>>22385825Constantine the UNCONVERTED?
"doesn't that demonstrate that someone from the late 1st century or early 2nd century used the power of divination?"
No, I'm sorry, it doesn't and if your 'go to' for 'proving magic' (preciate you actually trying to hold a candle for your side, but I feel it futile),
even if I had a book that said we were going to have THIS conversation, HERE AND NOW, with exact timestamps and everything,
that wouldn't prove magic or divination, which is, you gotta admit vague fucking airy fairy 'is this the best shit we've got? We're trying to defend MAGIC here' kind of way.
Appealing to a mystery isn't a way of solving a mystery, it kicks the can down the road.
The mechanisms for gods in general are mystical assertions, not demonstrations of fact.
Assertions can...kiss my assertions.
No religion is special, none of them stand out.
The score is Supernaturalism: zero (special credit for effort), naturalism: all the modern world and its conveniences as victory markers.
Superstition is useless, dood. Only accurate information produces reliable results.
