Obviously. Where have I indicated that? I am merely saying that you are looking at unequal "cause" and "effect" - and in doing so arrive at your illogical conclusions - because you are cherrypicking the elements of the "cause" and the elements of the "effect" that suit your sophistry. It doesn't work, LG. Either you know it doesn't and are thus being dishonest, or you actually don't know the underlying principles that you're discussing. Again - cherrypicking to suit your argument.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You are being simplistic in your interpretation and in doing so reaching the illogical conclusion you are. The cause can not be any more or any less than the effect in anything other than subjective interpretation of their value - which in itself is but part of the grand cause / effect chain. So basically you want your cake and eat it? And you are also not countering the claim that this Entity is inferior to one whose knowledge is already infinite. Last time I looked a non sequitur is a non sequitur regardless of what you may think of the person who claimed it. Your counter argument to the claim of it being a non sequitur is an ad hom. If you don't think it is a non sequitur - please explain why not rather than answer it with some glib comment that merely implies you have no answer.