MacDaddy01: Anony, give up.

Just give up.

Either you accept that your God is evil because he allows pointless suffering like earhtquakes which brings abut no long term benefits or you accept that he doesnt exist.


There is pointless suffering in this world. Either you omnipotent god takes responsiblity or he doesnt exist in the first place to take it.

lol if you claim that there is pointless suffering in the world, then you must also claim that there is suffering that makes sense from which pointless suffering deviates. You would do well to tell us how you know that one particular suffering makes sense all by itself while another doesn't.

If you say that something is pointless, then the question that follows is "pointless to whom/what?"

MacDaddy01:

Yawn.

Just suck Mr. Anony's D1ck and get over your cheerleading.

I have already warned Anony not to call my arguments unreasonable without showing where they are unreasonable, yet you barge in and claim that my comments are unreasonable.

Are you a troll or just foolish?

actually my statement/this post is not on the issue under cosideration but to express my recent impression(today)

@ macdady

I just wish to thomsup for you on your last approach to mr Anony's statement directed at you and your ability to contained it, and even issued a warning to him calmly, that was cool.

Guy, that was you at your very best.
Personally i wish that you keep that up, if you do, you will become very very efficient in passing over your views and and such views will surely carry Much weight.

This has nothing to do with mr Anony and the reason for his statement but rather for strictly a commendation gestures to macdady.
Peace

MacDaddy01:


First of all, you are a fake christian. I just warned you to stop insulting me and because you are too arrogant to confess that you were wrong to call me unreasonable without any proof or evidence, you repeat your false accusations again. You sir are a douchebag of Dinesh Desouza's calibre!
How can you even imply that I am so foolish and lacking in humility that I can not even see where I am unreasonable (if even I am) if you point it out?
You have some issues, bro.


Secondly, if you dont know the purpose, then why claim that the purpose is not evil? Is that an argument from ignorance?
Your foolish counter is to say that since God is good/just his purpose must be just. Unfortunately, your bible also describes God as a jealous smiter. According to your bible, God is both good and evil therefore, your claim that god is just fails. Another problem with your god is just theory is that God has never been just in the bible from punishing both Adam and Eve for innocence while allowing the devil to murder Jobs family

If god is just, then he cant be merciful. Two contradictory characters.



Your analogy fails. End of story. Atheists always say that they will believe if there is evidence. So, you are the one entering a debate on the wrong foot. You bring no evidence and want us to assume based on faith your arguments are valid? Are you mad?

mr Anony is just human and he is trying his best.

But the fact that he said he does not have an ideal on an issue should not be use as a basis to crucify him, "honesty" they say is a virtue, or dont you appreciate honesty?

Should have been better you thanked him for being honest with you just like maezaje did and even ask him to go ask his God, that to me was a Beautiful/better approach.

We cant and should not hope to win a debate all the time neither should allow our personal sentiment to override our sense of propriety.
Peace

Mr_Anony:
But then one of the attributes of God is that He is perfectly good. He is not the kind of "good person that does bad things sometimes"

He is. Do perfectly good beings regret their past actions? Do they repent of evil? Answer is No! Because there's nothing to regret or repent in the first place.

This is clearly not the case with your God. This is why there's a cop-out for him in Romans 9, where it's claimed that he cannot be questioned, no matter what he does.

Since you have admitted that you do not know the purpose of suffering, I maintain that you are not qualified to tell us that this purpose is good based on some fallacious deductive reasoning. That God is good does not necessarily mean that his purpose is good. Remember, his ways are not our ways, and his thoughts definitely NOT our thoughts.

truthislight:

mr Anony is just human and he is trying his best.

But the fact that he said he does not have an ideal on an issue should not be use as a basis to crucify him, "honesty" they say is a virtue, or dont you appreciate honesty?

Should have been better you thanked him for being honest with you just like maezaje did and even ask him to go ask his God, that to me was a Beautiful/better approach.

We cant and should not hope to win a debate all the time neither should allow our personal sentiment to override our sense of propriety.
Peace

Anony is not trying his best, he is lying his best.

He wasnt being honest. I warned him and he went on with the false accusation.

As for having no idea on the issue, he should have not then gone tro debate on it as if he knew what he was talking about.

It is a waste of time to ask Anony to ask God because it is not possible for him to ask god as god doesnt exist. If god did truly exist, Anony would have asked god and gotten the answer before exposing his ignorance.

Mr_Anony:
lol if you claim that there is pointless suffering in the world, then you must also claim that there is suffering that makes sense from which pointless suffering deviates. You would do well to tell us how you know that one particular suffering makes sense all by itself while another doesn't.

If you say that something is pointless, then the question that follows is "pointless to whom/what?"

What kind of artful dodging is this? Did we mention aliens or animals? POINTLESS TO HUMAN BEINGS OF COURSE!!!

Why bring up the irrelevant issue of suffering that makes sense? We are talking about pointless suffering and as long as it exists your God remains evil or he doesnt exist.

@mac, I'd extend it say pointless to any lifeform in general sef... And the 'mitigating good' excuse is tenuous at best considering omnipotency...ie, if one even chose to accept the illogic that is omnipotency

It is unquestionably blind faith, not reason, you use here @anony. Our dear father type fanaticism as well. In the face of overwhelming evidence against your conclusions you still cling on. Many people in korea do think our dear family are demi-gods simply because they don't know better, but you do. Well, if you don't, then that makes you another type of ignorant, yes? Even with your 'all-good', omnipotent but cannot defy logic (yet cannot be false...), let's not even consider omniscience (it simply cannot be verified, in any universe, and you claim his omnipotency bows to logic) ,your arguments still fail terribly...
Because I say so is not logic...Admit you accept he is 'all-good' on faith. I, personally, can ignore the other gaping holes...for now...
Yield, good ser...

wiegraf: @mac, I'd extend it say pointless to any lifeform in general sef... And the 'mitigating good' excuse is tenuous at best considering omnipotency...ie, if one even chose to accept the illogic that is omnipotency

It is unquestionably blind faith, not reason, you use here @anony. Our dear father type fanaticism as well. In the face of overwhelming evidence against your conclusions you still cling on. Many people in korea do think our dear family are demi-gods simply because they don't know better, but you do. Well, if you don't, then that makes you another type of ignorant, yes? Even with your 'all-good', omnipotent but cannot defy logic (yet cannot be false...), let's not even consider omniscience (it simply cannot be verified, in any universe, and you claim his omnipotency bows to logic) ,your arguments still fail terribly...
Because I say so is not logic...Admit you accept he is 'all-good' on faith. I, personally, can ignore the other gaping holes...for now...
Yield, good ser...

lol, its over! It is left for Anony to confess

Mr_Anony:
Yesss!!! My Brother is Back!!! Bro how far. I've missed your brakelight. Are you still gonna open that thread that we talked about?

My beloved brother, I'm glad and grateful that I'm back. I have also missed your own brakelights. And yes, I still am. I am hoping that the poor network will allow me to do it tonight.

Purist:

He is. Do perfectly good beings regret their past actions? Do they repent of evil? Answer is No! Because there's nothing to regret or repent in the first place.

This is clearly not the case with your God. This is why there's a cop-out for him in Romans 9, where it's claimed that he cannot be questioned, no matter what he does.

Since you have admitted that you do not know the purpose of suffering, I maintain that you are not qualified to tell us that this purpose is good based on some fallacious deductive reasoning. That God is good does not necessarily mean that his purpose is good. Remember, his ways are not our ways, and his thoughts definitely NOT our thoughts.

Lol, I hope you have been following the argument from the beginning. The argument sprung from the problem of evil argument and already by it's nature takes for granted that God is all-good.
Secondly, as for the part about God regretting, that is a case anthropomorphism as is seen in numerous parts all over the bible. It does not mean that God has human emotions such that He literally regretted as humans would understand regret.
We can talk more on this point, but it will drive us on a tangent. Perhaps someday we can properly the discuss the nature of God.

MacDaddy01:

What kind of artful dodging is this? Did we mention aliens or animals? POINTLESS TO HUMAN BEINGS OF COURSE!!!

Why bring up the irrelevant issue of suffering that makes sense? We are talking about pointless suffering and as long as it exists your God remains evil or he doesnt exist.

If by being pointless to human beings, suffering becomes evil, then you must also hold that human beings possess in and of themselves the highest moral authority. If this is true, then we do not have objective moral values since no two human beings are the same and it is not guaranteed that all human beings will unanimously consider a particular suffering to be pointless. If this is true then the question of whether suffering is evil at all or anything for that matter becomes pointless.

When you extend this judgment of the necessity of suffering to every other creature, then you have an even bigger problem because one organism's unnecessary suffering can be very necessary to another.

wiegraf: @mac, I'd extend it say pointless to any lifeform in general sef... And the 'mitigating good' excuse is tenuous at best considering omnipotency...ie, if one even chose to accept the illogic that is omnipotency

It is unquestionably blind faith, not reason, you use here @anony. Our dear father type fanaticism as well. In the face of overwhelming evidence against your conclusions you still cling on. Many people in korea do think our dear family are demi-gods simply because they don't know better, but you do. Well, if you don't, then that makes you another type of ignorant, yes? Even with your 'all-good', omnipotent but cannot defy logic (yet cannot be false...), let's not even consider omniscience (it simply cannot be verified, in any universe, and you claim his omnipotency bows to logic) ,your arguments still fail terribly...
Because I say so is not logic...Admit you accept he is 'all-good' on faith. I, personally, can ignore the other gaping holes...for now...
Yield, good ser...

lol, sometimes you start out with good reasoning and then your arguments begin to degenerate so that you end up very badly.

perhaps you don't quite understand what logic is. Logic is not a thing. It is a method for deciphering between truth and falsity. So using a figurative statement like "bows to logic" does not in anyway nullify omnipotence.
The rest of your talk is really babble and shows you can't really make a proper argument.
In every argument, there must be a point of reference taken for granted upon which truth may be measured against. Where you don't have that, you dive into incoherence. You started off with the problem of evil where we had to take for granted that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. That way, the argument can make sense. Now when you found out that your argument was not achieving the purposes you hoped it would, you then decided to deny the very basis of your argument (and you are doing so in a very unintelligent way I am afraid). That's just pathetic.

You say omniscience cannot be verified i.e. an omniscient being cannot know that it is omniscient. We just have to take it on faith.
I put it to you that you equally cannot know that you know anything. You just have to have blind faith in your senses.

...........From here begins the long drive into absurdity

Mr_Anony:
If by being pointless to human beings, suffering becomes evil, then you must also hold that human beings possess in and of themselves the highest moral authority. If this is true, then we do not have objective moral values since no two human beings are the same and it is not guaranteed that all human beings will unanimously consider a particular suffering to be pointless. If this is true then the question of whether suffering is evil at all or anything for that matter becomes pointless.

When you extend this judgment of the necessity of suffering to every other creature, then you have an even bigger problem because one organism's unnecessary suffering can be very necessary to another.

More dodging and nonsense!!!

What does this have to do with human morality? Unless you are a psychopath, you know that unnecessary suffering is evil. Every person (Who is not part of the minority psychopaths) understands suffering and pain.


Please, stay on track. Stop trying to dodge here and there. This has nothing to do with animals.

MacDaddy01:

More dodging and nonsense!!!

What does this have to do with human morality? Unless you are a psychopath, you know that unnecessary suffering is evil. Every person (Who is not part of the minority psychopaths) understands suffering and pain.


Please, stay on track. Stop trying to dodge here and there. This has nothing to do with animals.

Oh sorry I was of the opinion that you agreed with wiegraf when he included animals in the mix....anyway never mind.

My friend, if you say that something being pointless to human beings makes it evil, then all I need is one human being who doesn't think it pointless and then you lose your claim. You have mentioned psychopaths. Are psychopaths not human beings?

Ihedinobi:

My beloved brother, I'm glad and grateful that I'm back. I have also missed your own brakelights. And yes, I still am. I am hoping that the poor network will allow me to do it tonight.

Ok sha, looking to see it

Mr_Anony:
Oh sorry I was of the opinion that you agreed with wiegraf when he included animals in the mix....anyway never mind.

My friend, if you say that something being pointless to human beings makes it evil, then all I need is one human being who doesn't think it pointless and then you lose your claim. You have mentioned psychopaths. Are psychopaths not human beings?

What? Is this the new low that you are going to shamelessly uphold?

What kind of non sequitur is this? Are you now arguing that we should be considering the opinions of mad people (psychopaths)?

MacDaddy01:

What? Is this the new low that you are going to shamelessly uphold?

What kind of non sequitur is this? Are you now arguing that we should be considering the opinions of mad people (psychopaths)?

lol, unless you want to say that human understanding is ultimate or that there is a particular human understanding that is optimal upon which we may now have something to objectively define unnecessary suffering, you have no point. Your other option is a unanimous vote on evil from all humanity. If you also can't get that, then you have no point.

Mr_Anony:
lol, unless you want to say that human understanding is ultimate or that there is a particular human understanding that is optimal upon which we may now have something to objectively define unnecessary suffering, you have no point. Your other option is a unanimous vote on evil from all humanity. If you also can't get that, then you have no point.

Bros, do you have a mental problem? Are you seriously writing what you are writing?


Where did I claim that human beings understanding is ultimate? You were trying to use a psychopath's opinion as a premise for your argument.

Suffering is sleary understood by all non-psychopathic human beings. Icut your hand for no reasona nd it is suffering and evil.

Mr_Anony:
lol, sometimes you start out with good reasoning and then your arguments begin to degenerate so that you end up very badly.

perhaps you don't quite understand what logic is. Logic is not a thing. It is a method for deciphering between truth and falsity. So using a figurative statement like "bows to logic" does not in anyway nullify omnipotence.
The rest of your talk is really babble and shows you can't really make a proper argument.
In every argument, there must be a point of reference taken for granted upon which truth may be measured against. Where you don't have that, you dive into incoherence. You started off with the problem of evil where we had to take for granted that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. That way, the argument can make sense. Now when you found out that your argument was not achieving the purposes you hoped it would, you then decided to deny the very basis of your argument (and you are doing so in a very unintelligent way I am afraid). That's just pathetic.

You say omniscience cannot be verified i.e. an omniscient being cannot know that it is omniscient. We just have to take it on faith.
I put it to you that you equally cannot know that you know anything. You just have to have blind faith in your senses.

...........From here begins the long drive into absurdity

Well, not really. You may have some reading comprehension problems. I have said I am willing to accept your folly, several times. Several times. Several times. Several times. Several times. Several times. Several times. Several times...
"Bows to logic" does not hinder omnipotence? Really? So how does he solve the simple "create a stone he cannot carry" problem. I'm a little glad you weren't indoctrinated into the religion of piss, I could you flying into a building.
Having accepted two omnixxx, and defining your "all-good" purpose as one that has a long term 'good' benefit, do you accept that given he hasn't told you this all-good purpose you accept his purpose is good heavily against reason considering the amount of suffering, or evil, available in this universe?
The martian agreeing with you, probably without understanding the context, does make you suddenly 'intelligent'.
Another dance coming up...

Mr_Anony:
Of course it is, but what doesn't follow is that God must do without suffering in His creation

But suffering on its own severed from a purpose IS incompatible with God's all loving nature.

MacDaddy01:



Bros, do you have a mental problem? Are you seriously writing what you are writing?


Where did I claim that human beings understanding is ultimate? You were trying to use a psychopath's opinion as a premise for your argument.

Suffering is sleary understood by all non-psychopathic human beings. Icut your hand for no reasona nd it is suffering and evil.

let us use some logic shall we?

You hold that if suffering is not understood by human beings, then it is evil.
If the understanding of human beings is not ultimate, then it means that there is another possible being which can understand the suffering.

However let us assume that even if that being could understand the suffering, the suffering would still be evil because it is pointless to humans, then the next question that would follow is: based on the judgment of which humans exactly? because if one person understands it, then it you can no longer claim hat it is evil because it is now within human understanding.

About psychopaths, what makes them mad and you sane? how are you sure that you can trust your senses? Is there any objective standard by which you know that you are definitely not mad? or you just take it for granted?

Kay 17:

But suffering on its own severed from a purpose IS incompatible with God's all loving nature.

Lol, why are we dancing like this? But suffering does not exist without a purpose in God's creation. What's your point?

wiegraf:

Well, not really. You may have some reading comprehension problems. I have said I am willing to accept your folly, several times. Several times. Several times. Several times. Several times. Several times. Several times. Several times...
"Bows to logic" does not hinder omnipotence? Really? So how does he solve the simple "create a stone he cannot carry" problem. I'm a little glad you weren't indoctrinated into the religion of piss, I could you flying into a building.
Having accepted two omnixxx, and defining your "all-good" purpose as one that has a long term 'good' benefit, do you accept that given he hasn't told you this all-good purpose you accept his purpose is good heavily against reason considering the amount of suffering, or evil, available in this universe?
The martian agreeing with you, probably without understanding the context, does make you suddenly 'intelligent'.
Another dance coming up...

Calling your something folly is does not make it folly.

One more thing: It is inconsequential that Martian agreed with me or not. Usually I and Martian do not agree but he at least is intelligent enough to follow his arguments to their logical outcomes.

Again you blunder terribly with "Can God create a stone that he cannot carry?" It amuses me that you would call this question a logical question.

Let me put it in frame for you. If omnipotent is that God can do all things then you are asking a question in which you have already forced in a contradicting answer. You may as well ask "can God create xcafeytt$jj@i836 and make it drink tea?"
It is a nonsense question as long as you can't define exactly what xcafeytt$jj@i836 is. Same as your question
So let me ask, could you define for us exactly what properties a stone will need to have to make it impossible to be carried?

Frankly I'm disappointed that this is what passes for logic in your book.

Now if we accept that God is omnipotent and omniscient creator, then nothing can possibly happen in God's universe without God allowing it. Also if God is omniscient, it follow that whatever he allows, there is a reason for allowing it. If God is also Good, then the reason for allowing it cannot possibly be evil.

Remember your initial argument was if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, how do you explain suffering?
My answer is simple: That God is not omnibenevolent but all-loving. I am taking all-loving as a given in the same way you took omnibenevolent as a given. I think an all-good/all-loving quality of God explains suffering well enough.

Your complaint about the amount of suffering in the world is of no consequence as long as there is a purpose or it.

Answer me @anony, you said you had time to play...

You accept your god isn't omnibenovelent (if you refer to the xtian god though, others would say that claim is wrong, but meh), nice, but it doesn't still completely clear you. Having accepted two omnixxx (barely) and defining your "all-good" as having a purpose that has a long term good benefit, do you accept that given the over abundance of evil in the universe that cannot be justified as good or beneficial to the overall well being of life this all-goodness is seriously called into question?

Do something about @ihe btw, why does he run off? Religion thrashing kind of stops being fun if you're only one around to produce semi-decent arguments...

edit: never mind, I've seen that 'response'

Mr_Anony:
Calling your something folly is does not make it folly.

So you do understand that wishing stuff is so does not make it so...

Mr_Anony:
One more thing: It is inconsequential that Martian agreed with me or not. Usually I and Martian do not agree but he at least is intelligent enough to follow his arguments to their logical outcomes.

Again you blunder terribly with "Can God create a stone that he cannot carry?" It amuses me that you would call this question a logical question.

Let me put it in frame for you. If omnipotent is that God can do all things then you are asking a question in which you have already forced in an answer. You may as well ask "can God create xcafeytt$jj@i836 and make it drink tea?"

And being that he's omnipotent, I'd expect him to. Create xcafeytt$jj@i836, plant it in my mind that xcafeytt$jj@i836 has always existed, then make it drink tea. What sort of omnipotent couldn't do that? This is a terrible example.
Also note yourself focusing on your definition of omnipotent (and you've done so many times already). I bring this up, even though you know I've already (grudgingly) accepted your definitions, and you start crying foul. The nature of your omnixx.x is part of the problem.

Mr_Anony:
It is a nonsense question as long as you can't define exactly what xcafeytt$jj@i836 is. Same as your question
So let me ask, could you define for us exactly what properties a stone will need to have to make it impossible to be carried?

I think it would have to be heavy.

Mr_Anony:
Frankly I'm disappointed that this is what passes for logic in your book.

What in the world.. I'm supposed to care?

Mr_Anony:
Now if we accept that God is omnipotent and omniscient creator, then nothing can possibly happen in God's universe without God allowing it.

Not really, he simply could care less

Mr_Anony: Also if God is omniscient, it follow that whatever he allows, there is a reason for allowing it.

No it doesn't

Mr_Anony: If God is also Good, then the reason for allowing it cannot possibly be evil.

True, if he is only good...

Mr_Anony:
Remember your initial argument was if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, how do you explain suffering?
My answer is simple: That God is not omnibenevolent but all-loving. I am taking all-loving as a given in the same way you took omnibenevolent as a given. I think an all-good/all-loving quality of God explains suffering well enough.

It doesn't. The same way we can dismiss omnibenovelent because he clearly isn't flying around saving kittens, we can dismiss a good purpose because there clearly isn't one. Think something up, rather than the 'mysterious ways' troll, then you might be able to wriggle this in.

Mr_Anony:
Your complaint about the amount of suffering in the world is of no consequence as long as there is a purpose or it.

You can say that with a straight face? You equate an instant painless death to say being boiled alive? Also, if the complaint was about the suffering in the world, not the degree, it would be of no consequence as long as there is a GOOD purpose for it (and that depends on the type of omnipotent).

I really should sleep.

Mr_Anony:
let us use some logic shall we?

You hold that if suffering is not understood by human beings, then it is evil.
If the understanding of human beings is not ultimate, then it means that there is another possible being which can understand the suffering.

However let us assume that even if that being could understand the suffering, the suffering would still be evil because it is pointless to humans, then the next question that would follow is: based on the judgment of which humans exactly? because if one person understands it, then it you can no longer claim hat it is evil because it is now within human understanding.

About psychopaths, what makes them mad and you sane? how are you sure that you can trust your senses? Is there any objective standard by which you know that you are definitely not mad? or you just take it for granted?

You are really sick. You put words in my mouth to bolster your flawed arguments.


My premise is simple. Pointless suffering is evil. Unnecessary suffering is evil. This is different from suffering not understood. I is unnecessary because I know that it has not benefit not that i dnt understand it.


Stop your spinning and dodging.


You have problems Anony

wiegraf:
And being that he's omnipotent, I'd expect him to. Create xcafeytt$jj@i836, plant it in my mind that xcafeytt$jj@i836 has always existed, then make it drink tea. What sort of omnipotent couldn't do that? This is a terrible example.
Also note yourself focusing on your definition of omnipotent (and you've done so many times already). I bring this up, even though you know I've already (grudgingly) accepted your definitions, and you start crying foul. The nature of your omnixx.x is part of the problem.

Lol, while you're at it, Your "omnipotent friend" may as well make you whyuihoioio90££> and make you meet ££$%^ojohu8 so that 18 of you can do @rtytr(HFDFDG+ and wejhaujuiouiohUIpo......
nonsense! Where has your reasoning traveled to? Please call it back.

I think it would have to be heavy.

How heavy? It is still undefined

Not really, he simply could care less
No it doesn't

Once you ask the question why would He care less? you arrive at purpose for allowing

True, if he is only good...

What part of all-good do you not understand?

It doesn't. The same way we can dismiss omnibenovelent because he clearly isn't flying around saving kittens, we can dismiss a good purpose because there clearly isn't one. Think something up, rather than the 'mysterious ways' troll, then you might be able to wriggle this in.

lol, not true, omnibenevolent has been shown to fail the problem of evil. all-loving has not been shown to do so. You are merely writing it of based on a bias that there is no purpose to suffering. But then you can't rightfully say that without being omniscient yourself.

You can say that with a straight face? You equate an instant painless death to say being boiled alive? Also, if the complaint was about the suffering in the world, not the degree, it would be of no consequence as long as there is a GOOD purpose for it (and that depends on the type of omnipotent).

another emotional argument

I really should sleep.

Yeah you should

Mr_Anony:
Lol, while you're at it, Your "omnipotent friend" may as well make you whyuihoioio90££> and make you meet ££$%^ojohu8 so that 18 of you can do @rtytr(HFDFDG+ and wejhaujuiouiohUIpo......
nonsense! Where has your reasoning traveled to? Please call it back.


How heavy? It is still undefined


Once you ask the question why would He care less? you arrive at purpose for allowing


What part of all-good do you not understand?


lol, not true, omnibenevolent has been shown to fail the problem of evil. all-loving has not been shown to do so. You are merely writing it of based on a bias that there is no purpose to suffering. But then you can't rightfully say that without being omniscient yourself.

another emotional argument

Yeah you should

The infamous wharrgarble defense. Well played ser, well played
I can only admire your blind fanaticism, supposed logic and stamina
I'll be back, good ser, I'll be back...

wiegraf:

The infamous wharrgarble defense. Well played ser, well played
I can only admire your blind fanaticism, supposed logic and stamina
I'll be back, good ser, I'll be back...

lol, you started it when you made this statement.

...And being that he's omnipotent, I'd expect him to. Create xcafeytt$jj@i836, plant it in my mind that xcafeytt$jj@i836 has always existed, then make it drink tea. What sort of omnipotent couldn't do that? ...

Nonsense arguments deserve nonsense rebuttals

Mr_Anony:
lol, you started it when you made this statement.

Nonsense arguments deserve nonsense rebuttals

Anony I will send you an email concerning the debate now

MacDaddy01:

Anony I will send you an email concerning the debate now

seen and replied

Rested, but by rights I should be working. I'm glad you realize your rebuttal is nonsense, at least there's a little honesty left in you. Thank $deity, I might actually become a believer!

Mr_Anony:
Lol, while you're at it, Your "omnipotent friend" may as well make you whyuihoioio90££> and make you meet ££$%^ojohu8 so that 18 of you can do @rtytr(HFDFDG+ and wejhaujuiouiohUIpo......
nonsense! Where has your reasoning traveled to? Please call it back.

Yes, I think he should plant that desire in my head. This is simple, this is a silly example because in no place is up clearly down or any other illogical nonsense. A better example would be something simpler, like could god divide by zero? Let me guess your ans, it will be no (and it should be). If an omnipotent can't then problems, like your all-good issue, or the fact that he could never verify if he really were omniscient, or the fact that if he builds an infinitely heavy stone which he couldn't lift his omnipotency is clearly called into question (I wonder how he deals with black holes), arise. We can then start to question other little things, like could he predict the weather. You think silly? Ha ha ha, no. It's virtually impossible to accurately predict the weather, even if you get computers that have reached quantum limits. Too much data is involved, too many different possible outcomes as well. A slight change, such as rounding decimals alone, will create a vastly different scenario, and you will have to make these changes all the time (see chaos theory, butterfly effect). And this is for deterministic models, let's not even bother with probabilistic ones, like quantum mechanics, which influences every single particle in the universe.. Every single one.
So how omnipotent/omniscient is your logic abiding god? Or it does not abide to logic when it suits our fairy tale writers?
You'll say: this has nothing to do with the problem of evil.... I've addressed that...

Mr_Anony:
How heavy? It is still undefined

Stop it. Create your point, state it then I can show you how it only works in anonyverse (random: that might be impossible though. Just as we can't tell how other universes work, or if they even exist, it would require a lot to make you understand there are universes other than anonyverse)

Mr_Anony:
Once you ask the question why would He care less? you arrive at purpose for allowing

So? I'm sober atm, I can't see where you're going with this.

Mr_Anony:
What part of all-good do you not understand?

The part were there's a logical paradox. God is only good, is that what you are saying? He has no evil in him, yes? Yet there's evil a plenty in this universe, yes? This your omnipotent being sef. Oh, let me guess: there is no evil in the universe?

Mr_Anony:
lol, not true, omnibenevolent has been shown to fail the problem of evil. all-loving has not been shown to do so. You are merely writing it of based on a bias that there is no purpose to suffering. But then you can't rightfully say that without being omniscient yourself.

This is just...wharrgarble
Bring up a reason other than 'mysterious ways', then you might have a case.
I'm on a phone atm, else I'd quote the nice post where you state there are less evil ways to go about achieving
good goals. Whowouldathunk mere mortals could figure that out!

Mr_Anony:
another emotional argument

Like above, time now to LALALALA...
Surplus suffering = evil (even though I'd prefer any suffering personally)... I thought we settled on that?


What should I eat, btw? There's cooka soup and tuwo