An omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscent, omnipresent god exists

^o^ I've been having some bad days, but this argument cheers me up! Ha! Let me rebut your arguments before introducing new ones. "Possibility 1: Free Will God wanted everyone to have free will. With free will comes the will to make others suffer. Thus, God had to choose between free will and freedom from suffering, and knew that the lack of an ability to make choices was a greater pain than suffering, so free will is the explanation. Just because God already knows what you will do with your free will, doesn't mean that you don't have it. You can still jump up and down twice right now, or three times, or four, but God will have already known what you wanted to do (which I am guessing to be jumping up and down zero times)." Wait a minute.... your argument basically implies that free will is the ability to choose wrongfully. It has to if free will MUST come with the will to make others suffer. I would find it odd for an omnibenevolent being to even CREATE something will the ability to make other creations suffer. Why can't we just have only the ability to make RIGHT choices And you're 100% correct, this god chose between "free will" over freedom from suffering. You know what that's like? That's like giving a child a gun and then justify it by saying "not giving my child the option of doing something bad is a greater pain than preventing him/her from making bad decisions by keeping them AWAY from those things." What I challenge you to do is answer this question, which is more responsible parenting, to expose your kids to explicit and mature content OR to keep them away from those things to prevent possible suffering? "Possibility 2: Punishment When Eve committed the first sin, God had to come up with a punishment. Thus, he came up with suffering. He doesn't want everyone to suffer, but a punishment was necessary for breaking His rules. Why does a mother put her child in a time-out, or spank him, when he does wrong, when she does not wish for her child to suffer? It is because the child needs to be taught a lesson, and in the end, the time-out will have improved his character." God had to come up with a punishment? O.o Well, here's the problem with that argument. Since this god is omniscient, before he created this person he would have already knew what she would have done with her "free will," in this case meaning she would've sinned. And the fact that he created her with that knowledge instead of preventing it would make him responsible and therefore guilty. That's like me winding up a toy, telling it that it's a sin to fall over the table although I already knew it would when I was winding it, and then when it falls over the table breaking it. It's my fault because the whole thing was set up from the beginning, and if anything that's clearly is not omnibenevolence. Now, as far as your parent child analogy, parent's are neither omniscient NOR omnipotent. So that argument doesn't quite pertain to this debate. Now the next argument you present is obviously from a biased source, but I'll still take it on. "Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft came up with six solutions: "a) God may use short-term evils for long-range goods. b) God created the possibility of evil, but not the evil itself, and that free will was necessary for the highest good of real love. Kreeft says that being all-powerful doesn't mean being able to do what is logically contradictory, i.e., giving freedom with no potentiality for sin. c) God's own suffering and death on the cross brought about his supreme triumph over the devil. d) God uses suffering to bring about moral character, quoting apostle Paul in Romans. e) Suffering can bring people closer to God. f) The ultimate "answer" to suffering is Jesus himself, who, more than any explanation, is our real need."" OK, let me take these down one by one: "a) God may use short-term evils for long-range goods." An omniscient god would know how to obtain long range goals.... WITHOUT ANY EVIL! "b) God created the possibility of evil, but not the evil itself, and that free will was necessary for the highest good of real love. Kreeft says that being all-powerful doesn't mean being able to do what is logically contradictory, i.e., giving freedom with no potentiality for sin." That's just straight up contradictory. If I'm omniscient and create beings capable of being evil, then if they do evil, the evil is my doing! Like I said before, I knew they would do evil from the beginning! Therefore their suffering would be my fault as well and therefore I'm not omnibenevolent. And while I'm still at it, yes omnipotence itself means being able to do what is logically contradictory and therefore is a logical contradiction in itself. Can I make a being that nothing including me can destroy? But wait, if I'm omnipotent I should be able to destroy this thing! Is there something I can't do? No? Then I can't do anything I will, and I am not omnipotent. "c) God's own suffering and death on the cross brought about his supreme triumph over the devil" o.o What does this have to do with the debate? And worse, how can an omnipresent being die on a cross? "d) God uses suffering to bring about moral character, quoting apostle Paul in Romans." Well, that's proof that he lacks omnibenevolence, otherwise he would make beings already moral. But he'd rather punish his creations for his own doing? Yet another O.o "e) Suffering can bring people closer to God" So is that why this god manipulates the events in his creation's lives? So they will be closer to him? To me that's not omnibenevolence, but all-selfishness. "f) The ultimate "answer" to suffering is Jesus himself, who, more than any explanation, is our real need." O.o What in the world does this have to do with this debate? And don't even think about pulling the Jesus card to get sympathy votes. "So, yes, there are many solutions to the problem of evil. I only need one of them to survive by the end of the debate." You need A LOT more than that. Here are the challenges that I have for my opponent that his failure to meet would otherwise prove the resolved negated: 1) PROVE god's existence. Otherwise it will be a mere argument of ignorance or argument from lack of imagination. And I didn't say give me a testimony or what you BELIEVE, I want EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. 2) Explain to me how lack of free will means lack of suffering. Do computer's suffer? Do rocks suffer? 3) Explain to me how creating something with omniscience and omnipotence wouldn't imply responsibility. And with that, how is that omnibenevolence to punish something for your doing. Otherwise, this being is responsible and guilty for every evil his creations have committed to. 4) Explain to me how omniscience wouldn't come with the wisdom to prevent suffering. Just because you can't think of a way to end suffering doesn't mean this god can't 5) Explain to me how the argument of omnipotence is logically sound? Like I said before I'll say again, if this god was omniscient he would have known how to end suffering, and with omnipotence he would've prevented it. An omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent god would void the existence of any suffering. Yet there is suffering. The resolution is negated I urge a CON ballot Thank you :)