Proof A=A

[Welsh cake]

My question, now that you understand where it is coming from... is why did you even ask that question?

Responding to fr0d0's claim that logic alone can't disprove the concept of god? Oh wait, that was a rhetorical question right? My bad.

If logic cannot refute logically impossible concepts (Read: concepts logic has already refuted)... then the concepts weren't logically impossible to begin with.

Okay... then what's stopping you from arguing that a square is also a circle?

If logic can (which if you are already considering logically impossible concepts it must be true that it does)

Err, no. Logically impossible concepts aren't ever true, that's why they're refutable and not supported ideas to begin with, they're simply subjective conceivable ideas that sounded clever at the time, but have no basis objectively whatsoever in the real world. You probably already know this much.

This seems to be another diversion. The trinity is something that needs to be taken on faith, as it isn't explainable through logic. God is also a woman - the creator.

Firstly, your rebuttal was God wasn't contradictory by its defintion; well, I've given you but one example that the concept is by its own definition a logical contradiction, one entity cannot be simultaneously three individual entities yet still singular, its perfectly valid, which I hope you can at least be bothered to acknowledge first.

Secondly my counter-arguments are not red herrings. >.>

Thirdly, when was God ever called Our Mother and Our Father? He's not the Rainbow Serpent after all, who according to mythology of Aboriginal Australia was both male and female giving birth to all the creatures of the Earth.

God isn't logically impossible, or we'd be able to dismiss God like you do.

May the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you and eternally rid your mind from Appeals to Common Belief.

We cannot know for sure if God is.

How in the IPU's name did you acquire the knowledge we can't know God's existence for certain is what the rest of the world would all like to know.

Logically, you have to DEFINE your god concept FIRST, before debating if it can be proven with absolute certainty or not, which at every given opportunity you've so far failed to do.

Assuming 'God' we can logically deduce outcomes. That's what the bible is, and that's what lived Christianity is.

How do you know that you've evaluated all the other possible outcomes?

What's also funny is that I've never thought that way as you do even as a Christian. God was no 'god of the gaps' clause, or argument from personal incredulity to me at that time. Whenever pressed for answers I'd simply say "I don't yet know" (don't quote me on that please). Before I deconverted from Christianity I always wanted to help prove to the world through science my magic-man belief was actually real and convert everyone to that mindset, and bring everyone to his presence for the betterment and salvation of mankind. At one time I wholeheartedly believed he was 'good'. I so desperately believed someday we'd grow, live, and understand our 'holy father', eventually becoming one with him as is Jesus Christ. I was sorely mistaken. Mankind ill needs a saviour like a murdering tribal god. However, its seems your current sky-daddy concept is only good for practicing cowardice from scrutiny and dishonesty when faced with enquiry. I suppose that's the only real difference between us in a retrospective light.

How can you make the claim that we cannot, in time, prove or disprove God's existence through scientific means?

In fr0d0's defence, that's not what he's arguing at all, he's dismissing logic as being able to refute the concept of god, not the scientific method.