A discussion with tack

[Zenith]

---

Could it not be said simply, that if enough provisions are made, and if we allow enough leeway for the believer to define favorable terms for himself...that a general concept of god can be argued for within the realm of logic or philosophy? That the concept of god thus obtained does not resemble the concept of god as advertised in any holy book we've ever written may be unsatisfying to us is a notion which some believers may not wish to address. If one wishes to corner their god within the confines of logic or philosophy, so much the better, as it only assists one in divorcing that concept from observed reality. It leaves a god who is not a god. Besides, arguing for the finer points of the tooth fairy does not make the tooth fairy any less imaginary.

---

Sorry to insert myself into your conversation if either of you feel that it is unwarranted, sometimes I simply cannot hold my tongue. I'll attempt more restraint going forward.

---

Is it only me who can hardly understand what you guys are saying??
I understood your point with the "god", at least. But a "god" can be anything or anyone that is being worshiped (and always understood as superior to the worshiper). As for a "God", it/He only needs be a Creator in order to be a God - at least how I understand the word "God". So saying "It leaves a god who is not a god" sounds quite absurd (or, how do you define the word "god"??).

P.S. I don't mind other people (e.g. you) posting things on this thread.