There is no evidence of a particular god’s existence

If you were able to prove your particular god existed without resorting to general ontological arguments, would you? That is what I’m trying to get at.

I’m currently laying the groundwork with sound logic we can both (hopefully) agree upon to prevent my argument from being reduced into oblivion via semantics.

Does that change in word usage to "logically coherent" somehow make my argument strictly deistic rather than theistic?

Does that change in word usage to "logically coherent" somehow make my argument strictly deistic rather than theistic?

Your argument is repeatedly semantic. 

Hence, you've demonstrated a tendency to add qualifications like "indistinguishable" and "functionally" in your arguments (hence, shifts the argument over to definitions of functional and distinguishable.) 

PressF4Respect's argument is that because Theists don't use evidence--qualification notwithstanding, the evidence therefore must not exist. Can you find no flaw in this reasoning?

All arguments (that use common language) are by definition, semantic.

If you'd like to argue that undiscovered (OR) lost (OR) secret evidence IS DISTINGUISHABLE from NO EVIDENCE, please simply present that argument and stop appealing to ignorance.

Well I'm just concerned about the original premise of the thread. All one would have to do is make an evidence-based argument for a particular god to render this premise void. In the debate I previously cited, I was arguing for the Christian God over all others from the authenticity and accuracy of the Bible as an historical document (evidence). Regardless of whether one agrees with me, I have made an argument using evidence.

At this point, it would seem that the original premise would be nullified, or you would have to show why my argument lacks evidence and is not theistic. However, to simply say that you don't find the evidence compelling or logically coherent should not be grounds to say it is no evidence at all. It's just evidence you don't agree with.

All arguments (that use common language) are by definition, semantic.

I stand corrected. I should have stated lexically semantic.

If you'd like to argue that undiscovered (OR) lost (OR) secret evidence IS DISTINGUISHABLE from NO EVIDENCE, please simply present that argument and stop appealing to ignorance.

This is an appeal to ignorance. 

I have no burden to provide an argument for an assertion you made.

I have no intention of arguing over lexicon, and that's my point.

PressF4Respect presented his assertion, and has as of yet to provide its proof, so if there's issue over the meaning of his statements, then he can accommodate your concerns.

Now if I were to press you over that which constitutes logical coherency, I presume it will be reduced to an argument over lexical semantics. As I stated before, I intend only to delve the conceptual nature of being.

I'm not really trying to set a standard. I'm just saying that I don't believe the premise has any validity if someone can show they are making an evidence-based argument from a theistic perspective. If you can give me a good reason why I might be wrong I would be happy to hear it.

Well I'm just concerned about the original premise of the thread. All one would have to do is make an evidence-based argument for a particular god to render this premise void. In the debate I previously cited, I was arguing for the Christian God over all others from the authenticity and accuracy of the Bible as an historical document (evidence). Regardless of whether one agrees with me, I have made an argument using evidence.

At this point, it would seem that the original premise would be nullified, or you would have to show why my argument lacks evidence and is not theistic. However, to simply say that you don't find the evidence compelling or logically coherent should not be grounds to say it is no evidence at all. It's just evidence you don't agree with.

I don't understand how you can imagine that you can formulate a logical statement without rigorous and explicit definitions.

This is a TAUTOLOGICAL STATEMENT.

Undiscovered (OR) lost (OR) secret evidence is INDISTINGUISHABLE from NO EVIDENCE.

This statement is necessarily true based on extremely common and widely accepted definitions.

Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.

I say, the available evidence is indistinguishable from no-evidence (tautological statement of fact).

You say, nuh-uh (which implies that you believe the opposite is true, which you refuse to state, which constitutes an appeal to ignorance).

If we don't share some basic, foundational concepts (common-ground-word-definitions), then we can never properly communicate.

I love it.  You're one of those "written in stone" people.

And there is still, no real evidence of a particular gods existence.

Only assumption.

The logical incoherence is in asserting that abstracts don't exist [in the exact same way as imaginary things] while simultaneously subjecting existence to an abstract [rigorous definition].

You have gone on to a completely different subject.

The original premise is saying that no one is even arguing for those beliefs, not whether they are true.

An argument does not cease to be an argument simply because I disagree with it. The same can be said for evidence because evidence is not proof.

To answer your question, no I don't believe any of those are true.

Do you believe that an argument is only valid if it agrees with your beliefs?

Or is evidence only valid if it matches your conclusions?

The particular God I believe is The Ultimate Reality.

Is this your deist God?

So why pretend it is different and I need to prove something else?

Therefore, all you would have to do is present an argument from a theistic perspective to nullify the first post,

...and then present evidence for your argument to nullify the second post.

I am not saying that you have to believe what I am arguing for.

I am just saying it wouldn't make sense to say that I'm not arguing for it.

I showed in post #31 that I gave an evidence-based argument from a theistic perspective in a debate.

The overall point of this, I am using theistic arguments, with evidence, to prove the existence of a particular God.

I am still waiting to hear a good reason why this does not nullify the two claims of these posts...

And there is still, no real evidence of a particular gods existence.

Only assumption.

Substantiate your assertion.

The logical incoherence is in asserting that abstracts don't exist [in the exact same way as imaginary things] while simultaneously subjecting existence to an abstract [rigorous definition].

You should be able to easily refute this with a simple counter-factual.

Are you sure? How do abstracts differ from "imaginary things" as it concerns the manner in which they exist?

Abstracts (like first order logic and mathematics) are RIGOROUSLY DEFINED and coherent and independently verifiable (Quanta).

Pure imagination is unverifiable Qualia.

When you say that no theist is making "logically-coherent-sound-arguments," what you really seem to be saying is "those arguments for God don't make sense because there is no God." How is that not putting the cart before the horse?