One side being irrational or insulting does not give you the right to do the same.

Thats not what ive heard

What's not what you heard?

The argument is essentially theological fatalism, its just that your conclusion is concerning the implication being that god cannot therefore be omnipotent

And all im saying is, that the conclusion is untrue because the argument is untrue, and the argument is untrue because its formally invalid

Formal invalidity entails the absence of an adequate inference rule, and an inference rule in propositional logic is THE thing which connects the conclusion and the premises

and since the conclusion and the premises arent connected, the argument is generally useless

smug

but not on point

what

God knows all, yes
God makes all, yes
How can this being possibly make something that he didnt actively design, by virtue of knowing all?
He cannot.

That question is non sensical

why

> <:butthurt:591182221264551937>

? I can't explain why something i non sensical lol, It just is non sensical

reiterate the question

I have done so many times

Lets try a new one

Dude are you going to address my formal invalidity critique

Copy pastr it mate

i didnt see it

sigh

you dont even read my responses

Whats the point of a debate if you're not going to read my counter arguments

just copy paste it

i will reply

The argument is essentially theological fatalism, its just that your conclusion is concerning the implication being that god cannot therefore be omnipotent
And all im saying is, that the conclusion is untrue because the argument is untrue, and the argument is untrue because its formally invalid
Formal invalidity entails the absence of an adequate inference rule, and an inference rule in propositional logic is THE thing which connects the conclusion and the premises
and since the conclusion and the premises arent connected, the argument is generally useless

What the fuck

Where did you rebutt me

Its untrue, because its untrue

Yeah thats definitely what I said

It illogical because its nonsensical

I said its untrue because its formally invalid

No

I never said that lol

stop fucking strawmaning me

Explain how its formally invalid plz

Sure

Theological fatalism basically states that god knows X therefore necessarily X will happen
However, thats an invalid inference rule, since god knowing X will happen does not mean X will happen necessarily

no, im sorry but if i being knows everything AND THEN CREATES A BEING he must know everything that being will do. Do you follow and accept this?

I already said yes, and I already explained how it doesn't follow that free will is an illusion from that