Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Belacqua]

There's more than just several

Thank you, I'm glad we agree about this. Rahn127 is incorrect.

In fact, each believer seems to have his own personal definition which vary quite a bit.

Is it true that "each believer" has his own definition? People who have studied the field tend to use one of the definitions that I've given, and people who haven't studied the field don't know about the field.

When it comes to concepts which identify actually existing concretes, we don't find this happening.  The definition of a rock, a tree, a bridge, a snow cone, or a Rhinoceros are pretty much universal.  But, we do find this variation in "definitions" of imaginary things.

Why would you talk about God as a "concrete"? There is no school of theology which speaks of God as tangible. He is said to be idea, or existence itself, or something like that -- certainly not one concrete object in the set of concrete objects. 

There are a number of things which surely exist for which there is no agreed-upon definition. Have you not read any Wittgenstein? "Art," "game," etc.