Perhaps I was unclear. I doubt it, but it could have happened.
I was address one point and one point only. The claim that RR is making is not logical. That doesn't mean it is incorrect, merely that it cannot follow from his premises. You too, Faith, seem to be quite unclear on what logic is and what it can and can't do.
What you are proposing would look like this:
Where A is the TOE and B is the existence of Faith's concept of a deity,
P1. If A then not B.
P2. If B then not A.
Not A, therefore B.
The conclusion is the same as the propositions. That is what is called circulus in demonstrando, or circular argument.
Remember that this doesn't mean you are factually incorrect, just that your argument is faulty. Your conclusion does not follow.
Finally, on a personal note (and with full knowledge of the risks I run of suspension), it is tiresome to yet again be subjected to your lament that your arguments are not duly considered by those who read and respond to them, that they fall on "deaf ears". It may be wise for you to consider instead that your ideas have been heard, considered and with good cause rejected.
™ Version 4.2
