(October 17, 2019 at 3:04 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:(October 17, 2019 at 1:01 am)Belaqua Wrote: What is this evidence, in English?
I've said that in both the video and the post you are quoting: inconsistent revelations (different religions, the Bible containing nonsense), the fact that theology hasn't revealed anything useful to us, natural evil, and, most importantly, the omnipotence paradox.
The omnipotence paradox isn't the knock-down argument you seem to think it is. There are a number of objections, including one by Wittgenstein, who was no Christian.
Moreover, it depends on a common-language understanding of "omnipotent" to mean "can do anything." For Aristotelian Thomists, however, that's not what they mean when they say that God is omnipotent. It means that all potentiality in the world depends for its actualization on God, which they say is pure act. Omnipotent, for them, means the full actualization of all potentiality. Actus purus, an old definition of God. It is incoherent to them to say that God "can do anything," because they already agree that God does nothing -- takes no action.
So those people find the "can he create a stone so heavy he can't lift it?" question to be about as challenging as "if people descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?"
Your other arguments help to demonstrate that revelation is unreliable and people don't understand God very well. But since it's a key definition of God that it is beyond human understanding, that won't bother believers.
I think you've made some good arguments against the simplest Sunday School type of Christianity. A lot of people are stuck at that level.
