#1 - Yep, an omnipotent being would be able to do it that way, but, that method could very well be LESS benevolent couldn't it? It could be LESS effective couldn't it? Less efficient? Cause more harm over time?
No, it couldn't. An omnipotent and omnibenevolent entity could bring about a universe that was absolutely and completely benevolent. There would be no need for any pain, misery, or suffering. The existence of these things shows that god is either not omnipotent, not omnibenevolent, or simply doesn't exist.
Thus the question become not whether he CAN do it, but whether he should.
Ergo, you now have to prove that a world where there is no suffering, no negative consequences in a GOOD thing.
Benevolence is defined as good and kind. Absolute benevolence would entail the existence of nothing but goodness and kindness, and no pain, misery, or suffering. An omnipotent being would have no limitations on what he should do, only what he wanted to do. If an omnipotent wanted no pain, misery, or suffering (omnibenevolence), then none would exist.
In a world where a murder cannot suffer for murder. Nor can he choose to murder anyway. A world where no matter what we do ... it'll ALWAYS be good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/world/asia/new-china-cities-shoddy-homes-broken-hope.html?_r=0
It would seem that being given consequences we have not earned isn't really good for humanity? So ... your method and benevolence?
Once again you're placing limits on omnipotence. An omnipotent entity could bring about any state of affairs for itself and for its creations. If such a being were also omnibenevolent, there would be no pain, misery, or suffering, as it isn't necessary.
#2 - given that you like to lecture about logic, atheism requires evidence to support it or its irrational.
I am an atheist in the sense that I do not hold the belief that god(s) exist. This requires no proof. It is simply the most rational position as long as the claim that god(s) exist has no evidence to show that it is true.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence
Precisely. The claim that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists has no evidence. Thus, I can dismiss it.
Again, the enter point of debate is to AT LEAST ATTEMPT to convince others.
I cannot convince you if you do not value logical consistency. The point of my responses is to help others articulate and understand why the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god is logically inconsistent, as, I already stated, I have no illusions about convincing people who are unconcerned with logically consistency that they are being logically inconsistent.
And no sane or rational man would sign up for a conclusion based on the claim it doesn't need proof.
And no rational person would accept the existence of an entity whose existence is logically inconsistent with reality, and whose existence has no evidence.
Well them, Go me some solid gold bars I'd like to sell ya real cheap, don;t need to show them to ya because all I am really doing is disagreeing that they ain't lead ... and since negative claims don;t require support, you gotta prove them ain't gold ... and I'll just keep assuring ya that they is anyway ... so gimme your money.
I am glad that you think religious people should buy atheism under that premise. :no:
I see your lack of reading comprehension is rearing its ugly head again. I'm not arguing that others should be atheists. For the umpteenth time, I'm simply arguing that the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent is logically inconsistent with the state of reality. A position that you've yet hardly addressed, let alone put even a slight dent into.
