"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[Tonus]

Each Christian denomination is not a different religion; but variations within the Christian faith. I fail to see how minor disagreements over things like believer versus infant baptism undermine nearly universal acceptance of major doctrines. It's not a serious objection.

It has been serious enough to lead to bloodletting.  The range of beliefs is pretty wide, and some denominations believe the rest are good enough while others are certain that if you're not doing it their way you are hellbound.  If it's only a case of finding common ground on a number of core beliefs, then it should be even easier to overcome the differences between denominations and even between religions.  Have the world's religious people become more united after centuries of reading and praying and guidance-seeking and miracle-claiming, or are they as scattered as ever?

[vorlon13]

Well . . . . .

that 'good enough' thing is kinda sorta belied by the whole schisming thing, ain't it ?

If the Pillar of Fire Repentance Tabernacle Baptists are splitting up, would either stripe later on ever concede they went to all the fuss and bother of a schism if the 1/2 flock left behind is nevertheless still Saved® ?

[robvalue]

To address a few of these other weird ideas from Steve:

Mathematics is a series of entirely abstract systems which need only to be internally consistent. They may or may not have any relevance to reality. I have no idea what saying maths is unfalsifiable is supposed to mean.

Aesthetics is about entirely subjective value judgements and as such is making no claims about the actual nature of reality. So it makes no sense to say it's unfalsifiable.

It's claims made about reality, or things that supposedly exist, being unfalsifiable that makes them useless. The point is that without any way to tell the difference, there is no practical difference. For example, simply stating "God is doing X" is useless if we have no way of differentiating that from God doing no such thing. It simply becomes an assumption that this is indeed the case.

[Chas]

1: That God(s) exist is true.
2: Proposition 1 is not true.

Someone who considers proposition 1 true is a theist.
What do you call someone who considers proposition 2 true?

A (strong) atheist. A weak atheist doesn't yet consider either true.

I think not.  Proposition 2 is not strong atheism, it allows for agnostic atheism. 
Proposition 1 is not an existence claim, it is a claim that the existence claim is true.
Saying that it is false is saying that the existence claim has not been proved.

[robvalue]

I'm using strong/weak here to refer to belief in no gods/disbelief in gods, rather than gnostic/agnostic.

[Mister Agenda]

“universe” in British English

universenoun
uk /ˈjuː.nɪ.vɜːs/ us /ˈjuː.nə.vɝːs/  
       
B1 [ S ] everything that exists, especially all physical matter, including all the stars, planets, galaxies, etc. in space:

So when cosmologists say that the 'universe' is 13 billions of years old, they mean to include the universe generator, or the quantum field, or whatever you think was before the big bang? Do you really think people confuse the word 'universe' to include the supernatural (especially since like 80% of the world believes in a god(s) that created the universe)?

'Universe' has more than one sense. 'Cosmos' is actually a better word for our space-time continuum and all that is a part of it. 'Universe' can mean that or everything that exists, depending on how it's used. In the sense of 'everything that is', it does include the multiverse, if there is one; and whatever preceded our cosmos, if anything did. It includes everything that exists, and I suppose everything that has ever existed or ever will exist. The term wasn't so confusing before we discovered reason to think that there could be a 'time before time began' or space besides our space.

In our conversations, if you're not sure what sense I'm using the word in, I promise to clarify if you ask.