(December 11, 2016 at 5:54 pm)Mudhammam Wrote:(December 11, 2016 at 5:30 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Yeah, that there's solipsism, essentially. But we cannot think something into reality, can we?Okay, so let's parse it like this: Some claims about God purport to be true (God exists) but not factual in the sense of verification; others more specifically claim to be both (God came to earth, say, in the form a politician). Do you agree with me that an atheist is mistaken, perhaps naively so, to reply to the theist who is asserting God as a truth (nay, THE truth) in "necessarily abstract" terms (rather than as "a fact") with the statement that "claims demand evidence"?
Truth is necessarily abstract. Facts are not.
No, I would not. Any claim about the nature of a thing is meaningless without evidence of the existence of that thing.
Talk of the attributes of any god is meaningless drivel.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
