Why not deism?

[Inqwizitor]

I guess it depends on your perspective. While atheism doesn't put up any intellectual problems (because it doesn't really put up anything at all), naturalism does, and reductive or eliminative materialism do.

Naturalism validated itself with a unique track record that affords increased probability that its apparent intellectual leaps really coincides with an existent if as yet not fully articulated foundation in reality.   Other approaches do not provide anything to suggest any of their leaps are nothing more than totally unfounded wishful fancy.

Naturalism works, absolutely. No argument there. It's when we say that naturalism is a complete metaphysical explanation that we encounter some issues with it. The easy thing to do is simply swipe aside metaphysics as impractical word-play. But our epistemology for naturalism is based on metaphysics, that our senses are reliable, that reality is intelligible, and our reasoning veridical, so that's not entirely consistent

---

OK so you would agree then that omniscience and omnipotence are logically incompatible properties?

I do think so, yeah. But that's besides the point anyway. The person making the argument still has the burden to show that such a being is logically possible in the first place. I refer you back to my math analogy.

And if the person making the argument responds back with how do you prove such a thing, well, tough luck, buddy ... you're the one trying to make a supposedly compelling argument here.

If we switched sides on the theism chessboard, say, just for fun, how do you think one could show that such a being is logically possible?