Regarding the idea of an omnipotent deceiver....<br /><br />I have a problem with the idea because it strikes me as an ultimately pointless consideration. If an omnipotent entity is manipulating everything we observe to trick us, we cannot tell. We might be able to detect a more imperfect deceiver, though it would be extremely challenging, but an omnipotent one by definition cannot be detected. If one exists, then it renders all of our efforts at understanding meaningless -- and not just our scientific efforts. Such an entity can fool our philosophy and theology too if it so desires.<br /><br />So because it ultimately cannot be detected, we can either give up on understanding (on the basis that it is not possible to be completely sure), or operate as if it is not true, and as if there is some point to our meanderings. Given that there is no logical way to choose between the two, I'll pick the one that I like better, and that's the second. It makes no difference whether there's an omnipotent deceiver or not, and life seems less futile if there isn't one, so therefore I will believe that there is not an omnipotent deceiver.<br /><br />I do believe in an omnipotent god, but I do not believe he deceives us. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>