I am not the type to rely on assumptions without corroboration. JudyHon has intimated that he is an anorak and effectively likes discussion to be founded upon detail and precision. Of course it's relative but I'm not certain that has really come across in many of his posts. I have a friend who is a forensic accountant so I know the type.

Anyway, the more one assumes about another, the more likely it is that some of one’s assumptions will be wrong; that in turn leads to errors & misconstrual. Hence, my tendency towards asking questions rather than making assumptions. I also felt it was important that we were using the same terms equitably and sort clarification in some areas. Very little was achieved in that regard.

I consequently still have a number of things that I am unsure of. I'll state my own position to prevent you continuing to repeat my own questions to me, as much as I'd like to see your own answers to avoid you relying on mine:

Are the sometimes irreverent Aposhark and surprisingly irrepressible JudyHon, atheists? If so what does that term mean to them so we are all clear on what their position actually is? I'm obviously a Christian, born-again in fact.

How do my disputants define God? This is important so that we know what we are talking about? I don’t want to make points and then have the other party claim a change of definition.

Can they also clarify exactly what claims they were seeking to make and would they also care to articulate robust reasons for their claims? I must have missed them. My key rebuttal to all that was initiated by Aposhark and reiterated by Shawn, is that they should be respectful of the religious beliefs of others and be polite in communications. Directed more towards the the Shark's grandson than Shawn of course. Additionally, as you can present no proof that God does not exist, be factual and avoide definitive statements that suggest that.

One of the difficulties is that it appears my opponents opine only empirical evidence is proof. I would welcome clarification on this; is that exactly what they are saying? Or are they incredibly trying to suggest that evidence can be derived from many sources unless we are discussing God? I consider Shawn far too smart for that but just want to be clear on his postion regarding evidence.

What do my opponents also think tolerance and respect mean? I'm particularly interested in Aposharks response, if he dare give one, as I have now documented a long list of his statements across a couple of threads that quite frankly raise some profound inconsistencies.

For the record yet again. I am not trying to preach to anyone, convert them or anything similar. Additionally, I do not think Christians are right whereas others are wrong and do not think anyone is better than any other. I am merely challenging some of the things that have been said by my opponents on matters related to God existing.

Over to you guys!!!!