Proof that God exists

[Agnosty]

If he were a skeptic in the greek sense he'd probably have a better grasp of the term "ad hom", lol. 

ad ho·mi·nem
adverb & adjective
1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Latin for "to the man".  As opposed to "to the argument".

I think my ironometer just broke.

Good, now you have time to brush up on logic

---

That demonstrates a narrow thinking.  How do you know challenging atheism results in the consideration of fairies?

Because atheism is nothing but a comment on whether or not I believe in fairies. 

 
So, atheism = anti-fairies?  Well, then I suppose that leaves you open to believing the universe is god, since the universe is not a fairy.

Are there not other concepts of god that you have not considered?  How can you be so sure?  How can you be sure about what you have never considered?  How can you be sure you've considered all possibilities?

"What if you don't know something?".  That's never not true, but until you make some specific proposition it's a vacuous objection. 

 
I have before, yet you persist with the "fairy" characterization.

Can you show atheism is true?  

Sure can.

Are you waiting for a formal invitation or is there another reason you haven't dispensed with it?

"If you can't show it, it's not objective"  So then, if I can't show something is true, then I can't be objective?

That's what it means for something to be objective.  If you tell me that you know that there's an imp hovering over your bedside table because you can see it...and you point to thin air...you believe that theres an imp.  This belief is neither objective, nor knowledge, and while it certainly may be true that you -see- an imp hovering over your bedside table, that's no indication that there actually is an imp hovering over your bedside table.  That your claim is true.  

That is true, but that doesn't redefine "objective" as knowing truth.  I maintain it's the opposite... in order to be objective, you cannot know truth.

Semantic games are just another diversionary tactic.

  Only when I know for sure, then I can be objective?  Seems opposite to me.

You're perfectly capable of being certain about something in the absence of any objective indication of it's truth, but what your personal certainty has to do with things that can be objectively shown to be true is a mystery.

   
That has nothing to do with the point, which is that a person who knows something to be true will not act objectively.  Whether it is actually true or not is beside the point.

That would be a failure on the part of the reader to properly ascertain what the author was trying to convey.  You cannot project your connotations onto an author and claim you're properly interpreting what is said.

It's not actually my responsibility to correct your equivocations.  I do it out of the kindness of my big mean heart, so that you stop making a fool of yourself.  Take it or leave it.

It's like you didn't even read what you quoted.. as if I asked how the weather is and you replied "banana".