(April 6, 2014 at 2:01 pm)RobbyPants Wrote:(April 6, 2014 at 5:17 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I didn't make up the definition. That's the one in the dictionary. Sure we could all make up endless nonsense words and say that they mean the same as any existing word. But why do that? We already have a word. That's how language works, on commonly agreed meanings.
Now I'm happy to accept that the whole of the description of God wasn't inferred, but neither was it taken. I find the objection unnecessary.
As already mentioned by Alex K, the god that people discuss during these discussion also has a lot of other attributes that fleems (or whatever) don't. Just because it shares some characteristics doesn't mean it's the same thing. Apples and oranges share many of the same characteristics and people seem to dislike comparing them (or at least recognize the difference).
That's why I'm objecting. Well that, and it seems you either missed the point of the illustration or were purposefully shifting the subject to something else.
My intention certainly wasn't to shift the focus.
Fleems form the parts of the Christian God that we use to explain things like origins. Let's for the moment forget that God has any other properties: therefore fleems.
Back on topic: no one is saying that this is proof of anything. It's just one theory. Indeed there cannot be proof, and faith deduced cannot be faith unless it can be deduced.
