>>468065890>>one world>Nitpicker's findings are already false because of this. To associate the existence of a god with this false finding You said nothing more than an empty claim.
A couple of words you picked out of sentence because they are the only two words you understand is not evidence your fee fees are valid. Nothing is "false" in that sentence and you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
>Additionally:>Why does the existence of any exclusive god win out over multitudes? And why does the existence of any singular god win out over any singular other? The premise of the existence of all gods are equally valid - since their adherents declaim the existence of all others with an equal amount of ontological authority, they are all also equally invalidYou seriously don't understand the problems with polytheism huh? Embarrassing
Polytheism is self defeating because one all powerful God cannot have "competition" from an equally powerful counterpart since a medium which separates them must have more power than both by definition
If the medium did not exist, then "they" are the same God. Polytheism therefore cannot have a true godlike all powerful entity.
If something is more powerful than a so called "god" then it is not GOD; it's just a finite being with a comparatively large amount of power or however depending on perspective.
That obviously is too much for you to comprehend so don't bother trying to refute it. You aren't smart enough.
>>468068208>that's not evidenceIt is in fact evidence.
Like I said, evidence does not have to be physical.
Your delicate little feelings does not refute evidence
Just like your feelings that you're a real woman do not refute the evidence you are a man.
