Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Deesse23]

I can define a god as something that has no power, no awareness, no intelligence, no wisdom and no existence.

When people use the term god, are they referring to my definition or the one that they have in their own minds ?

When I say the word is meaningless, that is exactly what I mean.
There are no values that you can place upon the word because those values cannot be demonstrated.

It's like asking "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?"
How many imaginary items that have 0 mass can you put upon a finite space.
Answer - "An infinite number of nothing."

That is god. An infinite number of zeros that all add up to zero.
That is meaningless.

Once again you have allowed Belaqua to derail the conversation and to shoehorn philosophy into a conversation that was about demonstrating any claims to be true. Most people in here are talking about what is true or real and what not, he is talking...out of his ass. His MO is switching the discusison to his favourite philisophical topic, and since you dont need evidence for your philosophical claims (philosophy is not a discipline where you are actually demonstrating what is true, thats science, but where you speculate) he can continue to make all kind of philosophical claims without the need to back any of them up. I am a bit surprised some of you are still falling for this simple scheme.

Above you see the original post to which Belaquas response was (paraphrasing): "Many christians DO have a definition for (their) god and that is aristotelian *actus purus*".
Rahn basically said* that everyone can make up any defintion of a god they want, that doesnt make the god exist **, even more, you have to demonstrate that the traits you attach to your god can even exist.
Belaquas response......pointing to just another (aristotelian) definition, with a cool latin name, with trait(s) that can not be demonstrated to be real.
Q.e.d. (another cool latin phrase) for Rahn i would say, but then you allowed Belaqua to derail by allowing him to discuss the definition of whatever smoke screen he just erected in front of you, instead of asking him if he could demonstrate that any of this is possibly true.


*please correct me if i am wrong
** aka defining a god into existence