1. Which god do you refer to? There are over 3000 gods claimed to exist or claimed to have existed.
2. No-one can ever be 100% positive about anything. There is no such thing as absolute truth.
3. If you are referring to the Abrahamic God, it can't exist because it's definition forms a logical contradiction.
4. If you are referring to the Deist God, it is meaningless and irrelevant because it can't be falsified.
5. It's most likely that the rest of the over 3000 gods claimed to exist or claimed to have existed have definitions which are either incoherent or falsifiable since it's the case with all of the ones that I've come across so far.
I don't have any personal concepts of gods since I was never indoctrinated but based on current knowledge and my comments above I believe that it's highly unlikely any exist.
Since I'm not omniscient I can't comment on the future and whether that might or might not change.
Theists love it when some atheists (very few) make the claim that "gods don't exist" because then they can sit back and demand that the claimer prove it knowing full well that the claimer can't.
It allows them to shift the burden of proof onto the person making that claim and they are no longer required to provide evidence to support their equally unprovable claim that their favorite flavor of "god exists".
Which of the 3000 gods listed at that link am I supposed to be in any confusion about? These are just the ones we know about because someone took the time to write about them, or left their names inscribed on stone temples and effigies. Think of the thousands more that we DON'T know about, because no records of them were left behind. I am 100% certain that NONE of them, known or unknown, exist. Is there one I missed because it hasn't been listed yet?
I don't entirely disagree with you. I don't believe gods exist either.
My only contention is in your statement "but god is 100% impossible because contradictions cannot exist and the concept cannot even be defined in any way. An existent must have identity. It must be some things and not others. Identity and noncontradiction are necessary properties for any thing to exist. Science depends on these concepts and so does all concept formation and thought..."
It is a perceptual fallacy to rest ones methodology on the basis of logical non-contradiction of entities. There are many propositions (properties of existing things) that are both true and false at the same time. We humans drive our needs off of absolutes and we pay the price for it. Science will NOT truly understand the workings of the macro and micro envrionments until it gets over its incessant need to codify things absolutely.
Besides, it's always appeared to me that the ones most angry about something (and ramping his or her self up to the point of causing destruction in other's lives) are the very ones who know with absolute certainty and refuse to be open to new ideas. It's true of the religious and non-religious.
I think I understand the need for humans to have certainty in life. It makes us all feel more at ease. I understand you would exclaim so dramatically "I would ask you to name one, but I already know that you cannot." But feeling comfortable to me is no excuse for ignoring how I use what I learn and how things actually work. Your statement "Saying that you know for sure that certainty is impossible is a blatant contradiction." Of course it is. That is exactly the point. The Universe is full of "things, entities, with identity" that actually operate by declarative, provable contradictions. The basic Law of Non-Contradiction (the excluded middle) is a fallacious tautology imposed on provable contradictory declarative statements. Some of your examples are truly non-contradictory. (ie the burning leaf, balloons filled with helium) Those are positive.
My arguments do not threaten what has been learned. And my above contention does not extend to the notions of gods because there do not appear to be any properties for an appropriate provable argument. The use of (P or -P) given the lack of properties does not mean I can conclude (-P) just as much as I cannot conclude (P). Moreover I cannot blatantly disregard (P and -P) which seems so obvious to me.
"The Universe is full of "things, entities, with identity" that actually operate by declarative, provable contradictions."
Operating by contradiction? Provable ones, no less. Silly. Please attempt to prove a contradiction. I want to see that.
Marc, you say, "There are many propositions (properties of existing things) that are both true and false at the same time." Can you name some? I'm having trouble buying this without concrete examples.
I'm pretty sure that Michael Tricoci is correct; any definition of a god I've ever seen has suffered from logical contradictions and been therefore impossible. Of course, mostly people don't even bother to try to define a god very precisely, but even the handul of major attributes usually ascribed render such an entity logically impossible.
Jason, I appreciate your light-hearted inquiry to my post. For me it is not just important to be Utilitarian but also Pragmatic as well. Unfortunately I get a LOT of absolutists out here so angry because my position does not fit in their (P or -P) views. I am currently investigating a practical position that propositions might actually include (P and -P).
I would be happy to share with you at least one proposition that is both true and false at the same time. (The cup on my desk is at rest.)
Now, I know that skeptics have the tendency to also take things to extreme and those extremists can question everything. And just so you can better respond (if you so wish to educate me on where I am wrong :) I will elaborate a bit.
I don't think anyone would require further proof of the existence of me, the cup or the desk. (Even though I've met some skeptics who would love go down that road. Not to mention some absolutists who wish I didn't exist. lol) I don't think anyone would question that the above statement is a proposition in the sense that it is declarative. Given the current definition of "proposition" though, it would have to conform to the properties of the excluded middle (P or -P) And it is here that I seriously question the Law of Non-Contradiction.
The cup is at rest and in motion at the same time. For me to conclude that the cup is not in motion, I would not take into account that it is in motion with the Earth moving around the sun. I can't do that.
On the other hand, if I were to conclude that the cup is not at rest, I'm forced into considering the implications of applying a concept of "at rest" to ALL identifiable objects. Are there technically any objects in the Universe that can be considered "at rest"? In order to for me to measure the distance the cup travels when I move it across the room, must I also have to take into account its motion through space in order to determine the actual distance? This is not pragmatic either since the cup is contained within an environment that has other objects at rest (and in motion) for comparison. And it is not Utilitarian for our simple practice of measuring because its actual distance through space is not necessary for the relations of objects on Earths environment.
So, I'm hoping a reasonable sort such as yourself might have some way of showing me how the above proposition is not provable both as (P and -P) [the cup is moving and not moving at the same time] and does not fit in the absolutist position of (P or -P).