Quote:Which is my point. If you are going to have an argument about the Hulk then for the sake of the argument you accept the parameters that define the character or individual you are discussing. What the new guy is doing is this: I can not win a "hulk" based argument so I will demand to see proof that the hulk exists. Which is fine for him, but is not what is being discussed.
Ah, you see that is the problem, you are changing the parameters. By changing the accepted meaning of the word 'love', you are in effect changing God. So, let's say you were to tell me that the Hulk now shoots laser beams out of his ass, I'd want to see the comic/cartoon/movie as proof. What I am basically arguing is that without proof of God's existence you can just change what ever you want about his nature, start a discussion about it, then demand that people remain within the parameters that YOU set. Don't you see how manipulative and dishonest a position that is?
