It's the black swan theory, only replace the color black with everything that can possibly be attributed to God/god or gods, and replace swan with any descriptor that could ever be attributed to a being in the category of "thing that <insert interaction with reality> the universe, or maybe just your teeth". Language fails to express the thing that may or may not exist and for that reason I am a theological noncognitivist. BUT, yes, the expressed beliefs in dieties... probably not true; but so far, wide, and nonspecific are the claims that there is no way to know that they are all wrong in the same way as you can know that the swan in front of you is not black.
To prove that a thing is not, the expressed thing has to be provably not, or the only logical course of action would be to shrug your shoulders and say, "I reject your idea".
For example there is a version of god, my favorite, the Invisible Pink Unicorn(BBHH) (yes I know she was created as a gaff against religion, but why couldn't she be real and her prophets are just confused? HMMMM?) She is said to be Invisible and Pink. You can't prove that she isn't real and when you point out that invisible and pink are mutually exclusive, a true believer will just say that the pinkness is transcendental so again, no proof!
More importantly and seriously, the deist god which is said only to have set the world in motion then sit back and see what happens. What makes that illogical? What makes that provably wrong?
I don't claim to be gnostic about much more that the most basic things in life, like the fact that a chair will support my weight, or that my car will start in the morning. Both of which have born themselves out to be false knowledge on a few occasions.
To prove that a thing is not, the expressed thing has to be provably not, or the only logical course of action would be to shrug your shoulders and say, "I reject your idea".
For example there is a version of god, my favorite, the Invisible Pink Unicorn(BBHH) (yes I know she was created as a gaff against religion, but why couldn't she be real and her prophets are just confused? HMMMM?) She is said to be Invisible and Pink. You can't prove that she isn't real and when you point out that invisible and pink are mutually exclusive, a true believer will just say that the pinkness is transcendental so again, no proof!
More importantly and seriously, the deist god which is said only to have set the world in motion then sit back and see what happens. What makes that illogical? What makes that provably wrong?
I don't claim to be gnostic about much more that the most basic things in life, like the fact that a chair will support my weight, or that my car will start in the morning. Both of which have born themselves out to be false knowledge on a few occasions.
