stay on track

lmao

Binary view

ok

Which is wrong

sperg

Nice, resort to insults

what?
no no no
god is not going to start having contradictory desires lol
you cant both want people to have free will and then say that his desire is unfullfilled when people have free will

thats nonsensical

i already explained how a quantum view still doesnt change things

The second someone resorts to insults, they lose

@Spergerger point flew over your head

>calls someone a sperg
>went and complained into general last night after Veric patched in his argument in religion

lmao

lol
is this nigga using strawman physics definitions in theological debate?

pls no

im just aghast at the lack of an argument here

We've proved why your false dichotomy is false

no you didnt

god is literally in accordance with his desires in the example you used

idk if youre trolling me

Your entire thesis is based on false assumptions

you just said "muh omnipotence fixes everything" when omnipotence is part of whats in question.

@Spergerger god having desires at all is the problem

no

yes

stay on track

god having potentiality would be the problem

yes

desire necessitates potentiality

lmao

but his desires have no potentiality because he is already in accordance with them

lmao then they wouldnt be desires

but they are

desiring you to come to me of your own free will is not a desire?

it doesnt matter if youre in accord with them

ok youre fucking moving goalposts now

yes desiring someone to come to you freely is a desire

you literally are saying that it is a desire

than saying it isnt in the same sentence

yes
but you have yet to prove that desire implies potentiality in this context