Answering Atheists

[Polymath257]

If an Atheist reads something as a fairy tale, and describes the character as he sees it. That's fine.

OK, then when we say that the God of the Bible is evil, that's fine?

When the Atheist makes the claim that he does not make the argument against the character, that's not fine. That's my point.

Which argument? That the character is evil? or that the character doesn't even exist?

Atheists often make the argument that certain deities in certain religious boos are evil. Many also say that there is no evidence that those religious books are anything other than fairy tales. Often, they don't actually state the books *are* fairy tales, just that there is no reason to suspect otherwise.

Don't say Atheists don't do something, when they clearly do.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

(1 John 2:15-17) 15 Do not love either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; 16 because everything in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life—does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. 17 Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but the one who does the will of God remains forever.

Then surely John has forgotten a little something: according to Genesis, God created the world, and created man -- and created man with the NEED (which is felt as a "desire of the flesh") to eat what was available. And God went further, and created woman -- for the man to NEED (experienced as desire) to go into and procreate with.

These things do in fact, therefore, "originate with the Father."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If an Atheist reads something as a fairy tale, and describes the character as he sees it. That's fine.
When the Atheist makes the claim that he does not make the argument against the character, that's not fine. That's my point.

Don't say Atheists don't do something, when they clearly do.

No, they do not, and I would exhort you in the same fashion: don't say atheists do something, when they clearly don't.

Since atheists DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD, it is therefore clear that they believe any literary work that contains such an entity must, like Harry Potter, be a work of fiction, as pointed out to you by @Polymath257.

 

[nPeace]

Why refer to atheists at all then, other than to create unnecessary division and conflict? Just raise the argument on it's own merits.

I am answering Atheists arguments... because I want to specifically get Atheists attention .... um. Unnecessary division and conflict? Trust me. This is not unnecessary. The conflict and division already exists... and no one here is responsible for that. We are only carrying on the debate... discussion... argument... I suppose what one decides to call them.

My fundamental point was that definition of God wasn't created by atheists, it was created by certain believers who present it (typically as an unquestionable definitive truth). The logical point addressing it is based on those asserted premises and the self-contradictions they create.

I remember a thread on here. It carries the title
An Omnipotent & Omniscient God Cannot Exist
There are of course more, but that's just one, and they are not only found one these forums. This is only one of thousands of websites.

Essentially yes. If we're proposing a truly omnipotent God, existing outside time and space, none of our human concepts of wanting, choosing or causing things to happen over time apply. Such a God would be entirely beyond our temporal thinking and from our point of view, anything they created would just exist (and will have always existed). It is a more difficult concept to wrap your head around than most believers (and non-believers) care to imagine.

I must admit, it's difficult wrapping my head around what you just said there. Sorry. Maybe my fault. Hard head perhaps. Or my brain cells might be going through the process of waking up. I don't know.

Yes. The problem is that you're applying the limited concept of human perfection. Omnipotent perfection would be literally infinitely beyond that. It isn't even really the same concept. Again, very difficult to wrap your head around.

Uh. Yes.. Your last sentence summed that up accurately.:

Sorry.

The underlying point is that there is literally nothing an omnipotent God couldn't do, nothing about the entire universe they couldn't shape to exactly how they want it be, past, present and future (since they're all the same to God). Therefore, whatever actually exists could only be exactly what God wanted to exist.

So you are saying that things are not the way God wanted them to be, therefore God is not omnipotent, because one who is omnipotent will shape everything exactly as he wants.
I think I understand that one... hopefully.

Suppose you happen to pass through the city, and you saw someone, sitting on a stool; an easel with a large board in front of him. You inquire of onlookers "What's up."
"He is a professional artist.", you are told.
Curious, you take up a position behind the "professional artist". You gaze in anticipation at the board... and you see this.

Visibly shocked, you try to hide your initial reaction.
As you walk away your thoughts go like this... "Professional Artist! If he is a professional, I'm The king of England! The painting is ugly. Since the painting is ugly, and a professional does not produce bad work, then he must not be a professional."

However. If you had stuck around, and endured the "ugly", you would have seen this...

Of course there is better out there, but this is an example.
The moral : Don't judge with limited, little, or no facts.

The application : God's work is not finished. He worked six days, and on the seventh day rested from those works, allowing his work to come to its completion by the end of the seventh day.
It may look ugly now, but you are not seeing the finish.

The evidence :Genesis 1 ; Hebrews 3:18-4:16 ; Revelation ; 2 Peter 3:8-10 ; Revelation 20

If existence doesn't appear perfect from our point of view, either our perception is flawed or, of course, a "morally perfect", omnipotent God can't actually exist.

Thank you very much.
You summed it up perfectly in your first sentence.
I appreciate that you were honest enough to include that option.
So to all with the flawed perspective, and thinking you are seeing with "perfect vision"...

Lol
I'm just playing guys, dont take it personal.

This is something to think about though, isn't it? ... and learn from. I have been trying to point it out.
HonestJoe...Wait! Your name actually contains Honest! i did not realize. Very good. You made it so much easier for me.

If they were capable of such mistakes, they weren't perfect. You can't have conditional perfection, it's a simple binary.

If God had really wanted them to "listen and obey", they would had done. They behaved exactly how God created them to and exactly how he knew they would. If suffering happens as a consequence, that could only be because God wanted that suffering to happen.

The rest of your post is applying limited human thought and principles which are totally inappropriate in the context of an all-powerful and all-knowing being. The very flaws of humans you're trying to account for here are the reason we're not comparable to your image of God.

Since you have provided another option, which the evidence shows is the most likely... actually the correct conclusion, anything you say after, is null and void.

 

[viole]

If you assume they are immortal, them you'll also have to assume that answer.
I have not assume they are.
Souls are not immortal, accoding to the Bible. Ezekiel 18:4.

That’ s mean. Consider a child born with bone cancer. She died only after a few weeks under great pain. What’s the use of that, if they do not even survive at spiritual level, so to speak?

i am not sure how that takes your God off the hook, by allowing such pain without any obvious reason.

ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

When talking about the new Earth that will eventually come, where there is no suffering and where the lamb will play with the lion etc. (Revelation) then its seems possible that God could have made it so live forms don't eat each other. Because even with humans best intentions there will always be suffering. Only God could make it so there is none.

But he didn't for whatever reason.
Have you read the Bible.

Please show where in the creation account (Genesis) animals ate meat.

He did according to the bible, before there was anything the only thing that existed was God and Wisdom.

Okay thanks for putting that in the correct context.

So if God didn't create it or allowed evil, who did? And God say repeatedly that he does not like evil. Yet he won't or can't get rid of it? Which could suggest that whatever created evil or that evil is just as powerful as God is, or that God created evil.

Did I mention that God allows evil. Yes. You read that, didn't you. You responded to it. Did you understand that I said allowing something is different to causing it?
God did not cause evil.
Where did evil come from?
See here, here, and here.
Evil did not come from God. God is holy - pure to the superlative degree. There is no unrighteousness with him.
I reallly hope you try to understand that, because if you don't try to understand what I am saying, and relate to it, we will just be going around the world in a pointless argument. I hope we can agree on that.

So again, did God decide how nature should work, like there being earthquakes? Tsunamis? Viruses? etc. or could he have made it so these weren't there? and therefore natural evil wouldn't exist?

Ask global warming, and then come back and tell me the answer. We can talk then about if the world really has to be the way it is. Okay?

Imagine you are standing at the train station at night, a person have fallen on the tracks and injured their legs so they can't get up. They are begging for you to help them, yet you decide to do nothing despite there being lots of time to help them and instead you just watch as the train runs them over.

Would you call your lack of help an evil act? or since you chose to do nothing you are free of any blame and can happily get on the train as if you did nothing wrong?

If there is a good reason for me not to do anything, then how can I be evil?
For example, I watched this movie where this really ruthless murderer was given a chance after begging for mercy. The hero decided, out of compassion, he would show mercy.
Do you know what that "animal" did? He took that mercy and spat on it, by trying to take the life of a child.
When an opportunity arose for the hero to save the child, he took it, and during a struggle, the killer fell, and just as you said, was about to get ran over. he begged for help.
What do you think happened?
What would you have done?

 

[nPeace]

Then how did he create the universe? Yes, obviously the "snap his fingers" wasn't meant to be literally accurate. The point is there's never a description of how God did anything. He just did it. So it's kind of weird to ask how he'd do something else. He's omnipotent, right? Then he'd just do it.



You used a situation which compares a human to God. I got the point, which is why my comment responded directly to it. Your comparison missed the whole fact that a human doesn't have the power God does. I have very limited control over my children. I can help mold them, but ultimately they'll be their own people. God has 100% control over everything, which makes it two complete different situations. Now did you get my point?

"God has 100% control over everything,"
Well that's your opinion isn't it. It's not what the Bible says though.
What's your point? The false assumption threw me off. Could you make the point with an accurate statement? I'll try to see if I get it..

OK, so in your opinion God is not omniscient.

No. that is not my opinion. God is omniscient. Just we might have a different understanding of that.

That's fine, but it's not the typical conception of the Christian God. If all God did was create the universe and let it go without knowing what would happen, then he's not omniscient, but he's also more of a deistic god than a theistic one.

See. that's not my understanding of omniscient. Because one can know everything does not mean they can't control what they know.
So the only thing God does not have 100% control over is what he knows or does - himself?

However, you just admitted God created Satan. If God created everything, then he created Satan.

No. You appear to want people to all say what you believe, but that is not reasonable, nor reality.
I did not say God created Satan.
I said... God created a heavenly family of spirit sons. He did not create Satan.
One of God's sons chose to become Satan the Devil - that is

If you are going to be dishonest about what I said, we can end our conversation here. there is no benefit in conversing with someone who does not want to listen to the other person, and respect their different view, without trying to be a... what are you trying to be, by "making people say what you want them to say"?

I don't "blame God". I point out that given the proposition of the typical conception of the Christian God, he's responsible for everything that happens in the universe. If your comments were well-founded, you would have an argument, but you don't. All you've done is try to use irrelevant flowery descriptions to distract from the actual point. The fact remains, an omnipotent omniscient being is responsible for everything in the universe it creates. If the being is not omnipotent or omniscient, then their responsibility is more limited.

Ah. I see. Our conversation is over then? Okay. take care.

 

[Martin]

One of the Atheists argument is as follows :-

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Is this the correct argument? I heard it before, but some of this sounds a bit strange.
However, the gist is somewhere in there.

Why can God not exist (as a morally perfect entity, who is all powerful, all knowing and all wise), where evil exists, although God knows when evil existed, and although God wants to do something about it?
The argument is not a sound one.

Romans chapter 8 verses 20 and 21 says this... "For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God."

Allowing suffering for a permanently lasting freedom from corruption, seems pretty moral to me.
How can that not be moral?
It would actually be evidence too of one who is all knowing, all wise and all powerful. Isn't it?

So to God it's all a sort of cosmic experiment, which will hopefully work out for the best in the end? God as the mad scientist?

 

[nPeace]

Hmmm... Let me tell you another story. Have you ever seen the documentary about Richard Louis Proenneke? It's a good watch, and I highly recommend it! He lived an interesting life of seclusion in the Alaskan wilderness. One time he was out walking around and be stumbled upon a freshly killed mountain goat in the middle of a field. He had determined, through examining all the bite marks, that this goat had been killed by wolves for fun, and just left there to rot. Not for food, not for anything else, just for pleasure.

Is that evil? He certainly seemed disgusted, and he took the goat home, butchered it and cooked it so it wouldn't go to waste. Now, imagine if some guys got drunk, walked into some woods, and just shot a deer for fun. They aren't hunting for meat, they just wanted to have some fun and so they shot the deer and left it. Is that evil? See... Some people would say yes in this predicament, as they value animal life highly. Others would say it was despicable, but not quite bad enough to say that it was evil. Hell, some might even say "what's wrong with guys just going out and having fun?" In this case, it is negotiable.

So, where does the value of the inclusion of the concept of evil come in? There are things we consider right and wrong, but those things are often times opinions based on what the individual thinks.

I think the act in both cases, whether the perpetrator is human or animal is wasteful and detestable. Intentional acts carried out don't seem to quite be a determining factor in this case, either. I don't really see how evil fits in there.

You know, I forgot to mention the mentally ill.
If someone does something while out of their right mind, we say they commited an evil act, not that they are necessarily evil.

However, we see things differently. I think people have gone away from the true God, to their own gods, and that may include themselves being their own god, so they get to decide their standards, while ignoring God's.
Genesis 3:5
Whereas, God is the one who decides there is evil, and what constitute an evil act, or person.
That's what the Bible says. It's what I go by as the truth.

 

[nPeace]

That's a rather simplistic reply that didn't actually address the central point, but I'll address that in a moment. Not all of humanity wants peace. As we both know there are those born as psychopaths, those that become greedy or power hungry and will do anything to achieve that. That's simply human nature, but let's be real, that's not the majority. The majority just want to live good, peaceful lives and will indeed help those in need and not ignore suffering when they see it. That wasn't the central point though, which you seem to miss. The point was that we as humans do more than this supposed god. Not being dramatic, but I've been in this situation where a life was on the line and me and others who didn't know each other, jumped in and saved a woman from being crushed. None of us knew each others religion, or background or anything...but we all saw a person in need and helped. Meanwhile, there are people in literal chains around the world...children even being abused sexually...and no help is coming because they are held in secret. What about Frauline Fritzl who was was held in a dungeon for over 20 years by her father where she was raped practically every night...and was finally freed by a good samaritan who noticed something off and called police. Imagine how many times this woman and others like her prayed...begged for help...and still had to wait over 20 years to be freed while enduring torment. Your god (assuming it exists)...watched this for over 20 years and did nothing.

Here's the real points and questions:
How could anyone...ever respect such a being who has the power to stop this sort of suffering...who has the ability to cure children with cancer.....but yet does nothing at all?
How could anyone...ever respect a god who forgives rapists, murderers and pedophiles so long as they believe and beg forgiveness.....but will send a person who's never committed a crime, who helps his fellow man, who feeds the homeless and does nothing but good....to a fiery place of eternal torment.....all because they didn't believe in this same god.

To my eyes...this god, the god of the bible...is arrogant and evil and he cares nothing for human suffering and only actually cares if you worship him. That sounds a lot more like what the devil is described as and not a god.

God has the perfect solution to the world's problems.
Do you have another?

 

[HonestJoe]

So you are saying that things are not the way God wanted them to be, therefore God is not omnipotent, because one who is omnipotent will shape everything exactly as he wants.
I think I understand that one... hopefully.

I'm not saying anything about what actually is, I am only responding to the hypothesis that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, creator God. My statement is abstract logic; that if such a being existed, everything in the universe would be exactly how that being wanted it to be.

If you are presenting a hypothesis of there being an omnipotent, omniscient, creator God and that there are some things in the universe that God doesn't want or couldn't control, I would say that hypothesis is self-contradictory and so can't possibly be true.

Suppose you happen to pass through the city, and you saw someone...

All of these metaphors about people are irrelevant to the idea of God being presented here. God would be such a vastly different being to anything human that the same logic simply can't be applied.

The application : God's work is not finished. He worked six days, and on the seventh day rested from those works, allowing his work to come to its completion by the end of the seventh day.

That can only be metaphorical though. God is presented as existing outside time so the concepts of him spending "days" doing something or resting are irrational. Theological metaphor is an irrelevant distraction from the actual topic (and is often created for exactly that purpose).

The evidence :Genesis 1 ; Hebrews 3:18-4:16 ; Revelation ; 2 Peter 3:8-10 ; Revelation 20

Scripture is evidence of nothing other than what some people wrote down. Again, it is irrelevant to the topic.

I'm not talking about the Biblical God here, I'm talking about the abstract concept of any omnipotent, omniscient, creator God. You don't need the Bible to propose the existence of such a God.

So to all with the flawed perspective, and thinking you are seeing with "perfect vision"...

Lol

Not just me, you too. We're both flawed human beings and if that means I can't make statements about the nature of God, it means you can't either.

Since you have provided another option, which the evidence shows is the most likely... actually the correct conclusion, anything you say after, is null and void.

It would mean anything you say is null and void too. It doesn't really matter whether God exists or not, we can't know either way.

 

[nPeace]

I'm not saying anything about what actually is, I am only responding to the hypothesis that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, creator God. My statement is abstract logic; that if such a being existed, everything in the universe would be exactly how that being wanted it to be.

If you are presenting a hypothesis of there being an omnipotent, omniscient, creator God and that there are some things in the universe that God doesn't want or couldn't control, I would say that hypothesis is self-contradictory and so can't possibly be true.

All of these metaphors about people are irrelevant to the idea of God being presented here. God would be such a vastly different being to anything human that the same logic simply can't be applied.

That can only be metaphorical though. God is presented as existing outside time so the concepts of him spending "days" doing something or resting are irrational. Theological metaphor is an irrelevant distraction from the actual topic (and is often created for exactly that purpose).

Scripture is evidence of nothing other than what some people wrote down. Again, it is irrelevant to the topic.

I'm not talking about the Biblical God here, I'm talking about the abstract concept of any omnipotent, omniscient, creator God. You don't need the Bible to propose the existence of such a God.

Not just me, you too. We're both flawed human beings and if that means I can't make statements about the nature of God, it means you can't either.

It would mean anything you say is null and void too. It doesn't really matter whether God exists or not, we can't know either way.

You guys are missing the point of illustrations. Perhaps you don't understand the purpose of an illustration? It makes the point. To focus on an argument, and fail to see the point of the illustration, is simply to ignore reason, and not be willing to... reason that is. The illustration refutes the argument, because it is a fitting demonstration of a logical counterargument.

All one has to do is substitute every part of the illustration with every part in the argument, and one will see that the argument does not stand.
God is the artist... Figure out what the art work in it's initial stage is.
It's not hard to understand simple illustrations.
That's why good teachers use them.
They make the point stand out... clearly.

Edit:
Which means, @HonestJoe, your abstract logic failed to stand,. ... and yes it does matter if God exists.

 

[nPeace]

Not just me, you too. We're both flawed human beings and if that means I can't make statements about the nature of God, it means you can't either.

Where did anyone say you can't make statements about the nature of God?

 

[Magic Man]

"God has 100% control over everything,"
Well that's your opinion isn't it. It's not what the Bible says though.
What's your point? The false assumption threw me off. Could you make the point with an accurate statement? I'll try to see if I get it..


No. that is not my opinion. God is omniscient. Just we might have a different understanding of that.


See. that's not my understanding of omniscient. Because one can know everything does not mean they can't control what they know.
So the only thing God does not have 100% control over is what he knows or does - himself?


No. You appear to want people to all say what you believe, but that is not reasonable, nor reality.
I did not say God created Satan.
I said... God created a heavenly family of spirit sons. He did not create Satan.
One of God's sons chose to become Satan the Devil - that is

If you are going to be dishonest about what I said, we can end our conversation here. there is no benefit in conversing with someone who does not want to listen to the other person, and respect their different view, without trying to be a... what are you trying to be, by "making people say what you want them to say"?


Ah. I see. Our conversation is over then? Okay. take care.

So you need to make a decision and be honest about your beliefs before you can have a discussion/debate like this. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. There are two variables here: omniscience and omnipotence.

You just admitted here that your God is omniscient. That means he knows everything, including that one of his angels would become Satan and bring evil into the world. That can't be argued. You either say your God is omniscient and knew that along with everything else, or you don't claim he is omniscient. You have to choose one. Once you do, you have to accept the consequences of that choice, or else you're arguing dishonestly, as you've done here.

Now, you claim it's only my opinion that God has 100% control over everything. It's not my opinion; it is what the Bible claims. So now you have the same decision. You can either claim that God is omnipotent, or you can claim he is not. If you claim he is not, then you need to explain how he created the universe and performed everything he did in the Bible. However, if that's your claim, then you can at least claim he is not responsible for Satan and "evil", since then it would be possible for him not to have the power to do anything about that. It would just be weird for him to be able to create everything but not control it after he created it.

The typical view of your God is that he is both omnipotent and omniscient, which is why we're having this debate. The entire point of the OP is based on that typical view of "God". If you don't believe your God is both of those things, then there's no point in arguing this. However, you'd do better to drop the inaccurate condescension. I'm not the one making false assumptions here or being dishonest. I don't need to be. Take your own advice and listen to what others are actually saying and stop making dishonest arguments.

Bottom line is: If God is omnipotent and omniscient, he is responsible for everything that happens in the universe. He knows what will happen and has the power to make it not happen. Therefore, if it still happens, it's only because he either did or allowed it. The only way he's not responsible for everything (including Satan) is if he's not both omniscient and omnipotent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You think it's immoral to allow suffering temporarily, for lasting and permanent benefits?
So do you think a father who let's his child suffer momentarily to correct a serious problem, is immoral?

Quite possibly, depending on the options available to the father.

For instance, if a child needs surgery and anaesthetic is available (and medically indicated, etc.), it would generally be immoral for a father to insist that the surgery be done without anaesthetic. This is still the case even if the surgery is beneficial - or even necessary - and even if the suffering is momentary.

 

[nPeace]

That can only be metaphorical though. God is presented as existing outside time so the concepts of him spending "days" doing something or resting are irrational. Theological metaphor is an irrelevant distraction from the actual topic (and is often created for exactly that purpose).

So is this about proving God don't exist?
According to man, time began when the universe began, so yes, God using that time to do stuff, is relevant. How do you work out that it's not?

Scripture is evidence of nothing other than what some people wrote down. Again, it is irrelevant to the topic.

Sorry, you may not like scripture, but it is relevant to this topic. It involves God, and the Bible does address the problem of evil with as much truth as any presented by anyone.
Scriptural evidence is more than just what people wrote down. Ask the archaeologists.

The Bible is the source of much evidence confirmed by external sources.

 

[nPeace]

Quite possibly, depending on the options available to the father.

For instance, if a child needs surgery and anaesthetic is available (and medically indicated, etc.), it would generally be immoral for a father to insist that the surgery be done without anaesthetic. This is still the case even if the surgery is beneficial - or even necessary - and even if the suffering is momentary.

That does not change the point of the illustration. Don't miss it.
Arguing for other options to support an argument, while ignoring the one presented is a sign of just wanting to argue against something, and not consider the truth or logic presented.
That would show bias, and a desire to just .... "Well I want to argue, so there."

I am specifically illustrating the reality that allowing someone to suffer pain for a good outcome is not immoral.

If I use an illustration that involves pain after an operation, will you go, "Oh well there is always pain killer. When the pain is about to come on just pump the poor lass with pain killer."
They still experience pain, and why? They needed a problem corrected. That is the point.

God allows suffering to correct a problem for a permanent benefit.
It's better than any solution now, because it's an everlasting good.

 

[nPeace]

So you need to make a decision and be honest about your beliefs before you can have a discussion/debate like this. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. There are two variables here: omniscience and omnipotence.

You just admitted here that your God is omniscient. That means he knows everything, including that one of his angels would become Satan and bring evil into the world. That can't be argued. You either say your God is omniscient and knew that along with everything else, or you don't claim he is omniscient. You have to choose one. Once you do, you have to accept the consequences of that choice, or else you're arguing dishonestly, as you've done here.

Now, you claim it's only my opinion that God has 100% control over everything. It's not my opinion; it is what the Bible claims. So now you have the same decision. You can either claim that God is omnipotent, or you can claim he is not. If you claim he is not, then you need to explain how he created the universe and performed everything he did in the Bible. However, if that's your claim, then you can at least claim he is not responsible for Satan and "evil", since then it would be possible for him not to have the power to do anything about that. It would just be weird for him to be able to create everything but not control it after he created it.

The typical view of your God is that he is both omnipotent and omniscient, which is why we're having this debate. The entire point of the OP is based on that typical view of "God". If you don't believe your God is both of those things, then there's no point in arguing this. However, you'd do better to drop the inaccurate condescension. I'm not the one making false assumptions here or being dishonest. I don't need to be. Take your own advice and listen to what others are actually saying and stop making dishonest arguments.

Bottom line is: If God is omnipotent and omniscient, he is responsible for everything that happens in the universe. He knows what will happen and has the power to make it not happen. Therefore, if it still happens, it's only because he either did or allowed it. The only way he's not responsible for everything (including Satan) is if he's not both omniscient and omnipotent.

Okay, then lets proceed slowly then.
Does omniscient mean God automatically - that is uncontrollably - knows all things, past, present, and future, and do not need to exercise that ability, that is, God cannot control that ability?

 

[Magic Man]

Okay, then lets proceed slowly then.
Does omniscient mean God automatically - that is uncontrollably - knows all things, past, present, and future, and do not need to exercise that ability, that is, God cannot control that ability?

If you're going to claim that he can choose not to know certain things, then that's effectively the same as not being omniscient. Plus, if he's actively choosing not to know certain things, he's using his power to allow things to happen by his omission. He'd still be responsible for everything because he could have known and controlled it.

 

[People_Lack_Integrity]

God has the perfect solution to the world's problems.
Do you have another?

You think the perfect solution is "Follow me or burn?" Really?!