(April 27, 2017 at 9:51 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:(April 27, 2017 at 9:33 pm)SteveII Wrote: Ah, the favorite fallback position when an atheist can't field a rebuttal: "but...but...you can't prove that what we have been talking about for 518 posts really exists...so...so...I win...so there!
And you've clearly missed my point, which is, there isn't anything to rebut. This is the second legitimate question I've asked you that you've answered with a non-answer. But I'll try again just for the hell of it: how do you debate the truest definition of an attribute or quality when you cannot demonstrate it is a real thing in the first place? In other words, how are you measuring accuracy in such an instance?
Just like in science, in metaphysics and philosophy (of religion in this case) you build a theory that addresses all the issues and test them out against other known variable and theories believed to be true. If you are asking do I know my understanding of omnipresence is correct, then no, I don't. But I want the best theory possible that addresses the issue as completely as possible. Another way to put it is internally consistent systematic theology.
