Does God exist? (23 Viewers)

[jdennis]

Ok. Perhaps one or both of us is not getting our message across properly. Let me see if I can sum up what I am saying.

1. If we accept that God is as the Bible describes him, he is benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient.
2. A benevolent God would not allow suffering, because God has the power (he is omnipotent) to avoid it. Being omniscient, he also has the power to avoid all future suffering.
3. Reality shows that suffering occurs.
4. Therefore reality contradicts the claim that God is benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient.
5. Therefore God cannot exist as described in the Bible.

Now I understand, Sy123, that you are not a Christian so perhaps the argument doesn't really apply to your beliefs. But the Christian God is the one with which I am most familiar, and most religious people I know are Christians. Therefore, that is the God I'm discussing here, I'm afraid I don't have a good enough understanding at this time of other religions, particularly Islam, to say whether the same argument applies to those gods.

You seem to want me to provide evidence for saying that God's actions are "evil" and that he has no reason to act as he does. In response, two things:
1. I do not have to prove that God does not have sufficient reasons to allow suffering. That would be a reversal of burden of proof. The theist claims that God has "morally sufficient reasons", therefore it is he/she that must prove this. I accept that morally sufficient reasons are, like you say, conceivable, but just because something is conceivable does not mean it is true. It is conceivable that it will rain tomorrow, but this may not actually happen.
2. If we define "evil" as morally wrong, then we see that God allowing suffering, death and pain to occur is clearly against society's moral standards and therefore evil. If God always acts in line with morality, a contradiction emerges unless it can be proven that God has a morally sufficient reason to allow suffering. This has not been provided.

On what basis do you have to say that what God commanded and allowed is evil? If you say it is objective, you must provide proof. If you say it is subjective, I say that subjectivity does not apply to God, since God is above all humanely constructed morals.

Let me flip it around. On what basis do you have to say that what God commanded and allowed is morally acceptable?

God may have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil since it is perfectly conceivable for there to be morally sufficient reasons

I already said that it is perfectly conceivable and possible for God to have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil

I know you said this, calm down. As I said, something being conceivable does not make it true.

By definition, God is all-Knowing, this is based on the commonly accepted definition of God, and is part of God's attributes based in the Bible and pretty much every other scripture. So if you want to prove that God does not exist, you must deal with the definition at hand and show a contradiction.

By definition, God is also benevolent, providing the contradiction you refer to. This is the basis of my argument, I've done exactly what you say is required

Of course, if I want to prove that God exists, I need to prove that this attribute is a part of the being that I want to show exists.

Exactly.

Your argument seems to me to be simply a fancily-worded version of "God works in mysterious ways" - that because suffering exists, there must be some divine justification for it even if we do not know what this is. This is a faith-based position as there is no evidence in the Bible (the Bible provides our definition of the Christian God) or elsewhere for any morally sufficient reason.

I'm not going to get into the Trinity idea or the cosmological argument at this stage, not because I don't want to have that debate but because I want to focus on the issue we're talking about now.

 

[Sy123]

Ok. Perhaps one or both of us is not getting our message across properly. Let me see if I can sum up what I am saying.

1. If we accept that God is as the Bible describes him, he is benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient.
2. A benevolent God would not allow suffering, because God has the power (he is omnipotent) to avoid it. Being omniscient, he also has the power to avoid all future suffering.
3. Reality shows that suffering occurs.
4. Therefore reality contradicts the claim that God is benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient.
5. Therefore God cannot exist as described in the Bible.

Now I understand, Sy123, that you are not a Christian so perhaps the argument doesn't really apply to your beliefs. But the Christian God is the one with which I am most familiar, and most religious people I know are Christians. Therefore, that is the God I'm discussing here, I'm afraid I don't have a good enough understanding at this time of other religions, particularly Islam, to say whether the same argument applies to those gods.

In fact I deny you that, if you really had knowledge of who the Christian God is, you would not be forwarding such a pitiful argument

You seem to want me to provide evidence for saying that God's actions are "evil" and that he has no reason to act as he does. In response, two things:
1. I do not have to prove that God does not have sufficient reasons to allow suffering. That would be a reversal of burden of proof. The theist claims that God has "morally sufficient reasons", therefore it is he/she that must prove this. I accept that morally sufficient reasons are, like you say, conceivable, but just because something is conceivable does not mean it is true. It is conceivable that it will rain tomorrow, but this may not actually happen.

I do not need to prove explicitly what this 'sufficient reason' is. Since my statement, "God may have morally sufficient reasons to allow for suffering" is a refutation to the claim that God is evil since He allows evil in the world.

My response is that, no it does not necessarily follow that God is evil because He allows evil in the world, since He may have morally sufficient reasons, since you admit that these reasons are conceivable and thus possible, then it follows that it is possible God has morally sufficient reasons to allow evil.

This is enough to disprove the statement that, God is evil since He allows suffering.

2. If we define "evil" as morally wrong, then we see that God allowing suffering, death and pain to occur is clearly against society's moral standards and therefore evil. If God always acts in line with morality, a contradiction emerges unless it can be proven that God has a morally sufficient reason to allow suffering. This has not been provided.

Who says that it is morally wrong for God to allow suffering, death and pain?

If you say that it is wrong on an objective account, you must provide proof
If you say that it is wrong on a subjective account, then what you say is completely meaningless

Let me flip it around. On what basis do you have to say that what God commanded and allowed is morally acceptable?

You made the claim that God is evil, since He allows suffering, thus you must show that what God did is evil

By definition, God is also benevolent, providing the contradiction you refer to. This is the basis of my argument, I've done exactly what you say is required

Exactly.

Your argument seems to me to be simply a fancily-worded version of "God works in mysterious ways" - that because suffering exists, there must be some divine justification for it even if we do not know what this is. This is a faith-based position as there is no evidence in the Bible (the Bible provides our definition of the Christian God) or elsewhere for any morally sufficient reason.

Nowhere do I claim that because suffering exists, then there must be divine justification, you have entered this thread with a preconceived notion of what theists say, that they are all apologetic and unsophisticated

My posts are a refutation to your claim against the existence of God from evil, I do not need to prove that God exists to show that your argument fails, I only need to point out a flaw in the argument to show that the argument fails.

I'm not going to get into the Trinity idea or the cosmological argument at this stage, not because I don't want to have that debate but because I want to focus on the issue we're talking about now.

Why? It is most definitely a trivial issue that bears very little weight on anything. Your argument is used by atheist priests and preachers everywhere and it is easily swatted away by many apologist answers.

Perhaps the real issue is whether you can refute the very compelling arguments that I have presented.

 

[jdennis]

I feel like I'm repeating myself. Let me (once again, exactly like I did in my last post) make my position clear, as follows:

I am not claiming that God is "evil" because he allows evil in the world (you put these words in my mouth).

I am claiming that reality does not match the description of the Christian God as benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient.

This is enough to disprove the statement that, God is evil since He allows suffering.

Yes it is. Sadly for you, that's not what I'm claiming.

Who says that it is morally wrong for God to allow suffering, death and pain?

This comes back to the idea of God being benevolent as described in the Bible. We have to find a definition for "benevolent". Then, if reality contradicts this definition we can conclude that the God of the Bible does not exist.
Now, I would define benevolent in this context as being what the writers of the Bible thought of as benevolent, that is, morally correct in terms of their own understanding of morality, which formed as a result of evolution. This would not include suffering, death and pain. Therefore a contradiction is clear.

Nowhere do I claim that because suffering exists, then there must be divine justification

Surely if there is no divine justification, then the problem of suffering cannot be explained by God?

I agree with you that this issue really isn't significant and probably doesn't have a great deal of importance in terms of whether or not God exists. If you're right, and suffering isn't a problem, that certainly doesn't prove the existence of God, I'm sure you'll agree. But it is interesting to discuss anyway.

 

[Sy123]

If you really did only want to look at the Christian God, and why it just 'doesn't fit' why did you say all this in response to the question "Does God Exist?" (which were the very first words of yours in this thread) and then after that you said 'substitute any other god' etc.

Lets look at this section of the post:

Despite being omnipotent and omniscient, God chose to only reveal himself to some first century peasants who despite being unable to write, were entrusted with the word of God that was later written down in a contradictory and morally disgusting book called the Bible. Despite relentless questioning from atheists for evidence, God chooses to hide away from the Earth he created and watch people who don't have enough faith be judged when they die.

Things you need to prove, as you claimed them:

- Why being ominpotent and omniscient entails that God cannot reveal himself to 'first century peasants'
- You need to clarify your statement about it being morally disgusting, if you say this subjectively, your statement means nothing is thus meant nothing but as a form of insult
If you mean it objectively, you need proof
- That the arguments for the existence of God, which are many are all invalid, since you did say that you are asking for evidence, and that God is 'hiding'

Rather God is not hiding, it is you who is hiding from God, the truth of his existence is obvious to any person who wants to see.

 

[dan964]

[QUOTE from jdennis] 1. If we accept that God is as the Bible describes him, he is benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient.
2. A benevolent God would not allow suffering, because God has the power (he is omnipotent) to avoid it. Being omniscient, he also has the power to avoid all future suffering.
3. Reality shows that suffering occurs.
4. Therefore reality contradicts the claim that God is benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient.
5. Therefore God cannot exist as described in the Bible. [/QUOTE]

Statement (2) sort of makes the assumption that God is bound to our sense of goodness and judgement.
The undertone of (2) "God is obliged to prevent suffering because suffering is bad, and God is good"

Sometimes suffering is caused by our own desires (or others) (in particular selfish ones).

Consider the following example:
If a parent was shopping with their little child, and that little child really wanted a soft drink or cookie, but the mother knowing that it was best for the child, said no. Is the mother really to blame, if the child starts crying or throwing a tantrum???


(A) Imagine a world without suffering, you can't. Statement (3) is indeed correct.
(B) But what is ironic, is that suffering despite being bad, God uses for good, to show us how vulnerable it is.

(C) Of course God does not cause suffering but rather allows it happen. Why? In the very hope, that we can see our brokeness, bitterness and vulnerability; and turn to him and trust in him.
(D) We have the hope of a day without suffering and living with Jesus for eternity; if we have faith in him.

If there was no God, there would never be any end to suffering or hope.

C.S Lewis, author of the well-known Narnia series, once said that "suffering is God's megaphone to the world" - this is true. God uses the times when we are weak, broken and uses them for good.

(E) Statement (4) thus is false, if (and only if) God is good as he is revealed in the Bible. Thus ultimately statement (5) is wrong.

 

[astroman]

 

[jdennis]

The undertone of (2) "God is obliged to prevent suffering because suffering is bad, and God is good"

Pretty much.

Sometimes suffering is caused by our own desires (or others) (in particular selfish ones).

If God is omnipotent, omniscient it shouldn't matter where the suffering originates, it is still in God's power to stop it.

Consider the following example:
If a parent was shopping with their little child, and that little child really wanted a soft drink or cookie, but the mother knowing that it was best for the child, said no. Is the mother really to blame, if the child starts crying or throwing a tantrum???

The analogy suggests that we do not know for ourselves what is or is not suffering, that we are like little children who do not understand the concept of suffering. Not only is it patronising to suggest that one does not know what pain is without the guidance of a divine being, but in many cases that simply isn't true. Extreme forms of suffering are fairly obviously harmful and cannot be compared to trivial instances involving ignorant children.

(B) But what is ironic, is that suffering despite being bad, God uses for good, to show us how vulnerable it is.

(C) Of course God does not cause suffering but rather allows it happen. Why? In the very hope, that we can see our brokeness, bitterness and vulnerability; and turn to him and trust in him.

This is simply disgusting. Are you suggesting that the Holocaust, the World Wars, infant death and murder are morally justifiable because they are God's way of gaining our "faith"? I don't know about you but the last reason I would believe in a benevolent God would be because I'm suffering.

(A) Imagine a world without suffering, you can't.
-later in post-
(D) We have the hope of a day without suffering and living with Jesus for eternity; if we have faith in him.

So you can't imagine the world without suffering, but you're happy to put your "faith" in that day arriving. Hmm.

If there was no God, there would never be any end to suffering or hope.

This has nothing to do with the question.

C.S Lewis, author of the well-known Narnia series, once said that "suffering is God's megaphone to the world" - this is true. God uses the times when we are weak, broken and uses them for good.

Once again, try telling someone who's family was murdered in the Holocaust that their suffering is "for good".

(E) Statement (4) thus is false, if (and only if) God is good as he is revealed in the Bible. Thus ultimately statement (5) is wrong.

Statement four is only false if we follow your logic that suffering is for an over-arching good purpose. I hope I don't have to convince you that this sentiment is purely horrific. Therefore you have no basis on which to say that statement 5 is false.

 

[jdennis]

Can I deal with burden of proof here quickly. The problem with my original post (and this is as a result of the rhetoric I used) is that it sort of assumes that the initial position is that God exists, and therefore I must "prove" he doesn't. I don't think this is accurate and I want to clear up what is going on. Statements numbered for convenience.

1. In the beginning (pardon the pun) we have to assume that God does not exist. This must be the default position as to say God exists is making a claim and therefore requires proof.

2. My argument is a rebuttal against the argument that a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God exists as described in the Bible. It is pointing out a flaw in the argument for the Christian God. It is not claiming anything, it is simply asking the theist to explain the problem of suffering in his/her argument for God.

3. At this point the theist is still making the more significant claim. He/she is claiming the existence of a God while I am only pointing out a flaw in this argument. So it is the theist who must explain the problem of suffering, not the atheist.

4. Therefore the theist has the burden of proof, and must say why suffering is morally justified.

I think if we can clear this up we will be able to understand the problem more fully.

 

[Sy123]

It is pointing out a flaw in the argument for the Christian God.

It is not claiming anything

You are clearly claiming that there is a flaw in the concept of a Christian God, you must provide proof from the Christian's theological texts, not from a lay exegesis of the Bible
I am not even Christian yet I respect that there is a vast tradition behind Christian theology, and for someone to come and (probably do a copypasta) of nonsense means absolutely nothing

it is simply asking the theist to explain the problem of suffering in his/her argument for God.

You did not just 'ask the theist to explain', you really did try to advance an argument for the non-existence of God from suffering

"Asking the theist to explain" does not look like this nonsense:

There are children in Africa starving to death under a loving God. Despite his hatred of homosexuality God created gay people so they could suffer and burn in hell. Natural disasters, global warming, pollution, war, disease, famine and infant death all occur under the watch of the good God. In order to create the chosen species of man, God had to first create, and then wipe out, over 90% of species that have ever existed on this Earth (which itself was placed right next to a giant ball of fire that will one day expand to destroy the Earth), through a slow and imperfect process of evolution. Despite man being created in God's image, people get sick and die from cancer, AIDS, strokes and millions of other horrible diseases. And we have an appendix - useful for nothing. God also created atheists, Muslims, Hindus etc. Presumably so they could all go to war with each other. God's first attempt at creation didn't work because Eve, being a stupid woman, chose to eat the apple that God placed there so he could tell her not to eat it. God then resorted to destroying his entire creation with a giant flood so that he could start again, entrusting a seemingly random man called Noah with the preservation of every species of life on the planet.

3. At this point the theist is still making the more significant claim. He/she is claiming the existence of a God while I am only pointing out a flaw in this argument.

Please state clearly what argument the theist is using and how looking at the Bible is somehow a refutation of the theist.

So it is the theist who must explain the problem of suffering, not the atheist.

You are being ambiguous, what entails an 'explanation', if you forward an argument from suffering against the existence of God, then this argument should be sound, which is where criticism of the argument begins, so I ask, do you claim suffering is objective or subjective?

4. Therefore the theist has the burden of proof, and must say why suffering is morally justified.

All the theist needs to do, to disprove the notion that the existence of God and suffering is logically incoherent, is to suggest that it is possible that God is morally justified in allowing evil. The mere possibility shows that God and suffering are not logically incoherent, since we can then conceive of God and suffering existing together, but if it is conceivable, then it is not impossible, thus not logically incoherent.

 

[Sy123]

http://seekersguidance.org/ans-blog...em-of-evil-and-a-summarized-islamic-response/

 

[jdennis]

http://seekersguidance.org/ans-blog...em-of-evil-and-a-summarized-islamic-response/

Talk about copy-and-pasting.

 

[Fade1233]

Why is this post still going on with a debate? Its a simple question 'the posts title'. @ Sy123 you should make a Marathon on this. This will go much further than anticipated for Math.

 

[jdennis]

Why is this post still going on with a debate?

Probably because uneducated idiots like me keep challenging the

vast tradition behind Christian theology

 

[turntaker]

If god exists why does ISIS exist

 

[Sy123]

If god exists why does ISIS exist

lmao

 

[Sy123]

Assumptions:

1) The truth of a syllogism
2) The reality of time



Defense of Premise 1

- Take the situation that something comes into existence uncaused, that thing must be contingent, for if it were impossible, it would never come into existence, and if it were necessary, then the thing would always exist. Since that thing is contingent, then its existence and non-existence are equally possible. If the thing then comes into existence without any reason, i.e. out of nothing, then preponderance is given to the existence of that thing over its non-existence. Since there is no cause, it then results in what is called, "Preponderance without a preferrer". This is of utmost inconceivability, and thus something cannot come into existence uncaused.

- If something can come into existence uncaused, then given absolutely nothing, something can come into existence. Since 'nothing' cannot give preponderance to certain things over others (since 'nothing' has no properties), then anything and everything can come into nothing. This is of utmost inconceviability and thus something cannot come into existence uncaused.

- The premise is self-evident, those who deny this premise should give evidence as to why such a self-evident premise is wrong

Defense of Premise 2

- If the Universe has existed since pre-eternity, then this entails an infinite regress of contingent events. However every contingent causal chain has a first term, since the first term is the actual 'true cause' of the entire chain of causes. In an infinite regress there is no 'true cause' and therefore no causation can happen.

- If the Universe has existence since pre-eternity, then this entails an actual infinite number of past events. The concept of the actual infinite does not exist in the real world. For it leads to contradictions to the law of non-contradiction. Say I had an actually infinite number of marbles, and you took an infinite amount, if all that remained for me were 1 marble, you took an infinite amount of marbles. But if there were 2, or 3 or 5 or 26 marbles left for me, you still took an infinite amount of marbles. Thus, the same situation has led to many different possibilites, this of course contradicts the law of non-contradiction, meaning that A and not-A cannot both be true. Since an actual infinite cannot exist in the real world, there can not exist an actually infinite number of past events. Thus the universe cannot be pre-eternal.

Defense of Premise 4
- If the Universe has a cause, then this cause is immaterial, and outside space and time since the Universe is all of space and time, thus the cause of the universe is transcendent

- If the Universe has a cause, then this cause has a Will, since if the Universe was caused by a non-conscious cause, then the cause cannot give preponderance to the existence of the Universe over its non-existence. Since they are of equal possibility. Therefore the cause of the Universe must have a Will, and thus be conscious.

- If the cause has a Will, then a Will entails Life, and Life entails Power and Knowledge

- If this cause has Life, Power, Knowledge and is transcendent, then all these properties must be perfect. If the cause's Power and Knowledge were finite in ability, then it requires a preponderator to give preponderance to a certain measure of Power and Knowledge over others, i.e. if the cause can only effect vegetarian pizzas, it must be asked why vegetarian pizzas only, and not vegetarian and meat pizzas as well. These are of equal possibility, and thus entails an accidental property in the eternal Cause of the universe. But of course any accidental property requires a preponderator to give importance to that specific accident over others. This is entirely avoided if the attributes are perfect. Therefore, the cause has perfect Knowledge, and Power and Will.

- If this cause has Life, perfect Power, perfect Knowledge, has Will and is transcendent, then this is what all people of intelligence calls God

- Thus if the Universe has a cause, then this cause is God

 

[Carrotsticks]

Defense of Premise 1

- Take the situation that something comes into existence uncaused, that thing must be contingent, for if it were impossible, it would never come into existence, and if it were necessary, then the thing would always exist. Since that thing is contingent, then its existence and non-existence are equally possible. If the thing then comes into existence without any reason, i.e. out of nothing, then preponderance is given to the existence of that thing over its non-existence. Since there is no cause, it then results in what is called, "Preponderance without a preferrer". This is of utmost inconceivability, and thus something cannot come into existence uncaused.

- If something can come into existence uncaused, then given absolutely nothing, something can come into existence. Since 'nothing' cannot give preponderance to certain things over others (since 'nothing' has no properties), then anything and everything can come into nothing. This is of utmost inconceviability and thus something cannot come into existence uncaused.

- The premise is self-evident, those who deny this premise should give evidence as to why such a self-evident premise is wrong

I'll approach your arguments word by word, and colour code it because far too many debates on here go in circles, often with points being forgotten and re-re-raised many times.

Red - Sort of ok, by 'contingent' you mean 'by chance'? Can you verify?

Light Red - Ok

Green - I do not understand this part.

Why is it that if something is necessary, then it must always exist?

What do you mean by 'something is necessary'? Can you provide an example?

 

[Sy123]

I'll approach your arguments word by word, and colour code it because far too many debates on here go in circles, often with points being forgotten and re-re-raised many times.

Red - Sort of ok, by 'contingent' you mean 'by chance'? Can you verify?

Light Red - Ok

Green - I do not understand this part.

Why is it that if something is necessary, then it must always exist?

What do you mean by 'something is necessary'? Can you provide an example?

The issue comes here with vocabulary

Every single thing, whether existent or non-existent can be classified into 3 categories:

- Impossibile
- Contingent
- Necessary

What is impossible cannot ever exist, for example, square circles, married bachelors, and a place north of the north pole
What is contingent can exist and is conceivable for it to not exist, such as unicorns, human beings, chairs etc. It could be the case that in 'some possible world' that these things exist/not-exist, so they are called contingent
What is necessary cannot, not exist. For example, laws of logic. There is 'no such world' where the laws of logic do not apply, meaning the laws of logic are 'necessarily existent'

There are in fact multiple ways in which philosophers have defined these terms, I have given you one way (albeit in an unsophisticated manner), another way they have done so is:

- What is impossible exists in no possible worlds
- What is contingent exists in some possible worlds
- What is necessary exists in all possible worlds

Where 'possible worlds' are just a hypothetical scenario. So there are no hypothetical scenarios in which square-circles exist, but there are hypothetical scenarios in which unicorns exist. And there are no hypothetical scenarios in which the laws of logic are violated.

Now, as you might be able to tell, if something is necessarily existent, it cannot 'come into existence' because there would be a moment where it does not exist, but this is inconceivable since all necessary things cannot, not exist.

If that thing is impossible, then it cannot not exist

Therefore, that thing must be contingent

If something is contingent, then there is equal possibility for it to exist or not exist

Since there is equal possibilities, but at the same time the thing came into existence. Meaning "preponderance" is given to the thing to exist. Preponderance means 'given importance, or superiority'

So again to give an example of things that are necessarily existent, are laws of logic

And if you follow a certain mathematical philosophy, then you can include numbers and shape-definitions among that which is necessarily existent, i.e. the number 2 cannot not exist, it always exist no matter what

But I think we all agree that laws of logic cannot be violated at all, it is absurd to think that something can contradict the law of non-contradiction for instance. However if someone denies the laws of logic, there is no point in opening dialogue with that person since the syllogism doesn't work

I welcome your attempt at any sincere questions and attempt to understand, this is what this thread should be about

If you want a greater elaboration on this argument, I suggest you read Dr William Lane Craig's book "The Kalam Cosmological Argument", it is not a very long read but it is useful, however there are some points he does not touch upon which I do (such as the concept of preponderance without a preferrer)

 

[Carrotsticks]

I have some issue with your definition of "impossible".

The reason why is because we really cannot ever really tell conclusively what is impossible or contingent in our present. You may provide examples of things that are "obviously" impossible (such as a married bachelor, though that is impossible by definition, rather than impossible by observation).

For example, a triangle with angles adding to be > 180 degrees was thought to be impossible, then spherical geometry came in and it was then possible. It was thought that parallel lines can never intersect, then projective geometry came in.

We can never really determine what is possible or impossible, without venturing beyond our world (In Euclidean space, angles in a triangle cannot add to 180 degrees if we strictly stay in said space, but extend this space to a sphere...).

But here's the kicker.

How can we venture beyond our world without knowing the existence of it? And how can we know the existence of it without venturing beyond our world?

 

[Sy123]

I have some issue with your definition of "impossible".

The reason why is because we really cannot ever really tell conclusively what is impossible or contingent in our present. You may provide examples of things that are "obviously" impossible (such as a married bachelor, though that is impossible by definition, rather than impossible by observation).

For example, a triangle with angles adding to be > 180 degrees was thought to be impossible, then spherical geometry came in and it was then possible. It was thought that parallel lines can never intersect, then projective geometry came in.

But that is equivocating the word triangle here, triangle when it is meant in a Euclidean sense, has angle addition to 180 degrees. Sure when you look at Spherical geometry a 'triangle' has greater than 180 angle addition, but that is trivial. But again, if you don't want to take shape definitions as necessary, that is actually fine since you may hold to a different Mathematical philosophy. However surely you cannot deny the necessity of the laws of logic?

We can never really determine what is possible or impossible, without venturing beyond our world (In Euclidean space, angles in a triangle cannot add to 180 degrees if we strictly stay in said space, but extend this space to a sphere...).

But here's the kicker.

How can we venture beyond our world without knowing the existence of it? And how can we know the existence of it without venturing beyond our world?

The reason why impossible things are impossible is because they contradict what is necessary. i.e. square circles are impossible since they contradict the law of non-contradiction, which is what we take to be necessary.

Again if you want to deny the law of non-contradiction, you can go ahead, but dialogue then becomes utterly impossible since everything and anything becomes absolutely meaningless if you deny the laws of logic.

We do not need to explore the universe to know married bachelors do not exist, since they cannot exist by the very virtue of the fact that it is a contradictory concept

Nevertheless the issue of contingency/impossibility/necessity is a side issue, rather I was employing these terms to give weight to the first premise, which again is self-evident and if you want to deny it then you need evidence