Of course. Mind you it's one thing to attempt to prove or disprove something using logic, it's another to use logic to determine whether a question is well-defined. I'm very suspicious of attempts to reject the notion of God on the basis of incoherence simply because if there is a God then he is at least in part well beyond the comprehension of humans. I suspect that any success in the endevour would just spotlight a limitation in human intellectual equipment rather than express a truth. By this I don't mean that the logical steps would be flawed, but that logic itself would be unequal to the task set and an inappropriate tool with which to explore the issue.
I think we pretty much agree! I find it interesting how I'm basically like "sure, I probably won't be convinced by said formal argument but it would be fun to have a taste of it anyway", whereas you seem to be more... reserved about that Maybe my Ti isn't that bad after all.
Of course, I'm (literally) agnostic when it comes to the topic of God's existence, whereas you are a believer so it's probably easier for me to approach the topic completely neutrally. I might try to have a look at one of those ignostic arguments. They might say something interesting even if they fail.
Last edited: