The logical consequences of omnipotence

[Esquilax]

I thought my position was quite concise. Let me try to rephrase... Anyone can make up rubbish: an unworkable hypothesis. But until you can come up with a workable model, you can't claim to have bettered anything. So I can't see what there is to defend here.

Your aeroplanes suck because my aeroplane doesn't crash. < problem with this hypothesis: non substantiated claim.

Oh, I'm sorry, was my alternate hypothesis not clear by the fact that my religious leanings are 'atheist' and that that is displayed right under my username? Well, I'll state it here: my alternate hypothesis is a universe without a god in it.

Besides, I don't need to have an alternative solution to a problem I can see in someone else's theory for the problem to become valid or real. Taking your aeroplane example, I don't need to know anything about aviation to know that a plane with a wing broken off won't fly. Sure, providing an alternative is good and all, but when my entire position is simply that god is an imaginary frippery people add onto a very real world... what alternative could I provide that wasn't implicit in my argument? I'm saying your add-on makes no sense, and that no add-on is necessary. Yes, anyone can make up rubbish: why does my pointing out your made up rubbish require me to commit to the same level of dishonesty?

You don't have to buy what I'm selling, because I'm not selling anything at all. I'm just pointing out that what the church is selling kind of stinks.