Hello again Gnomon.

The sad fact is that playing this 'game' can also do real damage out in the real world.

Here in the UK we have a long history of young people who, deciding on a career in politics, head to Oxford* to read PPE (politics, philosophy and economics) with a view to 'making it' in politics, where they can make or influence national decisions. They choose PPE because that's how many earlier prime ministers and cabinet ministers got into politics.

Unfortunately, based on the evidence, reading PPE means in most cases that they have little connection with or understanding of the real world; cannot or dare not question 'experts' from other disciplines who present (for example) scientific or statistical evidence; and are not good at assessing candidates for jobs or promotion - for example they'll recruit other PPE graduates rather than risk having to deal with anyone competent in maths or sciences or engineering or business and such. Economists they can of course cope with, given that most economists are not good at maths.

They succeed in politics because they are, of course, good at arguing their case, so long as the case only involves politics, philosophy or economics, and no-one raises any real-world aspects.

*Oxford is a small industrial city in the south midlands of England, where some kind of academic institution is based. The French do it even better - they have a whole academic institution designed to keep prospective politicians and civil servants isolated from the real world.

So it really is simply a game or pastime. That's OK with me. And I can see why some questions, for example about the morality or otherwise of assisted suicide (perennially in political debate here in the UK), have deep philosophical aspects that can be assisted by research and discussion. I can see that philosophical argument can help to advance our thinking and potentially deliver benefit, as opposed to entertainment.

And of course I recognise that people with 'faiths' have a view (or an axe to grind) in such debates, though in most cases perhaps not a view based on reasoned and unbiased argument.

That still leaves me wondering whether (and if so why) it's a priority for my taxes to be spent on professional philosophers and pilosophy teachers continuing to debate the existence or otherwise of a god or gods? This certainly is, as you say, debatable.

I've seen arguments for 'philosophy in general' on the basis of "I've learned a lot from it", or "it teaches people how to think more clearly about issues". And I can see no reason why anyone should be constrained from choosing the subects they want to think about.
But why choose "is there a god" when there appears to be no way of getting past "we don't know and never will know". Unless of course "in the afterlife". But that's a matter of belief, not argument . . .

The atheists believe there is no god. Some people of faith believe there is. In my experience neither party brings much fun (or wisdom) to the 'game' of discussing the question.

Understood. Though I fancy the Catholic doctrinal quote misses (deliberately?) the fact that the Catholic church regards the existence of God as a matter not open to analytical ot other reasoning, as opposed to 'faith'.

Either way, that still begs my main question, whether effort by philosophers to prove or disprove the existing of god or gods is and endless quest with not hope of a generally agreed proof?

Hello and sorry to break into your discussion. I've a more direct underlying question. I'm a Christian, so I don't know whether or not there's any kind of god, I just have a fuzzy belief or hope or whatever. Having read various philosophy books treating on and around this topic "is there a god?", my perception is that this aspect of philosophy seems to be mainly a waste of time and (mental) energy. It seems to me that given the nature of what Christians and other monotheists call 'God' there just can't be a way to prove or disprove his, her or their existence - or otherwise.

Appreciate that for those who are so minded, studying all the efforts from historic times through today might be fruitful mental exercise and might even, for some individuals, lead to some personally useful outcomes, but not much chance (in my view, no chance at all) of answering the question.

So my own question is, are there philosophers who actually expect the question to be answered some day? If so, what's their underlying argument that makes them confident the question will be answerable in some definite way?