What is this god-nothing, you claim after claim but don’t define in reality?
 
You say you believe in a possibility of your favored god-claim?”
 
“I believe in god. But it’s not a claim about god. Just a claim about my belief.” – Challenger
My response, “what is a god?”
“God is the thing on which everything else depends. And from which everything derives. The relationship of the universe to god is like the relationship of a dream to the dreamer.” – Challenger
My response, “what kind of non-answer to my question what is a god, as all you offered was more of what you think the god claim you favor. You made more unsupported additional claims about your undefined god instead trued to say claims about your somethingism about your nothingism god claim is the beginning and active supporter of everything, which doesn’t matter to my question what is a god not the fake magic you believe it can do. Please tell me what is a god?”
“I have a feeling that the above paragraph is represents a good example of the response I am going to get regardless of what I post.” – Challenger
My response, “so, non-answers? What I asked and you still have not answered was, please tell me what is a god?
“I like you. You are a character for sure.” – Challenger
My response, “so, non-answers? What I asked and you still have not answered was, please tell me what is a god?
“I like you. You are a character for sure.” – Challenger
My response, “So we can agree you don’t have a valid offering to answer my question, what is a god?”

Don’t ever let them side step, answering the question: “what is a god?”

 
What my questions are doing is using strategies from my invented philosophy tool: “Hammer of Truth” in response to the assertion: “I Believe in god.”
 
Here is a basic outlining on how to use strategies from my:
“Hammer of Truth” in response to the question: “Do you Believe in god?”
 
With my “Hammer of Truth” Ontology (What), Epistemology (How) and Axiology (why) questions debate/challenge philosophy tools so people easily learn how to use Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology questions to remove errors and add accuracy.
 
-I want to teach people that when they are asked, “Do you Believe in god?” to ask What Do you Mean by god (an ontological question wanting a good ontology answer) then when they try and give an answer to explain or define the god term’s “thingness/attributes/qualities” which will likely fail, so we will have to explain that want is offered does not soundly explain or define a good Ontology answer of the term/idea of god, instead what is being offered is not a “good ontology answer” thus the god term being offered like all gods is not real or tangible, ie “they need to be proved by the materialistic empirical detection or logical necessity, I mean it needs tangible warranted evidence that is provable as real and not some empty made up definition that is not real.
 
-Then if they stand behind what they think is some valid evidence to explain or define the god term’s “thingness/attributes/qualities” we should ask “How Do You Know That” (an Epistemological question needing an Epistemology answer), Then when they try and give an answer to explain “how they know” which will likely fail, so we will have to explain that want is offered does not soundly establish and confirm knowledge, instead what is being offered is not a “good Epistemology answer”, thus the god term being offered like all god claims is speaking in unjustified or unsupported terms, rather the ideas offered is refer to nonreal or intangible-unknowable things.
 
-Then if they stand behind what they think is some good epistemology answer, we should ask “Why Do You think what you have offered is valuable/worthwhile/good evidence, especially if there is posable contradictory evidence or good reason/valid and reliable reasoning process” (an Axiological question needing a “good Axiology answer”). Then when they try and give an answer to explain why they think what is being offered is not a “good Axiology answer” thus is not real or tangible and not some empty made up definition that is not real offered is valuable/worthwhile/good evidence, especially if there is posable contradictory evidence or good reason/valid and reliable reasoning process, because without good Ontology and Epistemology answers that are valid as well as reliable reason and evidence to support the offered god term thinking, which they will not making the offered god claims invalid, disvalued, dis-worth, as well as un-good thus the god term being offered like all gods is not real or tangible, ie “they need to be proved by the materialistic empirical detection or logical necessity, I mean it needs tangible warranted evidence that is provable as real and not some empty made up definition that is not real.
 
Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology OEA (The Hammer of Truth)
 
OEA “Hammer of Truth” Questions
 
Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology questioning tools in inquiry, disagreements, arguments, or debates.
 
*Ontology (thingness of things) questions to define or compare and contrast thingness.
 
*Epistemology (knowledge of things) questions to explode or establish and confirm knowledge.
 
*Axiology (value/worth/goodness of things) questions to valueize (value judge) or establish and confirm value or disvalue, worth or dis-worth, as well as goodness or un-good.
 
To understand my “Hammer of Truth” Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology questions debate/challenge philosophy tools gatherers: “Ontology”, inquisitors: “Epistemology”, & judgers: “Axiology.”