(December 13, 2024 at 9:07 am)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:I am a big dummy, or if one prefers a middling intellect, with a mediocre formal education. However he never actually addresses what I have said, and can't avoid sententious posturing and name dropping, without actually offering any depth or valid criticism.(December 13, 2024 at 6:56 am)Sheldon Wrote: I am not an expert in superstition of course, or theology if you want to pretend, but it seems to me that the more autonomy or choice any entity has, the more culpable that entity must be for its actions. It's impossible to imagine more autonomy or freedom of choice than an entity that was both omniscient and omnipotent. Of course apologists usually offer omnipotent lite as a desperate rationalisation, to try and pretend limitless power has limits, but this doesn't help, as the notion of both omnipotence and omniscience inevitably violate the law of non contradiction, it cannot be otherwise.But remember your a big dummy dumb according to Bel who can't seem to muster an actual criticism himself
Now, @TheWhiteMarten, I have asked several times, can you demonstrate anything approaching any objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural, or that these ideas are even possible? I have noticed over the years, how reticent apologists become when anyone asks this. And to avoid semantics, all those words are in the dictionary for you.
1. Dropped Plato's name in, check.
2. Pointed out I knew fuck all about [philosophy, check.
3. Implying he does, check.
4. Never actually addressed any specifics, check.
It's beyond tedious now, and I no longer have the patience to indulge what has all the appearance of the Dunning-Kruger effect.