rationalskepticism.org

Tracer Tong wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

MS2 wrote:
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.