God -that square circle!

For us ignostics, God has no more meaning than a square circle and thus cannot possibly exist so there exists no need to traverse the Csomos nor for anyone to have omniscience herself!

Here are the incoheencies and contradictions in the term God that Victor Spenger notes in ” God: the Failed Hypotheis”: Were God all virtuous [Carneades’ argument,I.M.] then He’d have all the courage to face anything or anybeing, but as He is supposedly omnipotent, He’d have no fear anyway and thus could not have that virtue.

 In ” Atheism Explaiined : from  Folly to Philosophy,”  Ramsay Steele,,puts aside virtue, remarking then that God would be no kind of person with which we are familiar.

 Either way, He’d be vacuous.

  The problem of evil plays HIs omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipotence as opposed to each other, echoing that He is vacuous as those three attributes in the face of evil mount to nothing.

 The Star Trek argument reduces God to a vacuity as were He perfect, then He’d form  no imperfections.

 Hume’s dysteological argument plays out the vaunted notion of design as nonsense in the face of imperfections. Alvin Plantinga  claims that omni-God can use His powers for flourishes-the imperfections whilst limited God would have to create perfection. This is an inchoate plea that theology blasphemes reason and – humanity.He tries to evisecrate the problem of evil with the arguments from the greater good but that is only the argument from ignorance at work

  Thus in one way or another, the imperfections reveal the sterility of the God-term and thus that He is vacous.

   God cannot be transcendent and omnipresent, because the former precludes the latter.Thus, again is He vacuous. Anyway per [Hans] Reichenbach’s argument from Existence, nothng resides outsiide it as it is all and thus again, He is vacuous.

   He cannot be physical and thus again, He’d be no kind of person.And anyway, per the argument from physical mind, we only know of embodied minds and thus to suggest He must be disembodied is just another argument from ignorace and again, He is vacuous. McCormick’s why God cannot think also does iHim in.

    The paradox of the stone that He could make but that He could not life fails to make the ignostic case as He would not be required to do the logically impossible.

  The Rand-Sartre argument also fails as it  claims that we’d have to worship HIm should He exist,but that would cause us to not be autonomous moral beings,which per Lamberth’s argument from autonomy argues that as independent beings we owe none worship nor would God have any authority over us.

   My ignosticism transcends just going after HIs attributes but also His referents to portray HIs vacuilty: as we naturalists take away each of His refereents as Creator and so forth, we portray again His vacuity.

    Other incompatiblity arguments will come forth here. Do you have any/