>>276215681>>276215476>>276215500From the start, I was under the impression that the topic was in reference specifically to the Christian God, not a version of God from a religious philosophy significantly less well-known than Catholic Christianity. As
>>276215649 states, this conversation was about the Catholic God from the start, so bringing up this version of God is actually a changing of topic.
When people use the terms "God" and "Satan" in a primarily English-speaking forum, it is reasonable to assume they are some variety of Christian, the same way it would be reasonable to assume the anon in question is a Muslim if he used "Allah" instead.
The real issue is that the conversation was started off without anybody providing a definition of the words until decently into the thread.
I will throw in my own two cents into the topic by adding that any argument for the existence of God that has an in-built definition of what the word means is immediately suspect. If I argued God existed by defining "God" as "apples", then sure, "God" exists - but then, we are having entirely separate conversations. Likewise, if I argued fascism worked by defining "fascism" as "regulated capitalism", I am not being an honest actor.
