Posted: Jan 07, 2018 6:32 pm
MS2 wrote:Tracer Tong wrote:MS2 wrote:Thommo wrote:Yes, that is a fair point MS2.
We know that there is such a thing (and therefore that such a thing is physically/metaphysically possible) as intelligent life, but we do not know there is such a thing as a creator of universes. This is again an evidence based distinction. I would, however, slightly agree with the theist here that such things do technically need to be pointed out if we want to make a distinction between our strength of non-belief or confidence of non-belief on the one issue rather than the other.
I think that if I attempt to evaluate how surprised I would be if tomorrow (a) Sweden was shown without a shadow of a doubt to exist, (b) Intelligent alien life was shown without a shadow of a doubt to exist or (c) The Catholic God was shown without a shadow of a doubt to exist, I can easily rank them in order of which would surprise me the most.
That assumes it is possible to show without a shadow of a doubt that the Catholic God exists. Whereas I was trying to say that god-concepts (hyphen specially added!) don't make sense (at least the ones I know about). If that's right, it is difficult to conceive how such an 'impossible thing' could be shown to exist.
How do they not make sense, in this respect?
I've never yet come across a modern god concept that doesn't carry with it its own impossibilities. For example, the Catholic God mentioned by Thommo is supposedly 3-persons-yet-1-person, both human and divine, etc etc. In this context, we were talking about whether there could be evidence for the existence of something and I was thinking about a couple of things. First, if a supposed 'thing' cannot be sensibly described then it can't be known what sort of evidence there should be for us to look for. Second, if the supposed 'thing' has internal impossibilities, then, regardless of absence of external evidence, the presence of internal impossibilities is reason to disbelieve (as opposed to just not making a judgement).
I see. With regards to the Catholic god, the idea isn't 3-persons-yet-1-person, though it's probably true to say it amounts to that unless one is prepared to make some fairly convenient metaphysical commitments.
But that aside, if you're interested in assessing whether a god can be shown to exist, wouldn't it be reasonable to start with the less elaborate god-concepts of philosophy, than with those of religion? Unless you've studied those and also found them wanting, of course.