STOP - someone is guilty or not guilty of breaking the law.
“Immoral” - it’s use is normally used by religious folks. This is purely subjective and can be reserved for a different thread.
shaking head… “truth claims” in reality (ie victim alive or dead; stolen vehicle; store robbed; money laundering) have physical evidence connecting narratives and as I’ve explained previously, opportunity to dispute the opposing narrative based on evidence (or quality of evidence or expertise).
YOU seem hung up on language and common speech. Do you think everyone that speaks uses some form of CCA? If so, which we may, but in perhaps different “levels” of formality - isn’t then that just a form of our communications with each other. How does the form of our language use “create a god” by using that form of language without demonstrable evidence.
Again - you seem focused only on what you want to focus on.
Nope. My wording is fine. Your reading or comprehension of what I wrote is what’s untenable.
Perhaps you’d like to re-read all my previous posts, to better understand the balance in various real life areas where different forms of evidence are required for different types of claims.
YOU could perfect your technique and perhaps walk away believing (with faith lol) you win - OK - it still does NOT leave you with an existing god.
Acknowledge where appropriate:
Answer questions posed to you.
DOES the NIGERIAN PRINCE letter use CCA?
Is the claim by the Nigerian Prince true?
Both prosecutor and defending lawyers use this form of argument style… IS CCA getting to the truth of the event? One lawyer will “lose” using this argument style. One lawyer is wrong… IS CCA a reliable form for this lawyer who believes he is arguing the “truth” of the event?