In no sense did I say that other people’s dislike for their games is a problem. I take no offense to that. I myself am literally of the opinion that the newer AC games are hard to enjoy and insulting to the players time.

Nonetheless, I can acknowledge that it’s a source of comfort for some, even when I fail to enjoy it. Making them feel bad about it just isn’t OK.

I’m sorry, but “Really? Ubisoft though?” is not just rubbishing Ubisofts practices. It’s condescending to OP.

The fact that just because I criticized your choice of words makes you assume that it’s in defense of my own tastes is unreasonable too. Is there not a chance someone might sympathise with someone without sitting in the same exact boat as them?

Point is, many people would feel bad about being approached the way you did and it is not exactly unreasonable to think that they would.

There’s so much attempted shaming in these comments. People like some of their games and some like them a lot. Even if you don’t feel like they’re the best, Original and Odyssey still carry the attachment people have for Assassin’s Creed and Anno 1800 has no real direct comparable alternatives.

Stop trying to make people feel bad for just wanting to enjoy something they like when they are the victim of these companies trying to make their life harder. The fact that Ubisoft treats their customers like trash isn’t something to rub in someone’s face, it’s too bad that some people’s hobbies are locked behind something like that.

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.