"god exists" <Why is this a relevant argument?

[Purple Rabbit]

TruthWorthy,

There is a different between proving something, and proving something scientifically. You can prove things logically without resorting to science at all (for instance, the proof that 1 = 1).

I disagree. Math itself is science, empirical science even is heavily dependent on math and logic. Do you mean there's a difference between logical and mathematical proof on th one hand and empirical proof on the other?

---

Thanks Rabbit (If it's ok for me to use that for short),
The outlook of Theological noncognitivism is very good.
I looked it up earlier today because I'd never heard of it, and I have to agree with it for the most part; only I can't justify refusing to accept everything because of lack of provability, that's where I think it goes too far.

If you look closely enough, you'll see that it does not deny the sentence "god exists" but only the claim of theists that this is a meaningful sentence to evaluate. So it is denial at the meta level of the proposition, i.e. it addresses the question whether it a proper proposition.