The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept

[Captain Scarlet]

You. It was an insult and I wanted to get it removed. Apologies.

Does not matter on any level. Accepted.

In Christianity 'God' is not the only deity. He's the only way. The only correct one to be worshipped; but by no means the only one.

2 things. It is a whole new experience for me that xtianity is now polytheistic, ie more than 1 Deity. Using Deity as primary attribute is still invalid as previously explained the term Deity, is not positively identified. Your in danger of equivocation with this response Frods, ie slippery use and interchange of the term Deity, god/s, which you are proposing is both a primary attribute (although I deny that for reasons stated), and presumabley ? a multitude of being springing forth from the godhead. But I cannot grasp the full meaning of your response given the polytheistic bombshell (which I am sure you do not mean to convey).

False. You also try to limit words by trying to limit it to Xtianity. So that's a double failure.

You like the word failure but your rebuttals so far have brought you no joy. As this doesn't. Again a projection of your own position onto me.

What besides man is homosapien? Only man. So therefore man = man?Again a fail.

No homo sapien is a place holder for a species which can be described, ie there nature is describable and is a positive primary attribute. I think you are focussing too much on the terms: 'god', 'Deity, 'man', 'homo spaien' and not enough on the description I have provided with them. The failure is either mine to convey information, yours to understand or both. But the argument is sound.

So you are assessing God on his material properties? And then dissmissing him on his lack of material properties? I see a gross violation of logic going on there. Nothing complicated needed to dismiss it, it's very plainly obvious.

OK I am happy for you to point out that failure, but you haven't. And then you accuse me of not telling you why you committed logical fallacies (which I did), and then not explaining them (which I did). Again a projection of your own failures. But let me grasp the nettle as I think I know what you are driving at and explain why you are wrong.

I am not assessing a god on his material properties. You are erecting a straw man again to knock over yourself. Again go ahead. I said that 'theists tell us'. I really have no axe to grind here, you guys can describe your terms how you wish in the negative sense. I am just playing back the Theist position at a Theist.

However it is FOR YOU NOT ME to offer some poistive primary attribute of a god (or in your case the xtian god (or 3 gods or whatever)). Please do so as that is the graviman of this case and would defeat my argument if those secondary and/or relational attributes could flow from that primary one. The only slightly awkward thing for you position is that your arguments have spectacularly failed to do any such thing. We are left with the impression that god is mysterious, unknowable, etc currently which would ultimately render the term god meaningless as per the original argument.