Don't know what you're talking about.
It's a definition, pure and simple.
It's a definition of something that you claim exists in actuality.
And within that claim lies your argument that, other than "it exists by definition" and that you believe we had an origin, we are struggling for you to reveal.
Yes it would, for the purposes of the discussion.
It would be his argument on the basis that he put it forward.
His to support.
His to defend.
His.
That it is borrowed even word for word from someone else is irrelevant.
If I say, for example, "My friend Tim defines you as arrogant and obnoxious, and I agree with him" you think I can simply turn around and say "well it's not me saying that, it's just a definition!" and expect people to take me seriously about it?
Or would they say that by me agreeing with his definition I have taken it as my own, to support, to defend?
What you are doing by disowning your own position in such a manner is simply dishonest and ridiculous.
So, from now on, whenever anyone makes reference to
your definition or
your argument I suggest you simply assume they mean the one you have put forward in the discussion, whether it is yours originally or not, okay?
I stated where it came from.
You did, now take ownership of it given that you are the one promoting it, and arguing from that base.
You would be the only one thinking that in this regard.
If you push/promote/agree with a definition, or an argument, within a discussion then it is yours to defend and support, irrespective of whether you are the originator of that definition or argument.
I honestly can't believe you need to be told this, Jan.
Have you gone your entire life disowning anything you believe or argue simply because you weren't the originator of the thought?
So you believe.
The thing itself comes into existence.
And are you really going to waste time with this?
Name something that has ever come into existence rather than is merely a transformation of pre-existing matter/energy?
Can you do that, please?
You say you believe we have an origin (now is this a claim you are owning as yours, or did someone else originate it?) so I am assuming you can name something that actually had an origin, rather than is merely a transformation of that which already exists.
This is to clarify exactly what you mean by words such as "origin", "cause", "create" etc.
So after all this time, after putting forth a definition of God for discussion, you can't actually prove that it relates to anything in actuality?
All you can do is say that you "know" it exists but you can't prove it to us?
Wow, what a miserable waste of time this exercise has been.
I thought you had more than simply your belief, Jan.
Seems not.
It seems, whether you appreciate it or not, that you believe simply because, well, you believe.
But then I'm sure you've been told that many times in the past.