
Originally Posted by
Copernicus
There is no major problem with defining the central term unless you reject the truth of premise #1. If you accept its truth and the truth of the second premise, then the conclusion is inescapable. If you want to argue over premise #1, then that just means that the real argument is not over my proof. It is over a low level premise. That is where the substantive argument exists. However, at that point, we are just having a terminological dispute, not a substantive one. Most atheists are not non-cognitivists. They know perfectly well what most believers mean by their use of the word "God", IMO. But we can always have an argument over that.