Vlad,
Hillside is the one that argues or rather declares everything is possible, I don’t.
No, Hillside simply says that our understanding of reality is bounded by our ability
to understand reality and so it’s impossible to know what may or may not lies outwith that ability.
I say we cannot rule Leprechauns out but that they are as described physical beings with unusual skills.
No, they are described as non-material entities able at will to flit in and out of materiality but when they choose to be material they do it in a particular form. I believe this to be true because that’s my faith.
You on the other hand think there to be a “god” described as an entity able at will to flit in and out of materiality, but when he chooses to be material he does it in particular forms (burning bushes, angels etc). You believe this to be true because that’s your faith.
While their objects are different (leprechauns vs god) they’re epistemically the same claim.
Unfortunately not even the more unlikely skills need not be impossible and don’t forget it is possible to believe in Leprechauns but not their unusual skills.
Nope, no idea. What are you trying to say here?
Invisible pink 🦄 unicorns clearly are self contradictory and absurd.
More so than your claim “god”? Why do you think that?
I’ve never said or argued for the existence of everything, none of my arguments do.
Nor has anyone else. So?
I acknowledge there are bad arguments and that Leprechauns are no basis for any formal reductio ad absurdum.
Why not?
Impossible or contradictory
God, leprechauns or both?