That'a a self-refuted argument. A "common factor" is an abstraction and is as such merely a mind representation, not something with objective, concrete existence.
Interesting point. What do you mean by "concrete"? And surely, by definition
, the act of finding a "common factor" is an attempt to go from the subjective to the objective? For example, all of the things that I regard as "concrete" (including actual concrete) could be regarded as the "common factor" in a whole load of subjective perceptions. That's what it means
for something to be objective (in my view at least).
I think it's not unreasonable to try to analyse this god concept by looking at how various cultures around the world and throughout history have used that word (or similar words in various languages) and try to see what they have in common. If we discover something that they do
have in common then there are two broad categories of conclusions from this:
1. It says something inteesting about our common human psychology and nature.
2. It indicates the objective existence of something, of which the various beliefs are imperfect interpretations.
Clearly you and I tend towards option 1. Some others tend towards option 2.
More to the point that 60+ pages of discussing the existence of nothing is still nothing.
Welcome to the philosophy club!
Furthermore, at least making abstractions of concrete things goes somewhere, but here you're advocating for discussing the existence of a broader category of abstractions: the concept of many different concepts. As if we needed more proof that theism is nonsensical babble.
Whether or not we regard it as "nonsensical babble" I think it's difficult to deny that religious thought pervades human history and culture. That alone makes it an interesting subject to me. In the society where I live I am surrounded by its trappings and consequences. Churches, laws, customs etc. It would be odd, to me, to want to ignore that.
Why not dealing with each concept at a time?
I'm up for that too. But I also like to try to spot general patterns in specific instances.
The answer is quite obvious: to shield the common theist from rational inquiries. Whenever his/her particular faith is shaken, there will be that emergency door to the argument: "oh well, I meant some other concept of god". Slippery sophistry!!
Possibly. But I for one have no desire to shield anyone from anything. (At least in the context of verbal argument.)