The thing is: I neither need an ontological proof for God nor do
   I need a formal proof that there is no God. My answer is: "I
   don't know". It is a subjective answer. I am not saying, "Nobody
   knows, or 'it can't be known'. You're satisfied with the logic
   presented to you and you find it conclusive and exhaustive. I'm
   satisfied that NONE of the arguments for or against are
   conclusive and exhaustive. That is me speaking for me. I'm not
   speaking for you or anybody else. == We're GENERALLY on the same
   team. Fight a fundamentalist Christian somewhere. You'll get
   nowhere with me. I'm not kidding myself: You're using an
   artificially constructed glossary limiting definitions of terms
   to win a debate. It's an old game. == Hair-splitting like this
   is exactly the kind of thing that destroys potentially useful
   movements. Try forcing a dedicated moderate to an extremist
   position and you find yourself with fewer and fewer numbers. ==
   Communication is people talking about something. You're
   referring to debate. Debate is a subset of communication. "Want
   a beer?" Do I answer something about the illogic of desire or
   something? No, I get a beer or I say I'm busy. That's
   communication. That's conversation. I'm not misusing words. I'm
   just not in the mood for a debate. ===