Ah, the argument from perfection [ Star Trek] is that a perfect being wouldn’t make imperfections. Some supernaturalists allege that omni-God can ever make the flourishes of imperfections whilst limited God would have to make matter perfect. What might one say yea or nay about either contention?
I maintain, against Alvin Plantinga, that the argument from physical mind overturns the very idea of God in that we only have evidence of embodied minds. For him to aver that this is no real argument illustrates : Faith doth that to people! No, the disembodied mind is no more than ad hoc in order to get around Him not having a body that could be found [ a false assumption of some atheists].
This disembodied mind is thus factually meaningless, affirming ignosticism. Karen Armstrong is trying to overwhelm us atheists with apopathism, the mainly Orthodox manner of maintaining that one cannot affirm positive matters about Him,only what He is not in contrast to cataphatic theology which affirms what He is, but what we ignostics declare factually meaningless. But her apopathism is also that in that , because if He isn’t this or that, then He doesn’t exist!
So much for theologians getting out of one hole, only to step into another!
Furthermore, a rational being if she wanted other beings to acknowledge her would pile on the evidence as the argument from belief notes. And here, in accordance with Charles Moore auto-epistemic rule, where there should be mountains of evidence after millennia of theologians never producing credible arguments evincing evidence, and none, I daresay ever will, then here evidence of absence is indeed absence of evidence.
By finding that He has no referents as Primary Cause,etc. and that He has incoherent, contradictory attributes such that He cannot exist, no one has to traverse the Metaverse nor have omniscience!