Rhythm: you are simply choosing not to buy my argument because you don't like my definitions, probably because admitting them would cause a bout of cognitive dissonance in you that would drive many men mad. The definitions and terms that are inserted into the argument have no bearing on whether the argument is valid as I have made the same argument about dicks and hands, the sun and direction, god and atheism, and breathing and lungs.. They may determine whether or not the argument is true, but the validity of the argument is a constant.
I have not claimed that the definitions are true, I admit I can not. We can not prove anything is objectively true outside of human consciousness. A belief that things are objectively true necessitates then a mechanism for them to be true, which is consciousness as a real property of the universe apart from human perception. A belief in such a mechanism is most correctly termed a belief in "God" by humanity.
I have not claimed that the definitions are true, I admit I can not. We can not prove anything is objectively true outside of human consciousness. A belief that things are objectively true necessitates then a mechanism for them to be true, which is consciousness as a real property of the universe apart from human perception. A belief in such a mechanism is most correctly termed a belief in "God" by humanity.