The Christian God is Omniscient and Omnibenevolent II

I apologize for not being able to post in the second part of the debate, due to my work schedule I was unable to find the time and I was disappointed that I was unable to be heard. Here are my final Points. Biblical Cruelty My opponent above states that I disregard the argument for biblical cruelty, and he is correct, but I do not do so without reason. If one believes that the bible is divinely created, then I concede that there is no way to argue the inconsistencies within the bible, but at the same time those who believe the bible to be divinely created tend to ignore the logical inconsistencies within it and the possible logical inconsistencies within God. If on the other hand the bible is not divinely created, and instead is a work of man, then the logical inconsistencies of God's wrath can be explained. Much of what was defined as God's wrath in the past tended to be explanations that man gave for things that they did not understand. Floods – Natural Disaster – Not God Fire from Sky – Lightning, Meteor Shower, or even Hail – Not God. Disease – Sickness – Not God Even the 10 plagues of Moses have been able to be explained through science and do not have to be explained as god's Wrath. For those in the past who were unable to explain natural occurrences, God was the best if not the only explanation. God's Activity As I state above, many of the actions that man states God causes within the bible are natural occurrences that do not require God's presence for man to claim that they are the work of God. The two that I shall speak of are the supposed Immaculate Conception and the Creation of the Universe. As for the Conception of Jesus, can be explained scientifically through the process of Parthenogenesis, . http://www.bio-medicine.org.... Although this has never been experienced in the lifetime of science within the human species, does not rule it out as a possibility. Also, if God were to have caused the immaculate conception of Jesus, that does not deny God's Omnibenevolence, in fact it is a show of his Love for man by creating a being for the sole purpose of teaching the truth of the universe to mankind, Whether they listen or not is up to each individual's free will. The creation of the universe is an act of god, though not necessarily an omnipotent act. There is the possibility that the creation of the universe was similar to our creations. Einstein created the theory used to create the atom bomb, he never intended it to be used to create the atom bomb, and the creation of the bomb was out of his hands. Thus the earth could have been created by God, but after that he has no influence of what we do within it. Hell My opponent states that I create a image of hell without proof, and that it has no basis in Scripture thus the hell I stated would be a human construct. I defend this by stating "Scripture" Is a human construct. The bible, whether influenced or not (which is purely belief based), was still created by man. Idea of Time My opponent states that the idea of time I stated above strengthens his argument, but he does not realize, that were god to exist out of time, that his interference in the workings of the world, would be impossible. If god were to see A do X at T1(future), then god sees A doing X at T2(present), and god sees A having done X at T3(past). Were god to intervene at any point then problems occur on different levels. First, if god Stops A from Doing X at any point then A was not free to do X, and thus denies Gods Omnibenevolence by denying free will. If God were to stop A from doing X at T1 or T2, then A never did X at T3, thus stating that God's knowledge that A has already done X by T3 was incorrect and thus he is not omniscient. God will not act in any fashion that would also deny any of his traits, for it would cease his existence. Free Will My opponent brings up two arguments against god giving mankind free will. 1) As for the statement "Bound to sin" it is incorrect for Free will does not make us sin, our choices to sin is what makes us sin. Free will only gives us the ability to make those choices. 2) This argument does not work against Free Will. If god were to place limits on our free will, then we do not have free will. If God were to say that mankind can do anything they wish, but cannot commit evil, then they cannot do anything they wish. - My argument can be better explained in two scenarios. The Locked Room Two men are placed in two rooms and locked inside with no other way out. The men do not know the door is locked. One chooses to stay in the room, the other chooses to leave but is unable to because the door is locked. If free will is the ability to choose otherwise, which many people do believe it to be, neither of these men are free, because they are unable to leave the room. The first man may be happier because his choice was what he wanted and he does not know he cannot do otherwise; the second man though is denied even the choice because the only option was to stay. The Sedated Prisoner Two cell doors are opened, each cell holds a man, one man is neither restrained nor sedated, and the second man is sedated to stay. The first man can choose to leave the cell or stay within it; he has no restraints on his options. The second man though, although the option to leave exists, his ability to fully choose has been tampered with, the sedation denies the option to leave, and thus he cannot choose otherwise, even if normally non sedated he still would have chosen to stay. The second man again has been denied his free will even though he may not perceive it that way. -Thus if god were to have made us with the ability to always do good and never evil, then we were never free to do evil in the first place, thus denying gods Omnibenevolence towards us through the idea of free will. Although complicated, god's Omniscience and Omnibenevolence are NOT contradictory.