Spare me the failed circumlocution.
I am the one citing dictionary definitions. You, and others, are disagreeing because of "years of study", or some equally ridiculous bullox.
Words are defined. The English language is confined to the dictionary - a source that you are not in total agreement with.
Quote:
Agnostic: "We don't know whats' in the box. The elephant could be any type of elephant including one that's not adult, live, healthy or even elephant."
Nothing here is tenable. We don't need to know what's in the box to know an elephant isn't a legitimate possibility (it would be crushed dead). Stating "we don't know what's in the box" isn't valid because we do know what what won't fit in the box due to the attributes of the concepts in question. Out comes the proverbial wood crafting tools as the agnostic attempts to round a square peg to get it to fit. Out come the unsupported claims. "It's possible for elephants to be healthy when crushed into one foot cubes" etc.
|
Despite your trollish repetition of this nonsense, you've not provided one reason why our universe couldn't facilitate a god.
As far as we know, that one foot box could be the size of a football stadium.
You are a very poor debator if you require the other side to define their stance into impossibility in order for you to address it. If you don't think the concept of "god" isn't defined fairly, then don't assume the position that it doesn't exist. Picking a position because you don't like the word "god", then throwing sones at the dictionary because you can't disprove it is unreasonable and nonsensical.