So you believe. I didn't tell you what you can or can't... I suggested you not bother trying to, as you can only do so fallaciously. So you believe. Let me use a syllogism to help you: You have stated the following premises / assertions: 1. Everything is all that exists. (post #74) 2. God exists. The logical conclusion is that God is therefore a non-zero part (i.e. it could be anywhere from just above 0% up to the full 100%) of everything. Do you follow this logic? Do you accept this logic? So returning to the syllogism above, the logical conclusion is that God is a non-zero part (i.e. it could be anywhere from just above 0% up to the full 100%) of everything. This stems logically from your own claims and is thus logically what you are claiming. As stated in my previous post, this is contradictory to you previously saying: "So God isn't part of everything, that is your error. God is distinct from everything" On the one hand we have you asserting (via logical deduction) that God is a (non-zero) part of everything - even if that non-zero percentage is 100%, and on the other hand we have you asserting that "God isn't part of everything", and that God is in fact "distinct from everything". So there is no "wilful [sic] ignorance" and no, I am not talking nonsense. I am merely highlighting the flaws in your logic and the inconsistency in what you claim. This is clearly shown above to be false. It may not be intentional on your part, I can't say for sure, but it is evidenced quite clearly that you are inconsistent. If that is what you think to help you sleep better at night. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But I note you are trying to divert the exchange away again. This isn't about me, or about what you think I may or may not be pretending. It is about the flaws in your logic that we have highlighted, and about the inconsistency in your assertions that I have highlighted, that make it next to impossible to have meaningful dialogue with you. To repeat: you have stated the following premises: 1. Everything is all that exists. 2. God exists. The logical conclusion is that God is therefore a non-zero part (i.e. it could be anywhere from just above 0% up to the full 100%) of everything. Thus you have said, through the 2 assertions, that God is a part of everything, even if that part happens to be 100% of it. This simply does not mesh with you also claiming that God is distinct from everything. So let's put it another way, using assertions you have made: 1. Everything is all that exists (post #74). 2. God is distinct from everything (post #14). Therefore the conclusion that you logically imply is that God does not exist, which is contrary to your well-stated belief. Do you need this syllogism explained to you further? If so, try this... 1. Dogs are all that bark. 2. Peter is distinct from a dog. Conclusion: Peter does not bark. Get it yet? No, you're not inconsistent at all, Jan. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!