To support your assertion about my presumption, kindly pluck from my posts the specific definition I have given - and post it here. Absent that, it appears that you have presumed a presumption.
So you are claiming he's indefinable?
Ooops - there you go again - attempting to place words on my tongue or thoughts in my brain. You know full well that I made no such claim. You pretended that I presumed a specific definition of God - but you can't produce that, so you shift to a different misrepresentation. Come on - you are a bright fellow - you can do better than that.
It's a binary question. Either you can define that which you claim is god, or you can't. If you can't define it, there's not good reason to believe it exist.
Of course you are just taking the art of moving the goal posts to a new level by not even acknowledging they may exist.
AS you know that there is no need to explain a binary question, and you know better than to try to assume my presumptions. You don't get it - not moving anything - there are no goalposts to move.
I'm going to quote you here:
"If you can't define it, there's not good reason to believe it exist." The primary problem with that statement is the "you". If instead you had said "If AS can't define it, there's not good reason for AS to believe it exist", I could understand and accept that.
It appears that you are missing, or very dramatically discounting, an important dimension. Paul Tillich wrote very well about the dynamics.
