I'm not sure how onboard I am with "We can't discuss this until we define 'God' argument."
Discussion is one thing. Talking about 'existence' is quite another.
I find it actually quite amusing how you're dripping with sarcasm about people "tiptoeing" (my term) around god claims and how differently god claims are treated from every other claim made, yet suddenly now you really wonder if a term should have a [rational, meaningful blah blah insert my usual disclaimers] definition of something which some weirdos claim 'exists' before actually testing the claims.
It's literally no different to my claiming that flozznozz exists and I have proof. Apparently everyone else in this thread either thinks they know what that means or you (and I guess theprestige) are perfectly content in trying to suss out what I mean though this proof exploration.
Well, it's not like we haven't seen that like a trillion times
anyway. In fact, that's the standard method of action at the ISkep here: someone says, "I have proof of God!" and as the sussing begins, every. Single. Objection. Is countered by the person simply making up a new counter that — oh! look at how perfect THAT was! what are the coincidences! — is never stated beforehand but only after the objection arises.
Why you wish to continue doing the exact same thing as every other thread is done and question the only time I'm hoping it won't go that way, is strange to my mind.
If we can't discuss God until it is defined to some specific degree, they should be able to claim God until they define him to the same degree.
No, that doesn't follow.
For one thing, discuss and claim existence are two different things. We can certainly discuss Superman or Wonder Woman and I have no problem with that. We can discuss other supernatural things until the supernatural cows come home, that's great. It's when claims of actual material existence and supernatural influence are made is when it becomes vitally important to understand what it is we're trying to figure out exists.
Otherwise we're stuck in a trap where one side gets to claim there is a God but never defend it via never defining it.
Again, no, though I find this rather strange and I'm kind of baffled here. I'm insisting on a comprehensive, logical, and meaningful definition first before the proofs and such of existence are brought forth. How could you possibly interpret that as "you can claim God exists all you want as long as you don't define it?"
The God discussion stays trapped in the "God of variable vagueness" stage way too much.
It's certainly not because people clamor for definitions first, now is it? Because it's extremely rare for anyone besides me or Darat to talk about definitions. No. It's really the people who are eager to rush past the definitions who allow the theists to slip all over with vague handwavy nonsense.
