Quote:
|
There is no fear of "defining it into impossibility" when speaking of gods. Let's call it what it really is, specificity.
|
That's the purple, flying elephant argument. Just because we can prove that such elephants do not exist does not prove that
no elephants exist.
There are an endless amount of possible deities which do not contradict any evidence we have accrued. Disproving one of them is meaningless.
If you think it's unfair to disprove the concept of god, as defined in the dictionary, you shouldn't have assumed a theistic position that holds that no god exists. If you assume a belief that's "too general" to defend, then it's a poorly structured belief.
If, however, you are arguing from an agnostic/weak atheistic point of view, as opposed to the strong athseistic stance, you aren't obligated to prove anything. Just know that you express strong atheism as soon as you draw "there are no gods" from "there is no evidence for a god".