Sure. I’m going with Heinlein here – “God” has no objective referent in the material world to which one can point and have universal agreement as to the meaning of the term. Those of us who believe in Him often define Him in quite different ways – get jthunder and zev_steinhart to have a go at the Doctrine of the Trinity, if you don’t see my point here.
“God” is “the present King of France” – not in a sense that would startle clairobscur, but in terms of the usage of a term to identify someone or something that has no objective natural referent at the time of speaking.
Nonetheless, rational statements can be made about the above. I can discuss learnedly what theologians and Church Fathers have said about God; an evangelical Protestant can disagree with me about what He expects of humanity, and while we will disagree, we will do so using a common vocabulary and reference material. An atheist member can identify what I mean by God well enough to assert that such an entity does not in fact exist. And so on.
Whether or not “the present King of France” is guilty of assaulting you, or suffers from male pattern baldness, one can make comments that reference him with some degree of intelligence. For example, “the present King of France would be a member of the House of Orleans” is a true statement – reworded, “If France still had a king, he would be from that lineage” – and this is quite a bit more probable than his being a Bernadotte, a Romanov, or a Ch’ung.
In short, an object or person with no visible physical referent can be so well defined by the terminology used to identify it or him that intelligible, non-incoherent statements are possible regarding it or him.
For someone to say ‘The invisible pink unicorn kicked me with her hooves’ is somewhat more reasonable a statement than ‘The invisible pink unicorn tastes like lemonade’ – and one can argue the plausibility of those two statements using standard, universally agreed referents.
In past discussions of prime numbers, I’ve pointed out that “one” is not regarded as a prime, despite its fitting the most common plain-English definition of primes, for good reasons – because the abstract concept of “prime number” permits some interesting and useful theorems in number theory that would be defeated by regarding one as a prime. If this is acceptable, when the entire idea of “number” is a human abstraction, then terminology that adequately defines a non-existent or only hypothetically or faith-based existent entity, like “the present king of France” or “the Judeo-Christian God” or “the invisible pink unicorn” has a coherent conceptual referent, even if not a physical one.
For example, with what we know of human genetics, “the present King of France is bald” is inherently a much more likely-to-be-true statement than “the present Queen of France is bald.” And “the present king of France is Slovakian” or “the present king of France is gay” are sentences that have coherent meanings, even if not a real-world referent to affirm or refute them.
