(December 20, 2016 at 6:41 pm)RiddledWithFear Wrote: A little while ago I was debating about the term "God doesn't exist" and someone said that one says it because it's easier, instead of saying something completely unneeded like, "Due to complete lack of evidence, a god concept should be thought of as highly improbable and therefore should be exist. That got me thinking. Would the "claim" "God doesn't exist" be thought of as more of a conclusion that God doesn't exist, i.e. "Due to lack of evidence, one can safely conclude that a theistic God shouldn't exist," which would be shortened to, "God doesn't exist"? Thanks in advance.
I've never thought it proper to formulate propositions concerning poorly defined things. So I have no need to make a stand regarding a god's existence.