A Question From Atheists

[nosferatu323]

Add this proposition number 0 in the beginning to fix this:

0. The definitions for X that we pick up from the dictionary are assumed to be true. They are our premises. All the definitions that there are for X in authentic dictionaries and encyclopedias are assumed to be valid and do not need any sort of justification. They are the basis of our knowledge and true. 

You're now assuming what you seek to establish.  Textbook circular argumentation.

Definitions are capable of very accurately describing things that do not exist, take dragons..for instance.  Assuming a definition to be true makes no existential implications, and therefore cannot help you to establish what you seek to establiosh.  Making the faux paus above entirely pointless.

I think there is a misunderstanding. I did not say everything that is there in the dictionary truly exist and my argument does not depend on that. Proposition 0 simply states that we should not argue over the definitions that there are in the dictionary. But you are insisting that that definitions must be proven. 

dragon |ˈdraɡən| noun1 a mythical monster like a giant reptile.

I understand your argument as insisting that we should justify and prove "dragon is a mythical monster like a giant reptile". We do not need to do that. We just pick up the definitions from the dictionary and we assume it to be true. we assume that it's true that "dragon is a mythical monster like a giant reptile." then we infer from the laws of logic that dragon does not exist.

Similarly, in the case of god, we pickup this definition "In some religions god is identical with the universe" we do not argue over it. It does not need any justification, just like how "dragon is a mythical monster like a giant reptile" does not need any justification. We just pick up this definition and we say: "Well this is a rather unusual definition but certainly we cannot deny the existence of this sort of god" we can further say "those people who believed universe is god where stupid!" ok you can say whatever you want. But the term "god" encompasses this "stupid" conceptions according to your dictionary. So when you are asserting "no god exists" you are also denying this sort of gods which is nonsensical. 

Just read the first page. I don't usually begin by saying I don't believe in gods. My first question is what's a god? I can't very well define for you what gods I don't believe in when I have no idea what we're even talking about. You show me a god, I'll tell you if I believe in it. But so long as it stays hypothetical then, nope, I don't believe in silly stuff.

I think this is a valid position. My argument is about this assertion "No god exists, whatever it might be" which doesn't seem to be yours.