The thing is: I neither need an ontological proof for God nor do
I need a formal proof that there is no God. My answer is: "I
don't know". It is a subjective answer. I am not saying, "Nobody
knows, or 'it can't be known'. You're satisfied with the logic
presented to you and you find it conclusive and exhaustive. I'm
satisfied that NONE of the arguments for or against are
conclusive and exhaustive. That is me speaking for me. I'm not
speaking for you or anybody else. == We're GENERALLY on the same
team. Fight a fundamentalist Christian somewhere. You'll get
nowhere with me. I'm not kidding myself: You're using an
artificially constructed glossary limiting definitions of terms
to win a debate. It's an old game. == Hair-splitting like this
is exactly the kind of thing that destroys potentially useful
movements. Try forcing a dedicated moderate to an extremist
position and you find yourself with fewer and fewer numbers. ==
Communication is people talking about something. You're
referring to debate. Debate is a subset of communication. "Want
a beer?" Do I answer something about the illogic of desire or
something? No, I get a beer or I say I'm busy. That's
communication. That's conversation. I'm not misusing words. I'm
just not in the mood for a debate. ===
