Their claim does have support in so far that the early testament contains a lot of work written by polytheistic people that later in would become the monolatrists and even later monotheists that we know as Jews, further branching off into what today are Christians.

This does not mean that Christians in any sense are not purely monotheistic. Not only are they so, it’s one of the most critical parts of their beliefs, to the point where even believing that their one god has in any way shape or form some kind of tangible division is considered strict heresy from trinitarian churches which form the mainstream of Christianity and have done so for hundreds of years.

Edit: There is a great video by Alex O’Connor interviewing Esoterica on that topic in particular and they talk about the evidence that supports the viewpoints.

You make the claim that a will relies on some idea of chaos, which definitely requires some actual explanation.

The amount of choices one has is irrelevant in the comparison to random chance. If the person uses reason to decide for one of several options, they, in the most common sense, clearly have acted out of free will. Assuming that a free will exists in a physical universe, but we’re in metaphysics anyways.

I am not sure what it even means to create choices where there were none. If you end up making a decision, then it clearly was an option to begin with, by the definition of what that word means.

What pointing out the paradox here entails is that amongst the presumptions we made, at least one of them must be false. The argument used in the OP does not disprove the existence of some divine being at all and it’s not trying to. It’s trying to disprove the concept of a deity that has the three attributes of being all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing. In the argument given, it is shown that at least one of these attributes is not present, given the observation of evil in the world.

Your comparison to light being described as a particle and a wave is to your own detriment. The topic of this duality arose in the first place from the fact that our classical particle based models of the universe began to become insufficient to correctly predict behaviours that had been newly observed. A new model was created that can handle the problem. The reason this is a weak argument here is that no physicist would ever claim that the models describe the world precisely. Physical models are analogies that attempt to explain the world around us in terms humans can understand.

In your last question, you make the mistake of misunderstanding the argument once again. You grant the person omnipotence and leave it at that. The argument is arguing about the combination of omnipotence, omniscience and all-lovingness. The last of these deals with your question directly, explaining the drive to make the changes in question. The other two grant the ability to do so without limitation.

This chart isn’t reducing that much at all. It’s explaining a precise chain of reasoning. It may or may not be missing some options, but you haven’t named any so far that weren’t fallacies.

It’s a bit harsh to put such words in their mouth. They said their sympathies lie elsewhere, not that he deserved it.

“Taiwan never has been a sovereign state”

I guess the Republic of China never existed?

Taiwan isn’t exactly a rogue province. It’s the holdover of the prior government of China that lost the revolutionary war and retreated there.

It doesn’t entirely invalidate the point, but it has to be said that the situation is markedly different from the one with Texas.

It’s more like if Texas overthrew the US government in a violent rebellion and the UK worked to support the holdover of the old US government that retreated to Puerto Rico.

Nothing that happened since has invalidated truly the right of Taiwan to remain a sovereign state. It’s in no sense a rogue province.

You should contextualise such claims.