L’Eau,
I answered your adolescent sarcasm about omnipotence much more fully than it deserved, two or three times, but you were determined not to understand what I was saying, so I gave up.
Except of course none of that’s – ooh, what’s the word I’m trying to think of here? Oh yeah,
true.
What actually happened was that you posited a notion that allows a space for “God” to co-exist with “evil” by suggesting that one of the “omnis” – omnipotence – was only theoretically rather than actually true.
I explained to you (neither adolescently nor sarcastically) that you’d fallen foul of two logical fallacies. First, the fallacy of special pleading: you took a specific claim (omnipotence) and diluted it to “theoretical” while ignoring the problem that you’d thereby fundamentally re-defined what “omnipotence” actually means.
Second, the fallacy of arbitrariness. You picked one of the omnis (apparently at random) to dilute, when you could equally have done the same with any of the others (or with a combination of them) and also created a space for evil to hide in.
Since then you’ve been entirely unwilling or unable to address the problems you’ve given yourself, preferring instead first silence and now insult.
Look, it’s simple enough. If you’re feeling upset that a cherished notion has been undone but so out of your depth that you can’t process it just say so. There are people here who readily will help you with the basics of how logic and argument work, and moreover you’ll be better equipped to deal with the world once you do grasp it.
Your actual response though does you no credit.
Coda: As this relates to a different discussion and it's not fair to derail this one, I'll post it on the Omnipotence thread too.
