Proof and evidence will always equal Science

[The Architect Of Fate]

There is another 'closer to' option. The God of Classical theism may better be described as something more like the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Does the PNC exist?  If so, based on what evidence? Or is it something from which we reason rather than to which we reason. Everyone has first priciples even if they are only tacitly aware of them. I am sincerely curoius...

Could many atheists defend their first principles using the same standard by which they judge theistic first principles?

So God is a principle of logic? Or of math? In what way does such deserve the word 'God'? Does it have *any* of the porperties usually assigned to deities? Knowledge? Nope. Intentional? Nope. Power to create? Nope.

This feels to me like an even worse version of identifying God with the universe. Sure, you can do it, but at that point it seems that you are just abusing language.

Oh, and to answer your question: the PNC, like all logic and math, is a rule of language more than anything else. There are paraconsistent logics out there that are perfectly workable.

So, no, PNC doesn't exist in any way different than language. It's a convention.

As for first principles, I tend to hold them all as tentative. let's face it, solipsism is internally consistent. There is no *logical* way to argue against it. So an assumption is made about that. After that, there are assumptions about whether memory is accurate at all, whether the patterns I see are valid,, etc. Then we get to testability of ideas, eliminating those that are wrong.

Yes, there are a number of first principles that pretty much everyone adopts, whether or not they believe in a deity.

Which gets to the question of whether the God assumption actually gives any usable information. Is it really an assumption that helps in a way similar to how getting out of solipsism helps? From what I have seen, the answer to that is no.

There Neo goes which his definitional parasitism