no. but science is different than conversation. i might say it is impossible the kansas city royals will win the next 50 world series, and there would be no need to correct me and remind me that is a actually a very very improbable event, not an impossible one. depends on what you mean by god. if you mean christian god, then i think it is so unlikely as to not be worth discussing, like discussing whether santa claus is real or not. maybe santa is real, but i do not think he is. if you mean god in a completely vague sense so that it mean whatever is powering the universe, then that is a little different. some people phrase it in such a way that their description of god has no meaning. i think there are some words which are not meant to be taken in their most ridiculously literal sense in context. god is possible in the sense that anything is possible. i think the odds of a christian god being real are roughly the same as the odds that you are god.
it was said in a scientific context, as he was quoting students of oral tradition. I agree, it would be okay for me to say that it would be impossible for me to QB the N.O. Saints, but, that is a different context, the one you keep describing. However, if you state that it's impossible for God to exist, i'll have to Hume you. But you didn't do that. IN idle conversation, unproveable absolutes are accepted. In debates of this nature, they are not.
i think praying to god is far less rational than if you started clearing space on your shelves for the mvp and super bowl trophies that you are going to win next year as qb of the saints. obviously. i dont think the spaghetti monster is "impossible" either. but again, anyone who discuss the spaghetti monster seriously as if he were real would deserve a solid mocking. as a society, we dont seem to be able to grasp that christians are just as insane as serious and sincere FSM followers. fine, but i think that is over the top, being that stringent and literal. nobody doesnt know what someone means when they are not 100% literal.
