NonContradiction

You are proving my point about the character assassination of God. Your emotional rhetoric isn't going to get you anywhere.

Dr Rick

NC, your argument seems to be:

P) God is perfect

C1) Therefore, God is the most benevolent and most loving entity.

C2) Anyone that doesn't agree with (P) or (C1) is a character assassin.

Jobar

NC, a major problem for us unbelievers, when attempting to talk about God, is that no two of you who believe seem to believe in the same God. You say you don't believe in the omnimax version, which most mainstream theologians espouse (each, of course, in a slightly different way.) So it is very hard for us to directly engage you in meaningful converse- we simply can't tell exactly what you mean by 'God', as often as not. In light of this, can you provide us with a definition of God's attributes? IOW, what do *you* believe God is?

NonContradiction

As I said in the previous thread, Christian theologians may be self-appointed spokespeople for the Abrahamic God, but they don't speak for all people who believe in the Abrahamic God. I don't believe in the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, nor do I believe in an omnimax God. If atheists continue to argue against Christian theology, then they are really beating a dead horse.

Sure. God has knowledge of, and power over, all that exists and all that has the potential to exist. He is The Most Merciful, The Most Forgiving, The Most Loving, The Most Benevolent, The Most Peaceful, The Creator and The Master of the Day of Judgement. He harms whomever He wills and benefits whomever He wills.

Tyler Durden

Wrong, because that is an unsupported assertion. Character assassination is true if and only if a person's reputation is sullied unfairly. But in this case, the reputation of the supposedly 'omnipotent' & 'omniscient' God is not above reproach, especially when it comes to the existence of evil. So, God's reputation is predicated on his actions, and the existence of evil in his creation is sufficient to cast doubt on one or more of the theistic attributes. Therefore, God's reputation is fairly under question. My logic is impeccable and watertight, and it will take far more than a hand waving response of yours to show otherwise. Whenever the skeptic points out the holes in theistic reasoning, the apologist retorts to the tried and true methodology of hand-waving, which in your case is the cute phrase "character assassination."

Hand-waving may be the extent of your debating acumen, but that most certainly won't get you anywhere. It is the case that an omnipotent God, who by definition is capable of preventing evil, but choses not to, is a malevolent entity unbefitting of worship.

Q.E.D.

Edited at Tyler's request. J.

Dr Rick

Then why does He allow suffering? Why should He have to harm anybody?

ComestibleVenom

Because his putative characteristics give us no information about how God connects to the world and remain utterly uninformative.

Hawkingfan

Ad Hoc

NonContradiction

Your logic is far from impeccable and watertight. First of all, the PoE doesn't seek to prove that God is a tyrannt, as you said. On the contrary, the PoE simply argues that God isn't omnibenevolent as some theists, myself excluded, assert. Your emotional rant about God being a tyrannt was nothing more than character assassination.

Again, there is a difference between NOT omnibenevolent and malevolent. The agrument from evil argues that God isn't omnibenevolent. It does NOT argue that God is malevolent. Didn't you say that your logic is impeccable and watertight?

Dr Rick

The PoE argues that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient god that allows evil and suffering is a contradiction.