Are all unprovable claims equal?

[Major Nikon]

Theists seem to love equating unprovable claims as if all have equal merit. One of the more popular ones is equating the Theory of Evolution with the "theory" of creation. One of those things is a painfully detailed model which accurately explains the natural world. The other is simply a notion devised by ancients who wondered about where the sun went at night and relies on incredible levels of hocus pocus that directly defy much of what we know about the natural world.

It's worth defining what theism is since not everyone understands what the term actually means. Theism is the belief in one or more intervening creationist deities. In other words they believe not only did one or more gods create the universe, but that or those deities are still imminent in the lives of humans. So theism actually makes at least two extraordinary claims in that an intelligent being or beings created the universe and maintains order over it.

As Carl Sagan once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The flip side of this is the claim that one or more gods do not exist is no more extraordinary than the claim that Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster does not exist.

The question in the OP is rhetorical. All unprovable claims are not equal and we know this without having to think about it much. Pretending otherwise as a basis for argument is juvenile and should be called out as such whenever that tactic is used. If someone wants to believe in anything that's unprovable, more power to them. Just don't pretend the assertion for theism is no different than the assertion against it. Those two things are not the same.

[DetlefK]

1. That's a math-question.

Logicians have various definitions of "proof".

[Nitram]

3. Yes, when you get down into the philosophical weeds, language functions in a very different way.

[Nitram]

2. I disagaree with your idea that "The flip side of this is the claim that one or more gods do not

exist is no more extraordinary than the claim that Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster does not exist." Neither Bigfoot nor Nessie are believed to be omniscient or all-powerful. That makes their existence a great deal more probable than the existenct of a super-natural being.

[Major Nikon]

5. You are almost saying the exact same thing

The assertion deities do not exist as no more extraordinary leaves the possibility of less extraordinary which you suggest. But yes, the chances of a Bigfoot discovery are undoubtedly many times greater than finding a supernatural puppetmaster.

[MineralMan]

4. For most religionists, only one of the many unprovable claims

is considered to be true - the one they believe. All others are false. No matter how often they claim otherwise, they believe just one unprovable claim. So, naturally, they find atheism to be false. They already have their unprovable claim to follow.

[Major Nikon]

6. Most of them have many unprovable claims even within their respective belief systems

God created the earth in 6 days. Jesus is the son of god. Mary was knocked up by the holy poltergeist. On and on it goes.