But that doesn't mean or imply that he has defined "God".Seems to me that you are now merely avoiding answering the question.
I mean, really, he flat out stated that you can define "God" however you want.
Yes: I can define "God". The question I pose is, can he? And if he can't, on what basis does he judge my "proof" of "God"?Yet you still prefer to argue over red herring semantics even after he flat out stated you can define "god" in any way you want.
(Do you see?)
Taking this question entirely out of context, the answer is: because I can. Because I have defined "God" and I figure he hasn't.Now why would you argue semantics even after being told that you have free reign to specify the semantics that are going to be used?
By the by, each of us "specifies the semantics" that are to be used. Semantics is a study.
If (and that's a big IF) I take upon myself to "set the definition" that we both will use for a thing, I will have fallen entirely into madness and given over my existence to another. That's not about to happen in the near future (edit: I'm funny that way).One would think that a person with free reign to set the definitions as they like and THEN present their proof would have absolutely no problem in proving anything they want.
Especially not on my 49th birthday.
Last edited: