I wasn't arguing for omniscient or omnipotent (yet),
Then you are admitting that entire tangent was completely pointless because it has nothing to do with how you describe god.
The most convincing argument that gods are fake is in a different class from the most convincing argument that some god is real,
You're very very close to an epiphany here..... The lightbulb is over your head right now just dying to light up.
If the logical thought exercise you put forward can be used to support 2 contradicting claims at the same time, what does that tell you about the validity of your thought exercise?
It means the thought exercise is invalid, and so are any arguments that rely on it. It's pointless mental masturbation that ends with whatever conclusion you want, based on where you choose to start.
Are you willing to admit you made an invalid argument? I don't think so. Because I don't think you actually pursue truth.
I wasn't arguing for omniscient or omnipotent (yet),
Then you are admitting that entire tangent was completely pointless because it has nothing to do with Christianity or your belief in god.
The most convincing argument that gods are fake is in a different class from the most convincing argument that some god is real,
You're very very close to an epiphany here..... The lightbulb is over your head right now just dying to light up.
If the logical thought exercise you put forward can be used to support 2 contradicting claims at the same time, what does that tell you about the validity of your thought exercise?
It means the thought exercise is invalid, and so are any arguments that rely on it. It's pointless mental masturbation that ends with whatever conclusion you want, based on where you choose to start.
Are you willing to admit you made an invalid argument? I don't think so. Because I don't think you actually pursue truth.
I wasn't arguing for omniscient or omnipotent (yet),
Then you are admitting that entire tangent was completely pointless because it has nothing to do with Christianity or your belief in god.
The most convincing argument that gods are fake is in a different class from the most convincing argument that some god is real,
You're very very close to an epiphany here..... The lightbulb is over your head right now just dying to light up.
If the logical thought exercise you put forward can be used to support 2 contradicting claims at the same time, what does that tell you about the validity of your thought exercise?
It means the thought exercise is invalid, and so are any arguments that rely on it. It's pointless mental masturbation that ends with whatever conclusion you want, based on where you choose to start.
Are you willing to admit you made an invalid argument? I don't think so. Because I don't think you actually pursue truth.