There’s been some discussion on this site and others whether it’s even useful to ask if there can be evidence for a god, given that the very notionof God is incoherent. I’ve maintained that there can indeed be evidence that would provisionally convince at least me of the existence of a divine being. But others disagree.
One of these is the Dutch philosopher Herman Philipse, whose new bookGod in the Age of Science? I am much enjoying. It’s a bit of a tough slog, as it’s academic and heavily philosophical, but I can still understand it. Philipse’s thesis is that the notion of God is indeed incoherent, but he also allows that even if you think it’s coherent, there’s no evidence supporting God’s existence. It’s a deeply thoughtful and powerful argument for atheism.
I’m not yet convinced that the question of God’s existence is incoherent, but Philipse makes some excellent points. Today’s lesson is how he argues for God’s incoherence.
Philipse takes as his starting point a widely-accepted concept of God, and it’s one adumbrated by a very respected theologian and philosopher of religion,Richard Swinburne. If it’s from Swinburne, it has street cred among philosophers.
Written By: Jerry Coynecontinue to source article at whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com