Fact [re Analytic] [re Morality]

[Skepdick]

At any rate, I'm not bothering to respond to you again for a while at least. It's a waste of my time to point out the new and unusual ways that you exhibit idiocy in post after post, especially because you're incapable of learning anything from it, and I doubt anyone else is really paying much attention to it.

The reason I can't learn anything from your posts is because you have nothing to teach me. Most non-idiots would recognise that as evidence of something for something. Or I can spell it out for you - I am an idiot ( don't even deny it), but I am a lesser idiot than you.

So I ask again. Why should anybody listen to you?

If you think we are competing for attention: you win that contest.

I am just here to demonstrate the failures of your methods.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This seems like you don't understand the difference between terms and what terms are referring to.

Or do you want to say that the term "God" is an impossibility? That would be weird to say right after you used the term in a sentence.

You seem to have your own independent dictionary and is making too much fuss.

Note the meaning of 'term',

• term = a word or expression that has a precise meaning in some uses or is peculiar to a science, art, profession, or subject.
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/term

As per the above meaning of the term 'God,'
'God' is a word that has a precise meaning in some uses or is peculiar to a subject, i.e. theism.
The term 'God' according to theists is referring to a real God that created the universe, listens to and answers their prayers.

But my view is, the term 'God' has no real referent and grounding.
God is an Impossibility to be real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

This is what I mean with reference to the need for grounding for whatever claim of reality.

Show me precisely what is wrong with the above?

I already told you precisely what's wrong with it. You're not understanding the difference between terms and what terms are referring to.

I did not expect you to be so kindergartenish to believe I cannot differentiate between terms and what terms are referring to.

Obviously I understand the above which is similar to what is described and that-thing which is described. Also perception vs the-perceived, the reference vs referent, etc.

That it turns out that there's no God in the world doesn't make the term an impossibility. We'd not be able to use the word, to talk about this, to know what we're talking about if the term were an impossibility.
You're confusing the term--the word, its definition, its connotation, etc. with something that wouldn't at all be a word or a definition or connotation or anything like that--the (supposed) "thing in the world" that the term "points to" or "picks out."

You need to apply the Principle of Charity.
When I stated the term 'God' is an impossibility, it was not meant to be literal.
Are you 'autistic' by the way?

What I implied -based the "1000" times I have referenced 'God is an impossibility' - is the supposed God which is claimed as real by theists cannot be empirically possible to be real.

[Terrapin Station]

You need to apply the Principle of Charity.
When I stated the term 'God' is an impossibility, it was not meant to be literal.

Your whole objection in this thread was that a term didn't have a "grounding in reality." Was that about terms qua terms or not?

If it's about terms qua terms, then you (a) need to support just what it's supposed to amount to for a term to have a "grounding in reality," and (b) when responses to that attempted support show problems with it, you need to not pretend that we're no longer talking about terms qua terms.

If the objection wasn't about terms qua terms, the objection would need to be reframed.