If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God cannot be omnibenevolent at the same time.

However, it seems that my opponent is persistent in maintaining a straw man that is itself self-defeating – which is rather unfortunate given the purpose of straw man arguments. It is a straw man argument because no one ACTUALLY believes in a god that can defy logic and his very nature (his excuse is bunk, given that other religions do not believe in omni-excellent god(s) as he has defined). The primary disagreement in this debate that led to dissonance in our arguments was that my opponent assumed attributes of omnipotent and almighty that were not inherent in their definitions – namely that God can defy logic. My opponent's argument does, indeed, amount to casuistry, in that it is creatively fallacious (1). My argument focused on showing that it is possible for good and kind to be defined or measured objectively. My opponent, far from showing that it was not possible, instead tried to say that good and kind can only be subjective. This is completely nonsensical, in that we KNOW that good exists, insofar as we make moral and ethical propositions – this however, does not make our measurements accurate. It is possible that how or what we understand as good, is incorrect. As long as it is possible for humans to perceive reality incorrectly (the point of my doctor analogy), then my point stands. Moreover, when pressed about having a standard or metric for judging this good, my opponent dipped and dodged. My point was that my opponent actually has no way of knowing what good or kind actually is. He says that it includes the alleviation of suffering, but he never substantiated this. Is it consensus, majority, utilitarianism, democracy, political force or economical force that determines what is good or kind? If good is wholly subjective, then who determines what kind is? There are those who inflict suffering in the name of what is good and kind. I believe that we SHOULD use the terms in the debate, however, I believe we should acknowledge our limitations when it comes to measuring them. I am saying that we can know that good exists while at the same time acknowledge that we may be wholly inaccurate with our measurements. My problem is not with the definition of good, but with our measurement of it. We can know that such thing as speed exists, but we could have wholly inaccurate measurements of it. My opponent tries to acknowledge his self-defeating position that God can defy logic by suggesting that, if he did, it would not be illogical and we would see it as such. This is a straw man as it is a refutation of something I did not say. My opponent never engaged my argument that IF God indeed has unfettered power that includes the ability to defy logic, then we know he can be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent at the same time EVEN IF it does not SEEM logical or even if it is NOT logical – such is the nature of a God who can defy logic. It can be illogical but still be possible given the definition given by my opponent. So it stands that, given my opponent's definition, that God can be omni-excellent no matter how illogical it seems. My opponent has conceded his formula in the comment sections so I will not acknowledge it here. This is all that needs to be said to show that my opponent's case is sorely wanting and that I have shown it possible for God to be omni-excellent. Sources: 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Thanks, InquireTruth