Nonsense.
The perspective involved asserts all manner of things about God.
The nature of the assertions is rather integral to a particular pseudo-super-rationalist perspective, in my experience.
The nature of the assertions has been extensively and rather tediously going back and forth ad nauseum over reasons for and against certain ideations about God and the evidence for God; Christianity, Scripture etc. in the starkest and most intensely pointed terms.
Replying in kind may be tricky but is not to be avoided if one is serious about anything approaching an even-handed ‘dialogue.’
This is a philosophical/ religious/ spiritual/ cosmological/ reason/ thought-processes/ reality sort of discussion.
Talking about those aspects of reality necessarily involves . . . uhhhhh . . . those aspects of reality.
The other side seems happy to let the chips fall where they may in their presentation of their assertions.
It’s only, evidently, when the chips grow uncomfortable that the !!!!DEMAND!!!!! is issued that only the most sanitized assertions be allowed from the our side.
Color me underwhelmed.
I believe in God. I don't have to prove it to anybody. It's my belief. I'm not so thick that I'd claim to "know" there is a God, because I realize God cannot be proven. If God could be proven, we'd all be believers - well... most of us. There's always going to the occasional wild cards.
Every single ridiculous argument you folks keep having with kosta revolves around this one issue. Just say you believe in God, and you're smart enough to understand God can neither be defined nor proven, and the discussion is over.
I think all of you are using the wrong plan of attack when attempting to "prove there is a God". Try using the comparative mythology of one of my heroes - Joseph Campbell. His book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" was all the "proof" I needed that there really is a God.