Prabbit Wrote:A theological non-cognitivist is an atheist, but not every atheist is a theological non-cognitivist because not every atheist rejects the notion of god on basis of meaningfullness of the proposition.
Understood.
Quote:To me it indeed matters how god is defined. And imo the definition should be given by the believer not guessed by the one who is asked to evaluate the claim. Making no assumptions up front is exactly the reason why one should proceed in this way.
Well I personally think that regardless of how many millions of definitions of God there are.... the most common one is any definition that fits into the category of some "deity" that is "supernatural" (or omnipotent - powerful enough to create a universe) and created the universe.
The way I approach it is I don't think there's any harm in assuming that the above definition is the definition of God the believer is using unless they state otherwise - because it is the most common definition encountered and can be found in dictionaries. God generally = deity. And generally one that created the universe. I only have a problem with making assumptions if the odds are stacked against it being right. We can't expect to always avoid assumptions - I just expect to avoid the assumptions that are less likely to be correct than not. And if they turn out to be wrong - can always step back and question the believer.
EvF
