"No. I have specifically said many times that the the god of theism does not exist."What you have or have not said in the past is unknown to me (and beside the point). If you stated that in this thread, I missed it.
You are arguing against the claims of Classical Theism. (I believe you mean that - there are, after all, many theologies)
If so, I don't think we differ in view. I think it can be shown to be logically inconsistent, as you imply. But then if it was clear to me you were only speaking only of the God of classical theism - my comment would not have contained a quote from you.
Much of your comment is about that god, since we agree in regard to that god it seems pointless to reply to most of it.
I would pay to see that.Me laughing with my face? It's what I tend to use... You use your elbow or something?
"An absent "god" is meaningless and pointless."Care to explain why?
Because you are not speaking of the god of classical theism there. "He/It" is not absent (within the theology, ofc).
So, like I said, which god? Because you kinda need it to be an omni-thisthatandtheother god too, to level charges at it for negligence. Otherwise justifiable reasons for it's absence could be many, without rendering the god either "meaningless" or "pointless".
Although, I tend not to speculate about the motivations and abilities of things I don't believe in.
Occam's RazorLol. To me it seems like "God dun it" it a simpler theory than the ones biochemistry offer me... I should dispense with science? (I jest, ofc)