I didn’t think that one had to. That is what your challenge to the theist sounded like. I think that religious language is coherent but false, just like phlogiston or caloric language.
Denying that the theist is even making an assertion, or that their language is coherent is a characteristic feature of positivism/verificationism, which is why I said that.
I don’t think making a move towards logical positivism or adopting a verificationist criterion of meaning would count as a victory.
You don’t have to do either of those things, I don’t think. Have a look at the argument set out in George H Smith’s “Atheism: the Case against God”.
I didn’t think that one had to. That is what your challenge to the theist sounded like. I think that religious language is coherent but false, just like phlogiston or caloric language.
Denying that the theist is even making an assertion, or that their language is coherent is a characteristic feature of positivism/verificationism, which is why I said that.
No, I think it extends beyond that—see eg No Logical Positivist I