Posted: Jan 08, 2018 12:46 pm
SkyMutt wrote:Tracer Tong wrote: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.
Perhaps you could explain those "metaphysical commitments" that give a clearer representation of the Catholic god, because "3 persons yet 1 person" is in plain language exactly what the Catholic catechism teaches.
...
In my opinion, "metaphysical" in this and most other instances is a glorified term for hand-waving, but by all means show me the error in my understanding.
I couldn’t, because I made no such claim.
And that is not exactly what the catechism you quoted teaches “in plain language”; indeed, it seems to deploy just the sort of convenient metaphysical assumptions I alluded to in order to avoid such a position, your quotation helpfully illustrating my point. You may not be persuaded by such metaphysical high jinks, and I’m really not either.
MS2 wrote:Tracer Tong wrote:MS2 wrote:
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.
Good point.
And I haven't studied them. I suppose that tho I'm aware they exist I've never felt any reason to do so because I've assumed the religious versions are the ones that 'matter' because they are the the ones that have effects (through their followers) in the real world. I guess I have also presumed that if some philosopher had come up with a credible, workable god concept I would have heard about it, eg when reading around, or on a board like this.
I guess it depends on what you like to read; unless you’re specifically reading philosophy of religion stuff, you probably won’t encounter philosophically oriented definitions of god. From my limited reading in the area, it doesn’t seem as though the internal coherence of god-concepts is routinely questioned; the interest lies more in asking why the existence of a god described by such a concept seems at odds with facts of the world.