You are a product tester...

[Riverwolf]

But they use it as a way to proselytize

Again, so what? As long as they aren't hurting anybody, just ignore them. (And by the way, don't think that fanboys and fangirls of non-religious things don't proselytize their opinions, too.)

A non-interfering god (that can't) is neither malevolent or benevolent... but a god that can interfere for the greater good but chooses not to is malevolent...

...you bring up the "Greater Good." Since you did, let me ask you this: do you think there's any one on the planet who has any objective idea as to what that "Greater Good" even is? 'Cause I don't think there is.

Besides that, you therefore say yes to my question: God has to either be wholly benevolent or wholly malevolent: evil negates good.

If we hold God to such a standard, oughtn't we hold ourselves to that same standard? Therefore, a person who is a loving husband and devoted father, who is kind to his friends and loved ones, works hard at his job, and donates to salvation armies and charities, yet passes by a beggar on the streets ought to be considered malevolent.

 

[Atomist]

Again, so what? As long as they aren't hurting anybody, just ignore them. (And by the way, don't think that fanboys and fangirls of non-religious things don't proselytize their opinions, too.)

I don't agree with you... and I do care since I don't want people to believe stuff that does affect me namely mythologies that they want to spread as facts. False belief do affect us... maybe not directly... but indirectly.

...you bring up the "Greater Good." Since you did, let me ask you this: do you think there's any one on the planet who has any objective idea as to what that "Greater Good" even is? 'Cause I don't think there is.

You don't have to know what "Greater good" is exactly to know that something would be considered as a greater good... say not allowing 9/11 to happen.

Besides that, you therefore say yes to my question: God has to either be wholly benevolent or wholly malevolent: evil negates good.

Only IF he has the ability to stop bad things... if he can't intervene then he can't be good or bad.

If we hold God to such a standard, oughtn't we hold ourselves to that same standard? Therefore, a person who is a loving husband and devoted father, who is kind to his friends and loved ones, works hard at his job, and donates to salvation armies and charities, yet passes by a beggar on the streets ought to be considered malevolent.

Why should we hold ourselves to the same standard as we hold god. Do we hold people swimming to the same level of standard as we hold lifeguards?

 

[Blackdog22]

Okay... our modern law system still does this.

Our modern system doesn't punish someone who steals the same as someone who murders. Are you sure you understand the argument?

Okay, then.

Anything from the Gospels?

Before we start down this road how many times are you planning on moving the goalpost? I gave you a verse. I will find more, but is it gonna end up having to be said by Jesus or nothing once I find something in the gospels? If so make this clear so both of our time isn't wasted.

...got a better translation?

Again, once I find one when are you gonna stop moving the goal post? I provided proof in the Bible. Do you not trust the Bible?

Are you sure it was talking about even innocent lies, or talking about a different kind of liar? Are you aware of the context in which those texts were written?

If you can find another way to lie or a special definition of lying then please provide it. As far as I am aware a lie is a lie and according to the good book I am right. When Jesus says not only is commiting adultery is a sin, but even looking upon a woman with lust is equated to adultery. I think this shows enough about how Jesus feels to get an idea that any lie is evil. Maybe even thinking of it is evil!

Besides this, nowhere in the Bible does it say that lying is worth of hell except special kinds. I have biblical scripture to back up my statements. Do you have anything to back up yours?

I don't see any indication of such an extreme, unless you take the text literally. The spirit of that verse in Revelations (a text whose spiritual authenticity and usefulness I seriously question and just about deny, BTW), seems to be lumping together those who deliberately turn away from, and spit in, the face of God.

Well, seeing as the Bible is a collection of texts and not a single text on its own (and just so you're aware, the Apocalypse of John's authenticity was in question before it was allowed, and during the Protestant reformation, it nearly got taken out), I prefer to take each text on its own.

Yes, but if your trying to say that you believe that only parts of it are inspired by God your gonna have to give me some reason to believe this. Oh and btw the book of Revelation was written by John. One of the disciples who walked with God. He was different from the John of the Gospels is the thinking, but he walked with Jesus himself.
"If I find one part of the Bible to be in fault I find all of it to be in fault," Said Paul from his very mouth. To throw away any part is to throw away the whole thing.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't agree with you... and I do care since I don't want people to believe stuff that does affect me namely mythologies that they want to spread as facts. False belief do affect us... maybe not directly... but indirectly.

Oh? How so?

You don't have to know what "Greater good" is exactly to know that something would be considered as a greater good... say not allowing 9/11 to happen.

And have you noticed that not a single other attempted attack on America has succeeded since 9/11? (Granted, one of them failed out of pure luck.)

Only IF he has the ability to stop bad things... if he can't intervene then he can't be good or bad.

Obviously.

Why should we hold ourselves to the same standard as we hold god.

Because isn't holding Him to the same standards as us what caused many of His hypocrisies in the Biblical texts to be noticed? Isn't that what causes us to decide whether he's malevolent or benevolent?

Do we hold people swimming to the same level of standard as we hold lifeguards?

Of course not. Therefore, we shouldn't hold God to our standards, which means we shouldn't judge Him.

 

[Riverwolf]

Our modern system doesn't punish someone who steals the same as someone who murders. Are you sure you understand the argument?

I do. I was looking ONLY at that one verse, which says a lawbreaker is a lawbreaker.

Before we start down this road how many times are you planning on moving the goalpost? I gave you a verse. I will find more, but is it gonna end up having to be said by Jesus or nothing once I find something in the gospels? If so make this clear so both of our time isn't wasted.

Okies.

I don't really consider the epistles of the NT to be spiritually authoritative, at least not on the same level as the Gospels. Granted, I wasn't expecting something from John, who I rather like. (At least compared to Paul.)

However, you did provide verses, and I do have to admit now that the New Testament does contain verses that say so.

Again, once I find one when are you gonna stop moving the goal post? I provided proof in the Bible. Do you not trust the Bible?

Why should I trust that particular collection of Jewish and early Christian texts? What's wrong with trusting the Gospels (and thus the words attributed to Jesus) over the letters of Paul?

If you can find another way to lie or a special definition of lying then please provide it. As far as I am aware a lie is a lie and according to the good book I am right. When Jesus says not only is commiting adultery is a sin, but even looking upon a woman with lust is equated to adultery. I think this shows enough about how Jesus feels to get an idea that any lie is evil. Maybe even thinking of it is evil!

...that's so obviously talking about a married man purposely gawking at another woman.

Now, Tommy lying about not cleaning his room is not equal to the one who lies about his debts in order to keep a little extra money for himself.

Besides this, nowhere in the Bible does it say that lying is worth of hell except special kinds. I have biblical scripture to back up my statements. Do you have anything to back up yours?

It's been a while since I've read the New Testament, and I primarily focus on the Gospels. Keep in mind that I try to preface my statements with "I've never read". That means that I've never read them, not that they don't exist. You've already proven me wrong that the Bible does lump such sinners together. But those are not parts of the Bible that I take as spiritually authoritative.

Yes, but if your trying to say that you believe that only parts of it are inspired by God your gonna have to give me some reason to believe this.

Oh, they were all inspired by God. After all, they are all about God and promote devotion to Him.

So is Dante's Inferno. So is Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained. So is the Qur'an. So are the Vedic Samhitas. So are the Puranas. Heck, so is the Chronicles of Narnia.

Whether or not something is inspired by God doesn't mean much. What I look for is whether or not it's useful in spiritual progression. And, from what I've seen, the epistles, and even parts of the Gospels, do not fit that criteria.

Oh and btw the book of Revelation was written by John. One of the disciples who walked with God. He was different from the John of the Gospels is the thinking, but he walked with Jesus himself.

We don't know which John that was, and we can't necessarily take what he wrote in that Apocalypse at face value. After all, he could have been crazy.

Like I said, it's canonicity was heavily in question, and there were other apocalyptic writings at the time also considered for canonization... in fact, one of them is attributed to Peter himself. With John, we can't be sure if it's a John we've already met in the Bible, or if it's a new person altogether. After all, just like today, "John" was a common name at the time.

"If I find one part of the Bible to be in fault I find all of it to be in fault," Said Paul from his very mouth. To throw away any part is to throw away the whole thing.

Well, that was Paul who said that, and I don't trust what Paul said. Besides, I don't think that's what he said, because the Bible had not been canonized at that point, so... would you be so kind as to provide me with the actual verse that says this?

 

[Atomist]

Oh? How so?

In case you haven't noticed... gay rights, abortion, etc,etc are directly affected by religious belief. And if I can weaken some of the core beliefs hopefully some other beliefs like those would weaken or be more realistic.

And have you noticed that not a single other attempted attack on America has succeeded since 9/11? (Granted, one of them failed out of pure luck.)

... lol if it failed "out of pure luck"... if I accept that, which I do, you lose out on god intervening...

Because isn't holding Him to the same standards as us what caused many of His hypocrisies in the Biblical texts to be noticed? Isn't that what causes us to decide whether he's malevolent or benevolent?

Of course not. Therefore, we shouldn't hold God to our standards, which means we shouldn't judge Him.

... no we should hold him to a HIGHER standard we hold ourselves... given that he has more power than we do... if we can't hold him to any standard, then we have no right to decide whether he is benevolent or malevolent... I mean what would you say I argued:
we shouldn't be able to hold the president to our standards (since he has more information, and power than we do) therefore we shouldn't judge him so let him do whatever he wants since he knows best.

Through that reasoning... we have NO right to determine if a leader is good or not... so... therefore all revolts are unjust.

 

[Riverwolf]

In case you haven't noticed... gay rights, abortion, etc,etc are directly affected by religious belief. And if I can weaken some of the core beliefs hopefully some other beliefs like those would weaken or be more realistic.

Ah, so you're talking about people who let their personal beliefs influence their political beliefs.

That is, believe it or not, another part of the field (though still definitely in the same field). I completely understand trying to teach others to not let their personal beliefs influence their political ones.

That's not the same as letting people to their own beliefs. I, personally, believe abortion to be immoral. I also wholly support it being legal. I find the image of two men kissing and/or having sex to be revolting, but I'm also an advocate for granting homosexuals equal rights to the rest of us.

So, here we're talking about something else. Believe it or not, most of proselytizing doesn't make it into political systems (besides not usually being directed there), unless the issue is recent. Creationists have been fighting to the death to get their belief into schools, and they've failed every time, because that's an issue that's been settled long ago. Abortion, homosexual rights, etc. are new issues to be settled.

... lol if it failed "out of pure luck"... if I accept that, which I do, you lose out on god intervening...

...huh? I thought we were talking specifically the "Greater Good" part. Besides the fact that the only other attempt that I'm aware of failed because it was noticed and reported.

BTW, one of God's female forms is Lady Luck.

... no we should hold him to a HIGHER standard we hold ourselves... given that he has more power than we do... if we can't hold him to any standard, then we have no right to decide whether he is benevolent or malevolent... I mean what would you say I argued:
we shouldn't be able to hold the president to our standards (since he has more information, and power than we do) therefore we shouldn't judge him so let him do whatever he wants since he knows best.

Through that reasoning... we have NO right to determine if a leader is good or not... so... therefore all revolts are unjust.

Not quite the best comparison (human leaders still being humans with all our flaws and imperfections, and God is... well, God), though it does somewhat work of we're talking about the concept of God being a King (which He is in the stories of the Tanakh.) But that being the case, then WE'RE the ones who are the real leaders, if we're the ones holding our leaders to certain standards, and therefore WE'RE the real leaders. So, applying that to God, He is no longer God, but a mere servant.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. I personally believe that the best leaders consider themselves mere servants to their people. Otherwise you risk power-trips.

Nevertheless, while the King does have more information than the common person, God knows all things (according to all the Scriptures), and therefore is in the best position to make the best decision based on the Greater Good. So, they're still not on equal ground.

 

[Atomist]

Ah, so you're talking about people who let their personal beliefs influence their political beliefs.

That is, believe it or not, another part of the field (though still definitely in the same field). I completely understand trying to teach others to not let their personal beliefs influence their political ones.

That's not the same as letting people to their own beliefs. I, personally, believe abortion to be immoral. I also wholly support it being legal. I find the image of two men kissing and/or having sex to be revolting, but I'm also an advocate for granting homosexuals equal rights to the rest of us.

So, here we're talking about something else. Believe it or not, most of proselytizing doesn't make it into political systems (besides not usually being directed there), unless the issue is recent. Creationists have been fighting to the death to get their belief into schools, and they've failed every time, because that's an issue that's been settled long ago. Abortion, homosexual rights, etc. are new issues to be settled.

Yeah if I accept that people will keep their unsubstantiated beliefs out of politics then I wouldn't care... but since that works really well historically....

...huh? I thought we were talking specifically the "Greater Good" part. Besides the fact that the only other attempt that I'm aware of failed because it was noticed and reported.

BTW, one of God's female forms is Lady Luck.

yeah... okay

Not quite the best comparison (human leaders still being humans with all our flaws and imperfections, and God is... well, God), though it does somewhat work of we're talking about the concept of God being a King (which He is in the stories of the Tanakh.) But that being the case, then WE'RE the ones who are the real leaders, if we're the ones holding our leaders to certain standards, and therefore WE'RE the real leaders. So, applying that to God, He is no longer God, but a mere servant.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. I personally believe that the best leaders consider themselves mere servants to their people. Otherwise you risk power-trips.

Nevertheless, while the King does have more information than the common person, God knows all things (according to all the Scriptures), and therefore is in the best position to make the best decision based on the Greater Good. So, they're still not on equal ground.

Again... I don't accept god is free from our criticism because he is god... and he's perfect because that's how he's defined... Remember... we have to know that god is perfect with our imperfect knowledge... and since we have imperfect knowledge...

I reject that god knows all things until you demonstrate that... I'll even grant that god exists. I mean if you just make up traits for god... then Why don't I.... god has 16 boobs and 11 arms and eats cats.

That's the only difference between god and the leader (his magical unsubstantiated powers)

 

[Riverwolf]

Yeah if I accept that people will keep their unsubstantiated beliefs out of politics then I wouldn't care... but since that works really well historically....

Uh, it has worked.

yeah... okay

What? You've never heard of Mother Lakshmi?

Now, you gonna address my real point, or focus on my attempt at some humor?

Again... I don't accept god is free from our criticism because he is god... and he's perfect because that's how he's defined... Remember... we have to know that god is perfect with our imperfect knowledge... and since we have imperfect knowledge...

We know because, according to Scripture, He told us and proved it with predicting the future.

(Remember that I'm playing devil's advocate here; I don't actually believe that.)

I reject that god knows all things until you demonstrate that... I'll even grant that god exists. I mean if you just make up traits for god... then Why don't I.... god has 16 boobs and 11 arms and eats cats.

That's the only difference between god and the leader (his magical unsubstantiated powers)

Don't forget that we're going based on Scripture, and as far as I can see, this argument assumes that God exists, and that He's as he is described in Scripture (as best we can considering the conflicting attributes.) As He's described, He knows all things (which would make sense if He created all things.)

 

[Atomist]

Uh, it has worked.

What world do you live in?

What? You've never heard of Mother Lakshmi?

Now, you gonna address my real point, or focus on my attempt at some humor?

but since I don't accept "lady luck" to be any trait of god... anymore than I accept probability to be god... or the sun to be god... Whats the point of throwing the word god out like it has no meaning...

We know because, according to Scripture, He told us and proved it with predicting the future.

(Remember that I'm playing devil's advocate here; I don't actually believe that.)

Your doing a horrible job since I don't accept the scripture... so... there besides your flip flopping between mutually exclusive gods, what am I suppose to do argue against some nebulous god that isn't defined? that's absurd.

Don't forget that we're going based on Scripture, and as far as I can see, this argument assumes that God exists, and that He's as he is described in Scripture (as best we can considering the conflicting attributes.) As He's described, He knows all things (which would make sense if He created all things.)

No... no... it's like this
1) demonstrate that god exist (you can't)
so I'll grant god exist so you can
2) demonstrate the scripture you think describes god actually describe the god that I granted exist (which you can't demonstrate)

So the only conclusion I can draw from that is that your making stuff up to prove your point... but since this whole conversation seems to be based on devil's advocate what am I suppose to do? convince you that what you don't believe is wrong?

 

[Riverwolf]

What world do you live in?

This one.

Secular nations work better than religious ones. Since the US is a governmental system where the people are indirectly part of the government, it stands to reason that if the people keep their personal views out of politics, it will work better. It has. Homosexuals are slowly getting equal rights, abortion is legal, stem cell research, last I checked, has government funding, etc...

but since I don't accept "lady luck" to be any trait of god... anymore than I accept probability to be god... or the sun to be god... Whats the point of throwing the word god out like it has no meaning...

...so, you going to address my real point or focus on my joke?

Your doing a horrible job since I don't accept the scripture... so... there besides your flip flopping between mutually exclusive gods, what am I suppose to do argue against some nebulous god that isn't defined? that's absurd.

We started off talking about the Christian God, did we not? That's the God that is described in the Bible. I'm trying my best to use that as the defined-God that we're talking about, and admittedly I've not been doing a great job of that.

No... no... it's like this
1) demonstrate that god exist (you can't)

I'm not trying to. I thought the argument assumed God exists.

2) demonstrate the scripture you think describes god actually describe the god that I granted exist (which you can't demonstrate)

Again, I thought we were assuming the God described in the Bible does exist, as the argument is based on that concept.

So the only conclusion I can draw from that is that your making stuff up to prove your point...

No I'm not, at least not on purpose. I'm trying to follow your argument as best I can, not to well since you seem to keep jumping around with what you're talking about. I formulate my arguments based on what you're saying at the moment, and then when you respond, you're suddenly talking about something completely different.

I've got a question: does it appear that I'm doing that, as well? If so, it may be a good idea for me to just drop out for now.

but since this whole conversation seems to be based on devil's advocate what am I suppose to do? convince you that what you don't believe is wrong?

...I'm not even following you, anymore.

 

[Atomist]

This one.

Secular nations work better than religious ones. Since the US is a governmental system where the people are indirectly part of the government, it stands to reason that if the people keep their personal views out of politics, it will work better. It has. Homosexuals are slowly getting equal rights, abortion is legal, stem cell research, last I checked, has government funding, etc...

You don't get it... people hold beliefs... and DO make decisions based off those beliefs... and STOP people from doing what they want because it's against their personal belief... one only needs look at abortion and gay marriage and how arduous the process is when it seems obvious (for at least gay marriage) that they deserve those rights. And the only reason why it's taking so long is because of the beliefs that people hold... and acting on those beliefs...

...so, you going to address my real point or focus on my joke?

maybe but it doesn't seem like you have a point.

We started off talking about the Christian God, did we not? That's the God that is described in the Bible. I'm trying my best to use that as the defined-God that we're talking about, and admittedly I've not been doing a great job of that.

I'm not trying to. I thought the argument assumed God exists.

Again, I thought we were assuming the God described in the Bible does exist, as the argument is based on that concept.

I don't think you get it... my argument was against the christian god... if you want to argue for the christian god it's fair game for me to ask you to demonstrate that the scripture is an actual depiction of the said god that I granted exist... Screw it... I'll even grant the whole shebang... You still can't demonstrate that this god character is worthy of our trust... maybe he's lying to us because he's malicious and telling us he's a good, all knowing and just god to screw with us as a massive prank. The fact that that possibility exist and you can't account for it is a HUGE problem in the belief system, even if the scripture is inspired by god.

No I'm not, at least not on purpose. I'm trying to follow your argument as best I can, not to well since you seem to keep jumping around with what you're talking about. I formulate my arguments based on what you're saying at the moment, and then when you respond, you're suddenly talking about something completely different.

I've got a question: does it appear that I'm doing that, as well? If so, it may be a good idea for me to just drop out for now.



...I'm not even following you, anymore.

Well part of it is that we're talking past each other... I'm not going to grant that the christian god exist the scripture is written by god and that god is honest... because then there is nothing to debate... Because then it's obvious that there is nothing to argue then. So I want at the very least that "god is honest" to be demonstrated even especially if I grant the whole god exist/the bible is his written word.

Like I could very easily tell a bunch of kids that I'm looking out for their best interest and I'm all knowing and then kick random kids and say well well I know that the kids that I kicked were bad and deserved it. I mean if the kids can't judge my actions... then in this thought experiment I would be as much above the law as god...

 

[Riverwolf]

You don't get it... people hold beliefs... and DO make decisions based off those beliefs... and STOP people from doing what they want because it's against their personal belief... one only needs look at abortion and gay marriage and how arduous the process is when it seems obvious (for at least gay marriage) that they deserve those rights. And the only reason why it's taking so long is because of the beliefs that people hold... and acting on those beliefs...

Arduous, yes, but still happening. Those who are fighting against it are losing, and will eventually lose. Just as the majority of people accept womens' suffrage, African-American equal rights, etc. There are still problems with those among the people, but in politics, they are non-existent.

maybe but it doesn't seem like you have a point.

We were talking about greater good, you referenced 9/11, and I mentioned that no attempted attack on America has since been successful. I also pointed out that one of them failed because of luck.

I should also point out for that argument that it's much, much harder for terrorists to attack America because we've heightened our defenses.

Then, you seemed to forget completely about greater good, and go back to God's interference. I made a quick joke out of that, which seemed to be a bad idea, since you seemed to mistake that joke for seriousness despite the smiley.

I don't think you get it... my argument was against the christian god... if you want to argue for the christian god it's fair game for me to ask you to demonstrate that the scripture is an actual depiction of the said god that I granted exist... Screw it... I'll even grant the whole shebang... You still can't demonstrate that this god character is worthy of our trust... maybe he's lying to us because he's malicious and telling us he's a good, all knowing and just god to screw with us as a massive prank. The fact that that possibility exist and you can't account for it is a HUGE problem in the belief system, even if the scripture is inspired by god.


Well part of it is that we're talking past each other... I'm not going to grant that the christian god exist the scripture is written by god and that god is honest... because then there is nothing to debate... Because then it's obvious that there is nothing to argue then. So I want at the very least that "god is honest" to be demonstrated even especially if I grant the whole god exist/the bible is his written word.

Like I could very easily tell a bunch of kids that I'm looking out for their best interest and I'm all knowing and then kick random kids and say well well I know that the kids that I kicked were bad and deserved it. I mean if the kids can't judge my actions... then in this thought experiment I would be as much above the law as god...

...so we weren't assuming that the Biblical Christian God exists? That being the case, what's the point of the argument?

 

[Atomist]

Arduous, yes, but still happening. Those who are fighting against it are losing, and will eventually lose. Just as the majority of people accept womens' suffrage, African-American equal rights, etc. There are still problems with those among the people, but in politics, they are non-existent.

And I don't want it to be arduous?

We were talking about greater good, you referenced 9/11, and I mentioned that no attempted attack on America has since been successful. I also pointed out that one of them failed because of luck.

I should also point out for that argument that it's much, much harder for terrorists to attack America because we've heightened our defenses.

Then, you seemed to forget completely about greater good, and go back to God's interference. I made a quick joke out of that, which seemed to be a bad idea, since you seemed to mistake that joke for seriousness despite the smiley.

Well sure you can say "greater good" by saying a good result came out of... it's a fail safe way to make god not liable for his lack of interference. but regardless people died that didn't need to die... and if terrorism always fails we don't need to heighten our defences... do you see why? so I reject that it's a greater good.

...so we weren't assuming that the Biblical Christian God exists? That being the case, what's the point of the argument?

let me try again:
I grant god exist and that the bible is god's word... now explain to me how we god is honest and not lying to us and he's really a trickster god that is out for the greater evil for the lulz

 

[Riverwolf]

And I don't want it to be arduous?

So address the points directly. That is, if you want homosexuals to get equal rights non-arduously, then focus on the arguments on that subject alone. Don't bother with God-concepts. (Waste of time, anyway, since I've seen homophobes pelted and showered with all kinds of evidence that there's nothing wrong with homosexual marriage, and they completely ignore it.)

Besides, I don't think anyone wants things to be arduous. But life itself is arduous, so it's best to work with what we have, and pick our battles wisely.

Well sure you can say "greater good" by saying a good result came out of... it's a fail safe way to make god not liable for his lack of interference.

Please, explain.

but regardless people died that didn't need to die... and if terrorism always fails we don't need to heighten our defences... do you see why?

Yes. Thing is, I didn't say that.

Except for one, all the attempted attacks on America since 9/11 have been thwarted.

let me try again:
I grant god exist and that the bible is god's word... now explain to me how we god is honest and not lying to us and he's really a trickster god that is out for the greater evil for the lulz

What does that have to do with the argument? Doesn't your original argument assume that God's honest, as well?

 

[Atomist]

What does that have to do with the argument? Doesn't your original argument assume that God's honest, as well?

This is the only thing you said that is worth addressing since everything else is just a distraction that I can defend but I don't care to.

Sure... lets assume that god exist, he's the christian god and we should believe what he's saying... what are we suppose to argue then? What I'm saying is that all analogies are valid comparisons the christian god because we can't know that he's not deceiving us... so we can't assume he isn't...

To say it's not a fair comparison because god by fiat is honest is to miss the point. How do you know he's honest? The question is rhetorical since you can't demonstrate that he is honest, and therefore he's no different than the product tester or the president.

Furthermore, how do we know that god has all knowledge and instead of just asserting it in the bible so that he can get away with all his evil acts for the lulz? Since we can't know either way we also can't just assume God has perfect knowledge.

Same with the president... you can't just say god is all good therefore the comparison is not valid... without demonstrating that god is all good... I mean what if the president says "I am looking out for the best interest of everyone and I know more than you and THEREFORE you are in no position to judge me", do you think that would go over well?

So why does god have such ridiculous positive character traits without demonstrating it to be true? because he's god so we should believe him?

If the christian god does exist he has done absolutely nothing to demonstrate what we should expect from a god with such positive character traits.

So the real question is should we worship in the christian god if it's possible he's malevolent (given he exist)? Especially if all accounts suggest that he is malevolent (if he exist). I think I'd rather go to hell and suffer eternal torture than worship his arrogance it seems like the better of two evils.