First order logic, set theory and God

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I'm not afraid to "not know" something.  That's why I go out and study it.  That's how I go from "no" to "know."

But not knowing doesn't allow you to declare "goddidit".  In fact it is the opposite, because all goddidit is is an empty assertion.

Sorry, but I don't apply circular logic to my thinking, so I can't agree with your statement.

Not knowing (for me) means I can't declare.  Therefore you can declare the opposite even though your same logic wouldn't allow you to declare that it's an empty assertion.  Therefore, by default I must accept your logic (or assume it's correct).

Nope. How does that even make sense?  Maybe in cartoon world.  If you can't declare something due to lack of knowledge in setting A, you can't declare something due to lack of knowledge in setting B.  Actually it's even worse in your case because you're applying an absolute that you can't substantiate as soon as you say "all."

My requirement would be to provide evidence of "goddidit" once.  Your requirement would be to disprove every claim of "goddidit" that "all" encompasses.  Probably millions or billions, so you better get started.  That's why it doesn't make sense to make such claims.

Max requirement for me - Demonstrate a god x1 and said god did something x1.
Your minimum requirement - Disprove all gods in your claim.  If you can't do that, you must exhaustively prove no claims could've been done by a god.

This is where Homer Simpson would say "Doh"