Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

The posts previously on this board stand as a record that;

Show you are selective in what parts of replies you respond too.

You redine/reinterpret words and definitions to suit your own narrative.

Interactions with yourself end up devolving into obtuse and often staw splitting language.

So. If there is/are dieties.
Said things exist.  
Said existant things are objective.
Said objective things presence should be able to be indicated.

All people are selective.  I don't intentionally dismiss things out of ignorance.  Unfortunately, it's not always feasible to respond to everything because of time limitations, and I'm bouncing between this and other things.  I would think it would be more problematic if I refused to respond to all statements or questions directed at me.  I do what I can, and if that's not good enough, then sorry.  But equally, I don't expect you, or anybody else, to respond to everything I say.

Your complaint about definitions is false, and even more so ridiculous.  If you won't accept a definition from a dictionary, then I'm not the one being biased.  It would make more sense to evaluate the definition as provided by the dictionary, and then list any quarrels you might have if you felt the definition was insufficient.  More times than not, I'll use dictionary.com or M-W.  I also can't imagine that there are too many people that would suggest either have an intrinsic bias, but then again, I suppose I could be wrong.

I stand by my comments regarding your posting history, to which I am sure others will attest.

As for time consraintscin posting? This is why I add my current status as a heading or footnote.

As for dictionaries? As has been explained to you before they are only descriptive of the language in common parlance. Hence the yearly revisions, additions and reletions.

While, yet again, we see your behaviour on display with yet again the selective obfuscational reply given to myself.