god

This is clearly demonstrated in the Exodus 21:20-21(2) where slavery is considered acceptable and beating them is equally acceptable. If a benevolent God existed, would he disparage his creation and allow for unequal treatment? God has to allow unequal treatment to allow free will to happen. if god were to stop all unequal treatments he isn't allowing free will to happen is he? More important perhaps is that the passages in the bible can be contradictory. All you have done is to pull out a couple select words out of context and declared the entire bible to be contradictory and should thus be considered untrue. Here's an example of how I can use it against you. "My opponent" "are going to do" " beating" "that" "is" "acceptable" All I did was pull a couple words out of your entire argument to create a sentence to support my argument that you're a insane monster (random example). I predict your criticism is going to point out that what you did is slightly different than what I did, however the truth is you still pulled out a small section or words entirely out of context. The entire context can mean different things. if god does exist and knows all actions before they occur, why would he allow bad things to happen to good people? Why would he stop bad things from happening to good people? He gave us free will, if he stops anything then he has taken away the free will. Free will is absolute you cant just give someone free will then stop them every time they do something bad. Specifically that god doesn't control our actions, but he just knows what we are going to do before we do it. This would imply that any decision to perform an action is irrelevant Why? Elaborate more on this. Would the son of god violate god's commandments if god existed? Again you pulled that out of context, and this time you didn't even quote anything, you just pasted your own interpretation of the revelation. Pro believes that assuming something is true establishes proof that it is true; the design of the universe doesn't assume a creator: my opponent does. The watch analogy only demonstrates the point trying to be made, not that the point being made is valid. I accept this argument, This merely points out the weakness of my argument, it does not increase your argument's strength, to assume so is to have false black and white dichomity (sp?) meaning just because one side is wrong does not mean the other side is right. There could be a third side to this argument. Now I'm not saying my side is the wrong side, I'm saying my side is now slightly weaker, but that does not in any way strengthen your argument. There could be a third more correct argument besides natural accident. My opponent would have us believe that god established these conditions, but has yet to convincingly prove it. The concept of god is a man-made abstract idea to explain concepts we don't fully understand. My opponent would have us believe that god is a man-made abstract idea to explain concepts we don't fully understand, but has yet to convincingly prove it. God is the non intervention ruler of the universe. Sure you can use the 2nd grade playground argument (joking about 2nd grade playground part...kinda..lol) and declare that my argument is unfair, I cant use your argument against you. But I hope simply using your argument against you will demonstrate clearly the flaws of your argument in the least insulting way. If you require more explanation to understand the point I'm trying to imply please say so, I wont insult you, I'll just assume I presented my idea/argument to you in the wrong way.