Which is true. In the history of mankind there has never been a god or godlike figure to spontaneously appear and walk around, we can't actually even attribute what a god trulu is. Hence this argument is rather pointless, because it's an argument about something that can't be entirely defined.
Sure every religion has their own views as to what a god is, and yet their all wrong because there is nothing tangible with which to attribute their beliefs too, but they could be right because you can't disprove those ideas either.
So as I said the entire argument is moot because everyone is wrong and right at the same time because it's an argument of a fictitious existence that no one knows anything about. It would be like arguing what a Ditrichromasaurus looks like and what qualifies as such despite the fact that it never existed (I made the name up if you couldn't tell).
Also your last bit about even Athiests see god in a different way is wrong. I myself am an Athiest and I don't see god in another way because I don't see god period.
Well that's enough early morning philosophizing for one day.




Reply With Quote