Posted: Aug 22, 2018 9:40 am
aban57 wrote:
You're right, I don't see what you mean by specification in that context. Maybe you can explain us why you think theists claims can't be proven wrong ?
I don't (myself) treat theist claims as truth-apt. Perhaps I misunderstood your requests for proof/evidence as implying you think theist claims are truth-apt, or (in another sense) empirical claims. To ask theists for evidence is to give far too much respect to their claims.
You don't care to try to prove them wrong, either, aban, so don't ask me for criteria you anticipate are impossible. Instead you demand they give you evidence or proof. Perhaps the problem is that you regard their claims as challenges demanding a response. You can't call their bluff by asking for evidence. They seldom recant their belief in the face of that, do they?
What I mean, for my part, is that I don't ask theists for evidence or proof, which would require me to wait around for them to deliver it. Along with that, I don't assume that I know what they denote by "God". If it's the creator god, we already dismiss that because of ignorant goat-roasters and the scope of modern cosmology. If you don't think the creator god is an absurd concept, for which you should not ask for evidence, why don't you think so?
To see what I mean, just give an example of what you think a typical theist claim is that you regard as something for which you should await evidence or proof. Try to imagine what specification you would give them so that they could answer you. The creator god discorporated ages ago for anyone who is not a theist.
Anyway: Specification. If a deity created the cosmos, what should the evidence be? Human consciousnessness or fee-fees? Why the literal fuck? If anyone thinks god is more than a feeling, there's that song from the 70s by Boston.