On impossibility of God

[bahman]

Yes. Complicated things either move toward more complexity or simplicity depending on the mode of things.

Or perhaps some complicted things do not move towards more complexity or simplicity.

True. That is the case too.

Can you demonstrate that this must be the case?

This is all exhaustive options.

2) This, being subjected to time, is impossible though

Why can't God evolve? Change over time, that is.

Evolve toward what? Knowing more? That is the attribute of creature.

Sure, knowing more. The Abrahamic religions have God as the perfect unevolving something. Perhaps they are wrong. Perhaps God evolves.

Do you know the name of God who is evolving?

3) God cannot be simple (God is love, God is Justice, etc.)

Why can't God be simple?

Because God is love and justice. Basically these are definitions of God which are not equal because love and justice are different.

You mean because humans use inexact terms in language there could not possibly be a God where it would be useful to use those terms?

Yes.

Are you saying, for example, you would never refer to another person as both just and loving because they cannot be both all the time?

No. They cannot be both in the same time.

Are you saying something does not exist because our words are not perfect?

No.

Are you saying that because people say God is different things, God can't be simple?

Yes.

So if people start saying contradictory things about you will that make you no longer having existed?

What is your definition of God?

Could't some of the definitions be wrong?

God at least is love and justice. He is also existence. There are other definitions too. A God who is love cannot be hate for example so we have to decide which one God is, good God or Evil God? Here as an example we are working with good God.

It seems to me all you are demonstrating is some the problems of describing things. Still, even the inexact descriptions of things can be useful, and even convey core truths.

No, nothing is wrong with the logic and language. It is about a contradiction.
P1) A is B & A is C
P2) B=/=C
C ) A cannot exist.

Or couldn't being loving lead to just actions and attitudes. Is there a particular God you are saying is impossible`? Some versions of God are not just.

There is problem if there are at least two definitions.

That's true for a lot of things we know exist.

There is problem if there are at least two definitions which are contrary. Sorry for not being accurate.

First, God is the following things: God is Love, God is Justice, etc. Love however is different from Justice therefore God cannot be simple. This justifies premise (3). This can be only resolved if God is subjected to time, sometimes Love, sometimes Justice, etc. So premise (1) is justified.

Well, first there's the possibility that Loving and being just are facets of the same simple attitude.

Then please show that love and justice are facets of the same simple attitude.

If you are loving you want to treat those you love justly.

Yes. But Love is not Justice.

Why would God have to wait?

Because by eternity we mean that God has existed in infinite past. Creation apparently is not eternal, it has a age. Therefore God has to wait eternity to create.

We don't know if creation is eternal or not. It could be eternal forward in time.

Creation cannot be eternal. There is an argument against that.

What if God is not bound by time?

A timeless God cannot create. There is an argument against that too.

[felix dakat]

God is defined as love and justice too. This is against simplicity of God unless you show that love and justice are similar.

Perhaps, the same way that an electron is a particle and a wave.

Alternatively, apart from the fact that the simplicity of God is part of the traditional orthodox definition, why must God be simple?

Here there is an argument in favor of that: http://www.saintaquinas.com/

Right, it includes the statement: "The properties usually attributed to God such as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence do not contradict the teaching of simplicity because each property is a different way of looking at the infinite active being of God from a limited perspective." The same could be true of love and justice.

On your question, "what is the truth?", from the probability that we don't know the answer with certitude, it doesn't follow that there isn't one or that such cannot be experienced.

Yes, we cannot know.

Then we agree that we cannot know. And, since we cannot know, it follows that you do not know if God is an impossibility or not.

[bahman]

God is defined as love and justice too. This is against simplicity of God unless you show that love and justice are similar.

Perhaps, the same way that an electron is a particle and a wave.

Electron is not a simple thing.

Alternatively, apart from the fact that the simplicity of God is part of the traditional orthodox definition, why must God be simple?

Here there is an argument in favor of that: http://www.saintaquinas.com/

Right, it includes the statement: "The properties usually attributed to God such as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence do not contradict the teaching of simplicity because each property is a different way of looking at the infinite active being of God from a limited perspective." The same could be true of love and justice.

I have heard of that but that is not an argument.

On your question, "what is the truth?", from the probability that we don't know the answer with certitude, it doesn't follow that there isn't one or that such cannot be experienced.

Yes, we cannot know.

Then we agree that we cannot know. And, since we cannot know, it follows that you do not know if God is an impossibility or not.

We cannot know through experience that what we experience is God or not. We can however deduce it.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Or perhaps some complicted things do not move towards more complexity or simplicity.

True. That is the case too.

Then you are agreeing to a third possibility when you presented two as the only possible ones.

Do you know the name of God who is evolving?

That's irrellevent. I may or may not have some position on God that is problematic or not. But here we are talking about your positions.

3) God cannot be simple (God is love, God is Justice, etc.)

Why can't God be simple?

Because God is love and justice. Basically these are definitions of God which are not equal because love and justice are different.

You mean because humans use inexact terms in language there could not possibly be a God where it would be useful to use those terms?

Yes.

That doesn't hold. Lizards cannot describe how a car works and has not idea that there are radio waves. But there still are these things.

Are you saying, for example, you would never refer to another person as both just and loving because they cannot be both all the time?

No. They cannot be both in the same time.

I see it all the time. In fact I cannot see how a consistently unjust person could be loving, ever. I find myself almost Platonic in this one. I could not love my two sons and also deal with their dispute justly all at the same time. You even go so far as to mean here that it cannot happen in any instance.

What is your definition of God?

The soundness, or not, of you positions has nothing to do with whatever I believe. They have to stand on their own.

[bahman]

That doesn't hold. Lizards cannot describe how a car works and has not idea that there are radio waves. But there still are these things.

We are not lizard. We are cognitively open to logic.

Are you saying, for example, you would never refer to another person as both just and loving because they cannot be both all the time?

No. They cannot be both in the same time.

I see it all the time. In fact I cannot see how a consistently unjust person could be loving, ever. I find myself almost Platonic in this one. I could not love my two sons and also deal with their dispute justly all at the same time. You even go so far as to mean here that it cannot happen in any instance.

I am arguing that love and justice are not the same. The fact that you observe that you are just and lovely does not implement that love and justice are the same. You are just a just and lovely person.

[felix dakat]

Electron is not a simple thing.

An electron is an elementary particle or fundamental particle. That means it is a subatomic particle with no sub structure, thus not composed of other particles. In physics you can't get simpler than that. Thus, it is analogous to God's putative ultimate simplicity. And yet it is both a wave and a particle, analogous to God being both justice and love.

Here there is an argument in favor of that: http://www.saintaquinas.com/

Felix Dakat wrote

Right, it includes the statement: "The properties usually attributed to God such as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence do not contradict the teaching of simplicity because each property is a different way of looking at the infinite active being of God from a limited perspective." The same could be true of love and justice.

I have heard of that but that is not an argument.

Above you state "Here there is an argument". Now you state "that is not an argument." You contradict yourself.

We cannot know through experience that what we experience is God or not. We can however deduce it.

How do you deduce certainty from an uncertain experience?

[Karpel Tunnel]

That doesn't hold. Lizards cannot describe how a car works and has not idea that there are radio waves. But there still are these things.

We are not lizard. We are cognitively open to logic.

But we are still fallible. Our history is littered with very logical humans thinking that certain things did nto exist, but they did. My point was that our ignorance of something does not entail it does not exist. Unless black holes and rogue waves and the life forms at the bottom of the sea and quantum entanglement only popped into existence when we found them or when a consensus of scientists decided they existed.

I am arguing that love and justice are not the same. The fact that you observe that you are just and lovely does not implement that love and justice are the same. You are just a just and lovely person.

Well, t hank you. But you actually made the extreme statement that they could not exist at the same time in something and they can. They could also be words describing the same essence from a couple of angles. And last, again, just because some people describe God as just and loving does not entail that God does not exist if these two are unreconcilable. It only entails that if the only possible God is those two things and further that we deal with language in mathematical terms.

Language is not mathematical. Word elicit experiences. And they do this slopplily. To varying degrees. I could describe my father as loving and just, and perhaps you would say that in response to event X he managed to only be just but not loving. This does not entail that he does not exist, nor does it entail that I was wrong to use these words to decribe him. I used words that effectively, though not perfectly described him. Giving people who do not know him or know him as well as I do some useful information.

There is no reason to take theists descriptions as mathematical propositions or step in an argument in symbolic logic. And there is no reason to take people's fallible descriptions as causal in the existence or non-existence of something.

Old drawings of African animals by European travelers and explorers in Africa were often distorted, not remotely as accurate as current day (also flawed but less flawed drawings) of these animals. And yet a picture and description of the lion or the elephant, indicating its general shape and some of its behavior and the texture of its skin and fur did in fact convey information, and would have helped Europeans later at zoos or in Africa pick out the lion or elephant and also to understand to some degree how they differed from animals the Europeans were used to.

It would have been RIDICULOUS TO ARGUE THAT THE ELEPHANT AND THE LION DID NOT EXIST BECAUSE THE DRAWINGS WERE OFF STRUCTURALLY, THAT THE WAY THE LEGS WERE DRAWN WOULD MAKE IT HARD FOR THE ELEPHANT TO WALK, OR WHATEVER.

WE DO OUR BEST, THAT WE ARE FALLIBLE AND USE FALLIBLE LANGUAGE DOES NOT MEAN NOTHING EXISTS.

[bahman]

Electron is not a simple thing.

An electron is an elementary particle or fundamental particle. That means it is a subatomic particle with no sub structure, thus not composed of other particles. In physics you can't get simpler than that. Thus, it is analogous to God's putative ultimate simplicity. And yet it is both a wave and a particle, analogous to God being both justice and love.

The standard model wherein electron is an elementary particle is not anomaly free. Moreover, electron is not particle and wave in the same time but behaves as particle and wave at the same time.

Here there is an argument in favor of that: http://www.saintaquinas.com/

Felix Dakat wrote

Right, it includes the statement: "The properties usually attributed to God such as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence do not contradict the teaching of simplicity because each property is a different way of looking at the infinite active being of God from a limited perspective." The same could be true of love and justice.

I have heard of that but that is not an argument.

Above you state "Here there is an argument". Now you state "that is not an argument." You contradict yourself.

I meant the bold part is not an argument.

We cannot know through experience that what we experience is God or not. We can however deduce it.

How do you deduce certainty from an uncertain experience?

I simply say that I don't know. Uncertainty implements uncertainty when it comes to experience.

[bahman]

That doesn't hold. Lizards cannot describe how a car works and has not idea that there are radio waves. But there still are these things.

We are not lizard. We are cognitively open to logic.

But we are still fallible. Our history is littered with very logical humans thinking that certain things did nto exist, but they did. My point was that our ignorance of something does not entail it does not exist. Unless black holes and rogue waves and the life forms at the bottom of the sea and quantum entanglement only popped into existence when we found them or when a consensus of scientists decided they existed.

I am arguing that love and justice are not the same. The fact that you observe that you are just and lovely does not implement that love and justice are the same. You are just a just and lovely person.

Well, thank you. But you actually made the extreme statement that they could not exist at the same time in something and they can. They could also be words describing the same essence from a couple of angles. And last, again, just because some people describe God as just and loving does not entail that God does not exist if these two are unreconcilable. It only entails that if the only possible God is those two things and further that we deal with language in mathematical terms.

The Love that explain God as a being is different from love that we experience. The same applies to Justice. The Love/Justice are objective whereas love/justice are subjective. When we say God is Love we mean that Love is something which God is and vise versa God is something who is Love. I know that doesn't explain much because it doesn't explain what Love is. Regardless here is my argument that I post it again for sake of clarity:
P1) A is B & A is C
P2) B=/=C
C ) A cannot exist.
Where A is God, B is Love and C is Justice.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The Love that explain God as a being is different from love that we experience. The same applies to Justice. The Love/Justice are objective whereas love/justice are subjective. When we say God is Love we mean that Love is something which God is and vise versa God is something who is Love. I know that doesn't explain much because it doesn't explain what Love is. Regardless here is my argument that I post it again for sake of clarity:
P1) A is B & A is C
P2) B=/=C
C ) A cannot exist.
Where A is God, B is Love and C is Justice.

That's a clear summation of your argument. It just doesn't address the points I made. It could be an argument against someone with a particular (perhaps implicit) philosophy of language, who says that God is B and C. That these are exact categories, meant mathematically, such that if it turns out that these qualities do not match perfectly, like two abstract circles, then you may have undermined that person's description of God. That is very different from demonstrating there is no God. It is also presuming, for example, a not late-Wittgensteinian idea of language on the other person's part. At some point in theological history things got rather mathematical in regard to God, leading to all sorts of ridiculous discussion of God making stones so heavy he can't life them. IOW paradoxes based on treating theological descriptions as something like axioms in geometry or steps in symbolic logic arguments. But they are not, in many and most cases. Of course some theists are partly to blame for this situation and the atheists and agnostics who form their mirror image join in the silliness and arguments run on like God is a math problem. I brought up lizards and someone I love, to try to bring this back to the actual human situations where words are used. And they generally are not meant mathematically. I can describe someone as an angry person and that person is seen to be nice on occasion and I am not shocked. Lizards are unwares of things, but they exist. I can describe things using the floppy tool language is and convey something useful, but not perfectly, mathematically correct. It can reflect my experiences AND be predictive, yet not be perfect.

If you are meeting a theologian who comes at you with mathematical-like proofs of God and is using language in ways intended to be taken like terms in partical physics - it was a boson with this spin and therefore has this mass, etc. - then in that context you can certainly point out the problems. But 1) this is not a proof God does not exist, it would be a proof, at best, that there is something wrong with that particular person's way of describing God and 2) it still presumes that you know the correct metaphysics. Your earlier proofs included your ideas about what simple and time for example necessarily entail. A little humility and a brief mull over the history of science or the philosophy of language, just in the 20th century say, would make one cautious about thinking one has proved things using deduction and abstract words. That perhaps we have learned that what seems obviously logically excludable has repeatedly turned out not to be. That perhaps we have learned to be cautious when it comes to naive realism - which, it seems to me is the philosophy of language you are following.

And granted, many of your opponent here, in aphilosophy forum, that is Abrahamic theists, may also be naive about realism, about the easy perfection of deduction, of the mathematical nature of language and categories, etc.

But you have proved anything about what exists. Perhaps you have made a nice thorn in the side of certain specific theists if they share your views of language and want to hang onto specific types of arguments themselves.

[felix dakat]

God is an impossibility yes. But being itself is an impossibility yet here we are. Modernity acted as a wrecking ball on the traditional concept of God. Humanity needs to reimagine God.

[bahman]

The Love that explain God as a being is different from love that we experience. The same applies to Justice. The Love/Justice are objective whereas love/justice are subjective. When we say God is Love we mean that Love is something which God is and vise versa God is something who is Love. I know that doesn't explain much because it doesn't explain what Love is. Regardless here is my argument that I post it again for sake of clarity:
P1) A is B & A is C
P2) B=/=C
C ) A cannot exist.
Where A is God, B is Love and C is Justice.

That's a clear summation of your argument. It just doesn't address the points I made. It could be an argument against someone with a particular (perhaps implicit) philosophy of language, who says that God is B and C. That these are exact categories, meant mathematically, such that if it turns out that these qualities do not match perfectly, like two abstract circles, then you may have undermined that person's description of God. That is very different from demonstrating there is no God. It is also presuming, for example, a not late-Wittgensteinian idea of language on the other person's part. At some point in theological history things got rather mathematical in regard to God, leading to all sorts of ridiculous discussion of God making stones so heavy he can't life them. IOW paradoxes based on treating theological descriptions as something like axioms in geometry or steps in symbolic logic arguments. But they are not, in many and most cases. Of course some theists are partly to blame for this situation and the atheists and agnostics who form their mirror image join in the silliness and arguments run on like God is a math problem. I brought up lizards and someone I love, to try to bring this back to the actual human situations where words are used. And they generally are not meant mathematically. I can describe someone as an angry person and that person is seen to be nice on occasion and I am not shocked. Lizards are unwares of things, but they exist. I can describe things using the floppy tool language is and convey something useful, but not perfectly, mathematically correct. It can reflect my experiences AND be predictive, yet not be perfect.

If you are meeting a theologian who comes at you with mathematical-like proofs of God and is using language in ways intended to be taken like terms in partical physics - it was a boson with this spin and therefore has this mass, etc. - then in that context you can certainly point out the problems. But 1) this is not a proof God does not exist, it would be a proof, at best, that there is something wrong with that particular person's way of describing God and 2) it still presumes that you know the correct metaphysics. Your earlier proofs included your ideas about what simple and time for example necessarily entail. A little humility and a brief mull over the history of science or the philosophy of language, just in the 20th century say, would make one cautious about thinking one has proved things using deduction and abstract words. That perhaps we have learned that what seems obviously logically excludable has repeatedly turned out not to be. That perhaps we have learned to be cautious when it comes to naive realism - which, it seems to me is the philosophy of language you are following.

And granted, many of your opponent here, in aphilosophy forum, that is Abrahamic theists, may also be naive about realism, about the easy perfection of deduction, of the mathematical nature of language and categories, etc.

But you have proved anything about what exists. Perhaps you have made a nice thorn in the side of certain specific theists if they share your views of language and want to hang onto specific types of arguments themselves.

I am using logic which I think is common. Actually I found another better argument: A is B require that A should be different from B which this is contrary.

[bahman]

God is an impossibility yes. But being itself is an impossibility yet here we are. Modernity acted as a wrecking ball on the traditional concept of God. Humanity needs to reimagine God.

How do you know that being itself is an impossibility?

[felix dakat]

God is an impossibility yes. But being itself is an impossibility yet here we are. Modernity acted as a wrecking ball on the traditional concept of God. Humanity needs to reimagine God.

How do you know that being itself is an impossibility?

I don't. But, Lawrence Krauss notwithstanding, I haven't been able to figure out how you can get something from nothing.

[bahman]

God is an impossibility yes. But being itself is an impossibility yet here we are. Modernity acted as a wrecking ball on the traditional concept of God. Humanity needs to reimagine God.

How do you know that being itself is an impossibility?

I don't. But, Lawrence Krauss notwithstanding, I haven't been able to figure out how you can get something from nothing.

The other possibility is that we as minds have always existed. I have an argument for that which I hope to post it shortly in different thread.

[Prismatic567]

God is an impossibility yes. But being itself is an impossibility yet here we are. Modernity acted as a wrecking ball on the traditional concept of God. Humanity needs to reimagine God.

God is a being-by-itself, i.e. God [theoretically and theologically] has to to be totally unconditioned by anything else except exist by-itself.
But Being-by-itself is an impossibility.
Being-by-itself is a soul-by-itself or God-by-itself which are impossibility.
There is no way [try as you may] of proving the existence of the above without involving being-by-ourselves.

That we are here is 'being-by-ourselves' which is a reality and possibility.
We can easily prove the existence of ourselves and others via empirical experiences and evidences.

Why we insist on the impossible is real is due to an existential crisis and impulse that compel theists to reify an impossible God out of nothing for psychological comfort. What is real is the psychological activities and effects.

[Prismatic567]

The Love that explain God as a being is different from love that we experience. The same applies to Justice. The Love/Justice are objective whereas love/justice are subjective. When we say God is Love we mean that Love is something which God is and vise versa God is something who is Love. I know that doesn't explain much because it doesn't explain what Love is. Regardless here is my argument that I post it again for sake of clarity:
P1) A is B & A is C
P2) B=/=C
C ) A cannot exist.
Where A is God, B is Love and C is Justice.

When you assign LOVE and JUSTICE to a God you are making it anthropomorphic as love and justice are human values and nothing else.
Because the absolutely absolutes of anything [so LOVE and JUSTICE] are impossibility.

Re your

P1) A is B & A is C
P2) B=/=C
C ) A cannot exist.

Above model can be interpreted as;

P1 Carbon-C is diamond, C is charcoal
P2 Diamond is not charcoal
C3 C cannot exist

The above is not sound since Carbon-C exists.

The problem is the equivocation of senses, i.e.

P1 Carbon-C is diamond, C is charcoal -Atomic sense
P2 Diamond is not charcoal - common sense
C3 C cannot exist

Thus your model above is logically correct but
when you impute Love and Justice into the syllogism, it does not work.
In a God's sense, Love is the same as Justice in reconcilable terms of the mind of God.

Thus your sylllogism should be;

P1 God is Love, God is Justice - Divine sense
P2 Love = Justice -Divine sense
C3 Cannot conclude - non-sequitor.

We can arrive at a conclusion if;

P1 God is Love, Divine sense
P2 Love exists -Divine sense
C3 God exists - Divine sense.

While the syllogism is logical, it is not sound in reality.
How can you prove divine love exists?
How can you prove God is love when there is so much evil is God is assumed to exist?

Even if you can do so, your conclusion is confined to the divine sense but never in the real sense.

My point is;
God is an impossibility to be real.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474
Therefore question of God being real is moot and a non-starter.
Thus no one can raise the question whether God is real or not.

The only sound reason for a consideration of God is only related to a person's psychology to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

[bahman]

When you assign LOVE and JUSTICE to a God you are making it anthropomorphic as love and justice are human values and nothing else.

No, I am not making God anthropomorphic.

Because the absolutely absolutes of anything [so LOVE and JUSTICE] are impossibility.

Re your

P1) A is B & A is C
P2) B=/=C
C ) A cannot exist.

Above model can be interpreted as;

P1 Carbon-C is diamond, C is charcoal
P2 Diamond is not charcoal
C3 C cannot exist

The above is not sound since Carbon-C exists.

Carbon-C is an element whereas diamond and charcoal are not.

The problem is the equivocation of senses, i.e.

P1 Carbon-C is diamond, C is charcoal -Atomic sense
P2 Diamond is not charcoal - common sense
C3 C cannot exist

You are comparing apple with orange here when you change your perspective from atomic sense to common sense.

Thus your model above is logically correct but
when you impute Love and Justice into the syllogism, it does not work.
In a God's sense, Love is the same as Justice in reconcilable terms of the mind of God.

Thus your sylllogism should be;

P1 God is Love, God is Justice - Divine sense
P2 Love =/= Justice -Divine sense
C3 Cannot conclude - non-sequitor.

It is not non-sequitor.

We can arrive at a conclusion if;

P1 God is Love, Divine sense
P2 Love exists -Divine sense
C3 God exists - Divine sense.

This is problematic either since God cannot be different from Love and same to Love at the same time. When you say that God is Love you mean that Love is something that is God yet Love is not similar to God otherwise the premise becomes God is God which carry no information.

[Prismatic567]

When you assign LOVE and JUSTICE to a God you are making it anthropomorphic as love and justice are human values and nothing else.

No, I am not making God anthropomorphic.

Love and Justice can only be anthropomorphic elements.

Because the absolutely absolutes of anything [so LOVE and JUSTICE] are impossibility.

Re your

P1) A is B & A is C
P2) B=/=C
C ) A cannot exist.

Above model can be interpreted as;

P1 Carbon-C is diamond, C is charcoal
P2 Diamond is not charcoal
C3 C cannot exist

The above is not sound since Carbon-C exists.

Carbon-C is an element whereas diamond and charcoal are not.

You don't seem to get it.
If you look a both diamond and charcoal through an electron microscope they are comprised on the same material, i.e. carbon atoms.
If you look at ice and steam, they are not the same in one perspective, but looking at both via an electron microscope they are the same H20 molecules.

The problem is the equivocation of senses, i.e.

P1 Carbon-C is diamond, C is charcoal -Atomic sense
P2 Diamond is not charcoal - common sense
C3 C cannot exist

You are comparing apple with orange here when you change your perspective from atomic sense to common sense.

Nope. You use the wrong analogy.
I am not comparing "diamond" with "ice", which would be like apple with orange.

I am comparing things of with the same atoms but appearing differently within common sense.
This is like comparing two apples of different color or shape but they both have the same apple molecules.

Thus your model above is logically correct but
when you impute Love and Justice into the syllogism, it does not work.
In a God's sense, Love is the same as Justice in reconcilable terms of the mind of God.

Thus your sylllogism should be;

P1 God is Love, God is Justice - Divine sense
P2 Love =/= Justice -Divine sense
C3 Cannot conclude - non-sequitor.

It is not non-sequitor.

How can you follow and jump to your premises to 'God does not exists'?

We can arrive at a conclusion if;

P1 God is Love, Divine sense
P2 Love exists -Divine sense
C3 God exists - Divine sense.

This is problematic either since God cannot be different from Love and same to Love at the same time. When you say that God is Love you mean that Love is something that is God yet Love is not similar to God otherwise the premise becomes God is God which carry no information.

First the syllogism is logically correct BUT
I am not stating the premises are true and the whole argument is sound.

However,
the proposition 'God is Love' is a very common claim by Christians quoting Paul and elsewhere in the Bible. Such a claim imply God is Love and whatever else at the same time.
Thus from the theists POV, God is Love is an acceptable premise.
Personally I would not agree with it.

If you do not agree with it, then you have to present;
1. Syllogism that are logically correct,
2. With all premises that are true and real.

But you have not presented any of the above?

[bahman]

When you assign LOVE and JUSTICE to a God you are making it anthropomorphic as love and justice are human values and nothing else.

No, I am not making God anthropomorphic.

Love and Justice can only be anthropomorphic elements.

No. Love and Justice are not same as love and justice. They are something which to best of my knowledge no theologian have ever explained what they are.

Because the absolutely absolutes of anything [so LOVE and JUSTICE] are impossibility.

Re your

P1) A is B & A is C
P2) B=/=C
C ) A cannot exist.

Above model can be interpreted as;

P1 Carbon-C is diamond, C is charcoal
P2 Diamond is not charcoal
C3 C cannot exist

The above is not sound since Carbon-C exists.

Carbon-C is an element whereas diamond and charcoal are not.

You don't seem to get it.
If you look a both diamond and charcoal through an electron microscope they are comprised on the same material, i.e. carbon atoms.
If you look at ice and steam, they are not the same in one perspective, but looking at both via an electron microscope they are the same H20 molecules.

I completely got it. You need to replace Carbon-C by graphene to see what I mean.

The problem is the equivocation of senses, i.e.

P1 Carbon-C is diamond, C is charcoal -Atomic sense
P2 Diamond is not charcoal - common sense
C3 C cannot exist

You are comparing apple with orange here when you change your perspective from atomic sense to common sense.

Nope. You use the wrong analogy.
I am not comparing "diamond" with "ice", which would be like apple with orange.

I am comparing things of with the same atoms but appearing differently within common sense.
This is like comparing two apples of different color or shape but they both have the same apple molecules.

No, you change the scheme in which you look at things.

Thus your model above is logically correct but
when you impute Love and Justice into the syllogism, it does not work.
In a God's sense, Love is the same as Justice in reconcilable terms of the mind of God.

Thus your sylllogism should be;

P1 God is Love, God is Justice - Divine sense
P2 Love =/= Justice -Divine sense
C3 Cannot conclude - non-sequitor.

It is not non-sequitor.

How can you follow and jump to your premises to 'God does not exists'?

That is the result of contradiction in two premises.

We can arrive at a conclusion if;

P1 God is Love, Divine sense
P2 Love exists -Divine sense
C3 God exists - Divine sense.

This is problematic either since God cannot be different from Love and same to Love at the same time. When you say that God is Love you mean that Love is something that is God yet Love is not similar to God otherwise the premise becomes God is God which carry no information.

First the syllogism is logically correct BUT
I am not stating the premises are true and the whole argument is sound.

However,
the proposition 'God is Love' is a very common claim by Christians quoting Paul and elsewhere in the Bible. Such a claim imply God is Love and whatever else at the same time.
Thus from the theists POV, God is Love is an acceptable premise.
Personally I would not agree with it.

If you do not agree with it, then you have to present;
1. Syllogism that are logically correct,
2. With all premises that are true and real.

But you have not presented any of the above?

I have problem with God is Love in the first premise. I notice that later. To me it is inconsistent if Love is different from God and carry no information if Love is God.

[Prismatic567]

Thus your sylllogism should be;

P1 God is Love, God is Justice - Divine sense
P2 Love =/= Justice -Divine sense
C3 Cannot conclude - non-sequitor.

It is not non-sequitor.

How can you follow and jump to your premises to 'God does not exists'?

That is the result of contradiction in two premises.

That is the point.
When your two premises has a contradiction, then your syllogism is wrong, thus
you cannot proceed to have a conclusion, i.e. non-sequitor.

Another point is;

Re your premise;
P1 God is Love, God is Justice

Your above premise1 is flawed and false.
You seem to have jumped to the conclusion "P1 God is Love, God is Justice" without proof that God exists. 'God exists' is heavily disputed. You admitted you do not agree 'God is Love.'
If your P1 is unproven and false, how can you proceed with your argument.
You cannot start an argument with a false premise.

Note;

All men [humans] are mortal - empirical- undisputable inductive fact
Socrates is a man - empirical historical fact
Socrates is mortal - empirical conclusion

As you can see the above syllogism is based on premises that are undisputable and established empirical facts.

[bahman]

That is the result of contradiction in two premises.

That is the point.
When your two premises has a contradiction, then your syllogism is wrong, thus
you cannot proceed to have a conclusion, i.e. non-sequitor.

Another point is;

Re your premise;
P1 God is Love, God is Justice

Your above premise1 is flawed and false.
You seem to have jumped to the conclusion "P1 God is Love, God is Justice" without proof that God exists. 'God exists' is heavily disputed. You admitted you do not agree 'God is Love.'
If your P1 is unproven and false, how can you proceed with your argument.
You cannot start an argument with a false premise.

Note;

All men [humans] are mortal - empirical- undisputable inductive fact
Socrates is a man - empirical historical fact
Socrates is mortal - empirical conclusion

As you can see the above syllogism is based on premises that are undisputable and established empirical facts.

That is not a standard syllogism yet still valid. It is about two statements which both are assumed to be true. Two statement however leads to a contradiction. So you either have to drop one of the statement or conclude that such a entity cannot exist.