God is a serial Killer and enjoys hot chocolate

First off, given that such a god exists, it must be malevolent: An evil god, who created life for the sole purpose of watching life suffer. Such a god would make life, in its very essence, impossible to exist without death, violence, suffering and struggle. Advanced life, especially, would be inherently prone to nastiness, wars, immorality, killing and causing of suffering. Hot chocolate. As this is how it is in the world, it holds that the existence of such levels of suffering, if it is the result of intelligent design, is thoroughly evil, and to call god "good" is a corruption of the truth. Now CON makes an interesting point concerning the thought process of serial killers, but this is rather absurd on an ontological level. Immanuel Kant put forward a key, and influential, refutation of the ontological argument in the Critique of Pure Reason (first edition, pp. 592-603; second edition, pp. 620-631). It is directed explicitly primarily against Descartes but also against Leibniz. His criticism was anticipated in Pierre Gassendi's Objections to Descartes' Meditations. Kant's refutation consists of several separate but inter-related arguments. They are shaped by his central distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments. In an analytic judgment, the predicate expresses something that is already contained within a concept and is therefore a tautology; in a synthetic judgment, the predicate links the concept to something outside it that is not already logically implied by it. New knowledge consists of synthetic judgments. Furthermore, we must take into account that the volume of hot chocolate would be immeasurable.We are living in the most intriguing time, in a universe like nothing we imagined just a few short years ago. A hypothetical such as, is man expanding or contracting by some mysterious force were curiosities of fiction. Humans e.g. are not subject to this phenomenon of universal expansion; the dark matter (DM) permeating our frame has higher thermal value in comparison to DM in space. Theoretically with the earth continuously being depleted of thermal energy, contraction will occur to the matter in possession of higher thermal content first and translate to a decrease in matter content and possibly fmp* diameter (DM). Here we may apply the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law claims that "Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out". As long as our planet compensates our thermal value we are safe, and dark matter will absorb energy from the higher thermal emitting matter (E.g. earth, stars, galaxies etc.).When considering universal expansion we can only observe what we can see. Suppose we observe the stars in the outlying universe, and suppose we observe idiosyncratic mannerism of everyday matter, can we structure common inherent properties. Assuming the universe, galaxies and all the matter on earth are permeated * by dark matter particles, can these idiosyncratic phenomenon in possession of these structural and behavioral characteristics apply a logical postulate?There is a consensus in the astronomical community that most of the mass in most galaxies is non-luminous dark matter. Those celestial objects in space and matter on earth are analogous.Dark matter is the generic term for the fundamental particles in the universe though not directly observable, do permeate all matter and fill all space with their presence as inferred by the motion of galaxies.Dark Matter particles absorb contiguously and omni - directionally thermal information from higher energy sources (e. g. stars).Hypothetically one may extrapolate an increase in thermal content will increase the diameter and or the local content of fundamental particles (DM) and interpret this as an increase in universal volume.If this assumption is valid than our sun's thermal information (energy) loses to DM should lead to an increase in earth's orbit even if ever so slight. In any case, this would lead us to the conclusion that this dark matter could actually be served as hot chocolate, thus once more illustrating that God can drink enough hot chocolate. Now for those who have bothered to read this far, your next assignment is to express your thoughts on the matter of the new Iron Man movie in the comment section. Make sure to have done the assignment False Reality requested while you're at it. Back to the debate: Now it is rather apparent that indulge in chocolate. Not much, mind you. Just a few ounces with lunch every day. My family stocks our larder with one-pound bars of the 72% cocoa stuff, buying it whenever we're in Boston or New York near a Trader Joe's store. With due respect to women in the audience (many of whom seem to wax wacky over the mere mention of the word chocolate), I enjoy good dark chocolate both for its taste and its purported health benefits. I don't think I make a big deal when eating it, though. Not too much ceremony. No sighing and protracted mmmm sounds.It is good stuff, though, I admit. In addition to its taste and texture, chocolate is a source of essential nutrients, including calcium, zinc, iron, niacin, magnesium, and riboflavin. Cocoa butter in chocolate is also believed to be an antioxidant, like the procyanidins in red wine (which I also drink daily with meals). Cocoa also contains fats that are essentially neutral, so they don't adversely affect blood cholesterol. Research also shows that chocolate triggers the release of endorphins in the brain. Yes, eating chocolate makes me feel good. Next, we must take into consideration the important strong fact that Albert Einstein dies and goes to heaven. At the Pearly Gates, Saint Peter tells him, "You look like Einstein, but you have no idea the lengths some people will go to sneak into Heaven. Can you prove you're Albert Einstein?" Einstein ponders for a few seconds and then asks,"Can I have a blackboard and some chalk?" Saint Peter snaps his fingers and a blackboard and chalk instantly appear. Einstein proceeds to describe, in arcane mathematics and symbols, his theory of relativity. Saint Peter is suitably impressed. "You really ARE Einstein!" he says."Welcome to heaven!"The next to arrive is Picasso. Once again, Saint Peter asks for credentials. Picasso asks, "Mind if I use that blackboard and chalk?" Saint Peter says, "Go ahead." Picasso erases Einstein's equations and sketches a truly stunning mural with just a few strokes of chalk. Saint Peter claps. "You are definitely the great artist you claim to be!" he says. "Come on in!" Then Saint Peter looks up and sees George W. Bush. Saint Peter scratches his head and says, "Einstein and Picasso both managed to prove their identity. How can you prove yours?" Dubya looks bewildered and says, "Who are Einstein and Picasso?" Saint Peter sighs and says, "Come on in, George." Finally, the main thing to keep in mind is that it is simply no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public carosels. I know I am not alone in feeling that something has gone fundamentally wrong. In 2001, I had hoped it was an aberration when polls showed that three-quarters of Americans believed that the Wizard of Oz was responsible for attacking us on Sept. 11. More than five years later, however, nearly half of the American public still believes the Wiz was connected to the attack. Having said all of that, it is rather apparent that God likes hot chocolate and is a serial killer. Back to you, False Reality.