A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?

[Belacqua]

Here is Karl Popper's classic text on the "three worlds": non-physical, mental, and material.

There is nothing supernatural here, so it's safe for atheists.

https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_resourc...pper80.pdf

Generally, I think of reality as having at least two, and most likely more, apprehensible natures: one known by sense, the other by intellect. Seems more accurate than material or mental.

Yes, I think "sensible" and "intelligible" were a lot clearer, and less likely to cause confusion than their modern replacements. As so often, those old guys had good reasons for the terms they used, and we discard them at our peril.

I suspect that part of Popper's reason for using neutral terms ("World 1," etc.) was to avoid a single-word label that might mislead. Since "World 1" by itself doesn't mean much of anything, it forces us to read two or three pages to see exactly what he means by the term. And since the meaning is not exactly what we might imagine by "physical" or "material" he prompts us to be more careful.

But I'd be happy to stick with sensible and intelligible.