Theism and Moral Realism are separate concepts

[Immanuel Can]

These are your words, written by you....
...when an unbeliever uses the phrase "God is good," it has no meaning the Theist finds adequate

That's an obvious truism. You can't possibly doubt it. The unbeliever doesn't, by definition, believe any God exists. So he can't say that something he doesn't believe exists could ever also "be good." That would make no sense at all.

[FlashDangerpants]

These are your words, written by you....
...when an unbeliever uses the phrase "God is good," it has no meaning the Theist finds adequate

That's an obvious truism. You can't possibly doubt it. The unbeliever doesn't, by definition, believe any God exists. So he can't say that something he doesn't believe exists could ever also "be good." That would make no sense at all.

They're just words, of course we can say them. The words mean the same thing whoever says them. That is what words do. It's what words are for. It's why we even have them at all.

[Immanuel Can]

These are your words, written by you....
...when an unbeliever uses the phrase "God is good," it has no meaning the Theist finds adequate

That's an obvious truism. You can't possibly doubt it. The unbeliever doesn't, by definition, believe any God exists. So he can't say that something he doesn't believe exists could ever also "be good." That would make no sense at all.

They're just words, of course we can say them.

You can say whatever you want. But the truth of what I've said above is manifest.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's an obvious truism. You can't possibly doubt it. The unbeliever doesn't, by definition, believe any God exists. So he can't say that something he doesn't believe exists could ever also "be good." That would make no sense at all.

They're just words, of course we can say them.

You can say whatever you want. But the truth of what I've said above is manifest.

The words mean the same thing whoever says them. That is what words do. It's what words are for. It's why we even have them at all.

[Immanuel Can]

They're just words, of course we can say them.

You can say whatever you want. But the truth of what I've said above is manifest.

The words mean the same thing whoever says them.

So when I say "bow," which word do I mean?

[FlashDangerpants]

You can say whatever you want. But the truth of what I've said above is manifest.

The words mean the same thing whoever says them.

So when I say "bow," which word do I mean?

If I knew a context I could reply with the same word meaning the same thing. The proposition "Eric raised his bow and shot Harald in the eye" for instance would disambiguate that one nicely because. Words are normally used to mean things in sentences. Once we have the sense (referent optional) for the use we are cooking with gas. That's what words are for. It's why we even have them at all.

[Immanuel Can]

The words mean the same thing whoever says them.

So when I say "bow," which word do I mean?

If I knew a context...

Ah. So words don't always "mean the same thing."
QED.

[FlashDangerpants]

So when I say "bow," which word do I mean?

If I knew a context...

Ah. So words don't always "mean the same thing."
QED.

The context is to know which of the words that are spelled "bow" you refer to. Whichever one you mean, it is still the same word for all the peopel who speak it.

Did you think that tragic pedantry was a killer argument?

[Immanuel Can]

If I knew a context...

Ah. So words don't always "mean the same thing."
QED.

The context is to know which of the words that are spelled "bow" you refer to.

But you say words always mean the same, no matter who says them. So you shouldn't need any more information than the word itself.

Again. Checkmate. You clearly don't believe your own argument.

[FlashDangerpants]

Ah. So words don't always "mean the same thing."
QED.

The context is to know which of the words that are spelled "bow" you refer to.

But you say words always mean the same, no matter who says them. So you shouldn't need any more information than the word itself.

Again. Checkmate. You clearly don't believe your own argument.

There are different words spelled "bow". You are debasing yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

The context is to know which of the words that are spelled "bow" you refer to.

But you say words always mean the same, no matter who says them. So you shouldn't need any more information than the word itself.

Again. Checkmate. You clearly don't believe your own argument.

There are different words spelled "bow". You are debasing yourself.

Shaaaaaming! Oh, you're a woman. There's no doubt about that. No man would try that tactic.

You can't answer the question. You're cooked.

[FlashDangerpants]

But you say words always mean the same, no matter who says them. So you shouldn't need any more information than the word itself.

Again. Checkmate. You clearly don't believe your own argument.

There are different words spelled "bow". You are debasing yourself.

Shaaaaaming! Oh, you're a woman. There's no doubt about that. No man would try that tactic.

You can't answer the question. You're cooked.

Your own petty logic renders you transexual given that you just tried a silly mysoginistic stunt to try and shame me.
Also you overuse smilies like a grandmother on Facebook

You didn't give me the word itself. You chose a set of letters that can spell many words, some of them not even homonyms when spoken aloud, so there's no excuse for confusing yourself that they are one word. You have chosen to be obtuse because you are making a fool of yourself and you know it.

Bow as in bow and arrow, and bow as in bow before FDP your lord and master are not even remotely the same word.
If we both refer to the front bit of a ship as a bow, then we are both using the same sense of bow with the same referent.

Bow as in an arrangement of ribbons and bow as in the knot you tie your shoelaces wouldn't work as the same definite descriptor, but one must recognise intensional similarity. So if somebody argued they were variations of the same word I wouldn't make a big deal out of it.

[Immanuel Can]

You didn't give me the word itself.

I certainly did. And do you think that's the only word in the English language you wouldn't be able to sort? I assure you, it's not.

What does "like" mean? Is it an interjection? Is it a verb? Is it an adjective? What are "manners," as I pointed out before? What are Arab "manners," or Indian "manners," or English "manners," or the "manner" in which I am currently addressing you?

Do you think these things don't evoke different images in people's minds, when they come from different frames of reference? Of course they do. And "God" is a word like that: different cultures and worldviews get different ideas in their minds when they hear it. In fact, based on your previous messages, I can absolutely guarantee that what you think of, when you think of that word, is quite substantially different from what I am thinking.

[Alexiev]

Indeed there are. And I have read several of them. If you were to do the same, I suspect you'd see what I see: that the differences between them are absolutely profound. And I suggest you might want to take most seriously the one that is evidently the most serious candidate. Most of them, I'll think you will find you can dispatch rather quickly. But the remainder...well, that will take a serious investigation, before you can pass judgment on that one.

This is a version of subjective preference and false dichotomy. If one Scripture is preferable to another, both might be wrong. It isn't reasonable to assume thr superior one is correct.

Au contraire. It's is very reasonable to know that Shakespeare's Hamlet is a greater work than The Cat in the Hat. One may prefer one or the other; but one may not say that they are equal.

If The Odyssey is a greater work than the gospels, does that mean Achilles' description of the afterlife is more accurate than Jesus's?

[Immanuel Can]

If The Odyssey is a greater work than the gospels, does that mean Achilles' description of the afterlife is more accurate than Jesus's?

I can't even begin to imagine the group of observations that would justify the first premise, which seems to me entirely absurd, given the facts; and I don't have any idea how you imagine the conclusion you aim at there is warranted by that premise anyway.