god is not great

Pro conducted this debate very well within the narrow scope of his parameters. I find Pro's argument stuck on one point "omnipresent" and very one dimensional. I'm glad Pro found my arguments inviting by him stating, "... a spirited debate. We will have to continue this, or engage in another debate in the future." I see this as a good thing and I too will enjoy, one day, to continue this discussion, if and only if, Pro refrains from referencing God as an "evil bastard" from his following statement: "If the god of Abraham existed, he would not be great. He would be an evil bastard, for the reasons I've stated. Evil bastards aren't great." Perhaps, Pro should take a "time out" from God debates. I see the Devil got the best of Pro. My closing statement will center on a closing point Pro made in the following: "Again, I say, if this is the best god can do, I'm not impressed. If this universe was designed by god, then he did an awful job designing it." Pro is now coming down on the existence of our universe being an "awful" design in his last stand to demonstrate "god is not great." Before condemning the design of the universe, Pro was making a very good argument from man's written scripture of "the god of Abraham," by cherry-picking the concept of "omnipresent," and doing his dance around the evils of humans, and even the climate, on how "god is not great" watching all this happening. Especially, when God refuses to intervene. By the way, if "omnipresent" invites Godly omni-intervention concurrently in time, you will have a paradox in the event-fabric of space time, where the Arrow of Time is in one direction throughout our universe and the result of events have future consequences. http://en.wikipedia.org... For example, there are often events where two wrongs do make a right. Let's take person B who found himself injured in the wrong place at the wrong time. Person A is pointing a gun at B ready to kill him, but instead decided to do the right thing, relative to his values, by not killing this injured defenseless person. Person A was Henry Tandey, person B was Adolf Hitler, the event was WWI. Many would argue, the world would have been a better place without Adolf Hitler. Only if Henry did the wrong thing, killing an injured defenseless person who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. http://www.history.com... Now if God being "omnipresent" is also concurrently being an omni-interventionist will have to experience the events of Hitler, then go back in time, to force Tandey to pull the trigger. This goes against God's Laws of Nature relative to the Arrow of Time in our universe. This concept of "omnipresent" is simply a good example of man's fallible interpretation over this entity call God, and Pro is taking this concept as the foundation to his debate. Please hold on this thought, as I address "omnipresent" from a different vantage point in going forward. I would be the first to admit that what happened to Elisabeth Fritzl was an awful thing, and if I knew about it, I would have respond to end such event. On the other hand, one cannot overlook the potential social benefits in moral awareness from such an event, having the added benefit of increasing neighborhood sensitivity of the neighbor next door, as it did to myself, resulting in perhaps, the prevention of many future Elisabeth events: https://www.google.com... Such terrible events (Hitler, Elisabeth, etc.) provides long term advancement in human social evolution. Evolution, the key to God's design, where we humans are a product of this process, as we slowly travel on the endless road to utopia. Relative to God's design or creation of the universe, covered in man's written scriptures from "the god of Abraham," simply highlights the Greatness of God as a designer. In the beginning, God defined a set of simple Laws, known today as the Laws of Nature. Then God did the Big Bang ("let there be light") and from pure energy, following those simple Laws, in time came life including humanity. That is an awesome designer transforming pure energy into life. Technologist today dream of designing a device that converts pure energy into consumable items. Technologist today in cybernetics, dream of designing a robot that is self-aware of its existence having freedom of choice. It would seem technologist of today can only dream of what God has done as they try to duplicate God's work. Pro started this debate with the hypothesis "in the existence of this god" and his tunnel perception of God's "omnipresent." Expanding on Pro's hypothesis of God's "existence," permit me to add to such "existence" having power beyond human imagination to set the Laws of Nature, starting evolution with a Bang, is an entity that transcends our reality, where humans can't begin to understand. And in the shadow of God's Greatness, Pro and Con, who are both products of said design, enjoying our short vacation from nonexistence, having this freedom to debate in cyberspace, one can only be amazed, when taking a moment, to wonder about one's reality, in a universe with billions of galaxies and some colliding with each other. Getting back to "omnipresent" let's look at this concept from a different vantage point. After defining the Laws of Nature and setting off the Big Bang, for the most part, God let events go on their random course, unabated by God. I think it was in one of those Christmas movies where I heard the following statement, "what you do onto your neighbor, you do onto me [God];" hence, "omnipresent." That is, at the end of time during "judgment day," God relives every human's life, in all its detail and experience, concurrently; hence, "omnipresent." God can't change those events, because they already happened in the physical domain. Those who are immoral go to hell, those who are moral, party with God forever. Perhaps, Pro could now relax, with this interpretation, sharing Con's view that God is Great. The beauty of interpreting man's written scriptures about God. Relative to the concept of "omnipresent," Pro and Con's view are both valid because there is no physical metrology yet advance enough to prove otherwise, or to probe other universes, where the spiritual domain and God may reside. http://www.npr.org... Pro's assumption of "omnipresent" without omni-intervention makes God look bad, the objective of Pro. Where Con's assumption of "omnipresent" in the spiritual domain makes God look good by concurrently reliving the life of all spirits during "judgment day". The concept of "omnipresent" is a testament to the human mind trying to comprehend such Greatness of God, transcending our current understanding of reality in the physical domain. We have so much to learn, as we unlock the secrets of God's handwriting via the scientific method, while traveling on the road to utopia striving to evolve in the path of "the god of Abraham, towards "the image and likeness of God." http://en.wikipedia.org... And In closing, until we meet again my Friend Pro, I wish you a healthy "Life," having the freedom ("Liberty"), in the moral "pursuit of Happiness" (God's given Unalienable Rights, which later became the foundation to the US Constitution, inspired by the interpretation of "the god of Abraham").