Monsieur said-
But you cannot argue against the FACT that power, justice, wisdom and love do exist, and are very real.
It is intellectually-dishonest to move goalposts by redefining 'God' to mean power, justice, wisdom and love: all of those words are those concepts that already have commonly-accepted definitions.
Cantleave said-
It's a conclusion who's validity isn't supported by any evidence,
As a stand alone statement you are correct. However my comment was not a stand alone statement it was in the context of a thread that was showing that there is no need for a god.
WOW, that's suspiciously close to the old believers cries of, "but you're taking the scripture out of context!" even when the incriminating passage IS read in it's context.
Anyway, my point is that the statement is fluff, since it's devoid of any evidence: it IS a CONCLUSION which only relies on rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Someone could insert ANYTHING into it, and it still would rely on the comparison to pencils that lack points, EVEN IF it weren't true (eg few would claim that "Medicine is like a pencil- pointless...", but the claim relies implies that it IS, since it doesn't rely on valid reasoning, but form).
Did you read the article on my blog? Even though the statement above relies on the fact that many words carry multiple definitions (eg pencils have lead points, and arguments have points), it's closely related to the Yahwist's use of puns in Genesis, or OJ's defense of "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" trite and vapid slogan.
BTW, EVEN IF the slogan appeared in a thread with TONS of evidence surrounding it, it still would simply be adding NOISE, since style cannot and shouldn't be allowed to replace actual evidence.
Adam