Indeed, that is precisely where you always insist on taking these discussions/debates: inside your head.
The “bottom line”.
You think this, you think that. And you think one thing rather than another because you have concocted this analysis of God which seems entirely predicated [tautologically] on the definition and the meaning that you assign the words in the analysis.
That way you can engage only in exchanges with those who assign a different, conflicting definition and meaning to the words used in their own intellectual contraptions.
Just as Christians will insist that 1] the Bible must be true because it is the word of God, and that 2] it must be the word of God because it is in the Bible, you intertwine the Real God and RM/AO in the assumption that they must be true because by definition you tell us that they are.
Okay, I challenge you [or anyone here] to demonstrate that they are in fact true as they pertain to that which is of most interest to me: How ought one to live?
And, given the nature of this thread, how the answer to this question intertwines the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave and our imagined fate on the other side of it given the assumption we make about God or No God.
Morally, for example, or politically. Or, for others, “naturally”.
We can do that on this thread, or take the exchange here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929&start=1200