Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Belacqua]

Bel - you can't define something if you don't know what that something is.

I know what actus purus is. It has a clear definition. 

People can make a claim that a god is actus purus but you can't define a god as actus purus unless you want to create a lie.

You haven't demonstrated yet that actus purus is a lie. I don't know if there is such a thing or not, but that's not what we're talking about. 

We're talking about whether there is a definition for God. I have pointed to this one, many people in history have believed it. Arguing that there is no such thing would require a separate argument.

Until you can demonstrate a god, you cannot define it unless you wish to make up attributes that you believe it has.

The elaborate arguments for why actus purus is God, or God is actus purus, are available to you if you want to read them. 

I am not making up this attribute; many people have written logical arguments as to why there must be such a thing and why it would be God. 

In which case, making up attributes gets you no closer to defining a god. 

Again, I am not making up this attribute. In fact I think "attribute" wouldn't be the correct word for it. It is the definition that many people have for God. 

All of the attributes of a god will remain at zero until demonstrated to be above zero.

Please present your arguments as to why there is no such condition as actus purus and why all those who have believed in it are incorrect. The people whose work I have read have felt that they demonstrated it sufficiently. I am not enough of an expert to judge.