The only way omnipotence can be true is if pantheism is true.

As opposed to monotheism? Doesn't really provide a self evident argument.

>>935836158 (OP)
Consider the folly of your ideas amid the btoken stone of dim Carcosa, son of the crawling.

>>935836158 (OP)
>that's not my blood
*smile
guess the movie

>>935837976
All Anal Whores 3: last night at your mother's

>>935836222
Epicurean Paradox is partly resolved by pantheism.

>>935841092
Nah, just divides the issue of omnipotence, can't be all powerful if another being can subvert your power.

>>935842718
>The only way omnipotence can be true is if pantheism is true.

>>935836158 (OP)
Reductive. Pantheism does not account for the legitimate difference between finite things and infinite substance. I point at a tree and a pantheist tells me it’s God, and while the tree maybe God, God is not a tree (God is also that rock next to the tree according to the pantheist). Further, pantheism requires that either evil is not real, or that God is evil (since it’s all God). But if evil is real and so too is God, I don’t think we can say these are the same. The big point really is that pantheism, in an attempt to bridge the gap between God and creation does it by a false move, which is to negate the difference between the two, thus ignoring the essential nature of both terms.

>>935836158 (OP)
The singularity before the big bang was everything, all potential, all matter, all energy.

Creation and science have more in common than we like to admit.