.

[e] You haven't honoured your burden of proof yet.

From reading the discussion your attribution to zedvictor4 does not seem to match his beliefs.

I presented “seem” as an alternative to what you presented, namely nothing.

Neither of us are held accountable for nothing.

Nothing, i.e. what you presented, is not an argument either. Appearances beat nothing.

[c] Read the Bible.

Ask Christians.

www.compellingtruth.org/is-God-a-person.html

d*] What do you mean ?

[e] Climb out from under your rock and observe the real world.

[f] They provide strong inductive evidence that the physical laws cannot be broken.

[g*] Because you could. Although you haven't (as far as I remember) actually claimed God is consistent, you have challenged the mere possibility that God be inconsistent.

I have not made that contention. Yet I have supported it.

I would say nonexistence is the negation of existence. X has nonexistence if the statement 'X exists' is false.

Nonexistence is a state, so nothingness and unreality don't seem to describe that properly.

Please demonstrate the conclusion follows from the premises.

How so ? What definition for impossible would you propose that would make it rationally defensible to assert that it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist ?

[77] I haven't asked you to substantiate the argument, but to support (indirectly) P1 : “For any Y, claiming Y does not exist is irrational.”