God is a serial Killer and enjoys hot chocolate

Indeed, these will be the toughest arguments I've ever gone up against. Though since I strongly uphold this position, I will gladly take it on without hesitation. If God was all-powerful and all-loving, with free will yet perfectly good, God would create life with similar properties: with free will and perfectly good. Meaning that there would be no human-created evil, and no need for evil, suffering or death in the world in any way. However, there is evil and death in very great quantities, therefore it holds that if the situation was created by a god, rather than natural forces, then such a god is not omnipotent and benevolent. 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. 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. As it happens, the world is as we would expect it to be if the designer of life was evil. Ancient religious minds also realized this. The Manicheans explained that this world was the creation of an evil God, and that we had to somehow escape from it. Some people criticize this, asking, if the world was designed by an evil God, why is there some happiness and goodness in the world? Why isn't the world purely evil, with only suffering? I'd have to say that God is the principal or sole deity in religions and other belief systems that worship one deity. God is most often conceived of as the creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omni benevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, jealousy, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent". These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Augustine of Hippo, Al-Ghazali, and Maimonides. Many notable medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God, attempting to wrestle with the apparent contradictions implied by many of these attributes. Also, we must take into consideration that conceptions of God vary widely. Theologians and philosophers have studied countless conceptions of God since the dawn of civilization. The Abrahamic conceptions of God include the trinitarian view of Christians, the Kabbalistic definition of Jewish mysticism, and the Islamic concept of God. The dharmic religions differ in their view of the divine: views of God in Hinduism vary by region, sect, and caste, ranging from monotheistic to polytheistic; the view of God in Buddhism is almost non-theist. In modern times, some more abstract concepts have been developed, such as process theology and open theism. Conceptions of God held by individual believers vary so widely that there is no clear consensus on the nature of God. Alright, now for those who have actually bothered to read this far, I have a specific request of you. Clearly, this is a joke debate. We created it to test out the attention span of the users on debate. org. If you've read this far, inconspicuously say "God likes *insert candy* in the in the comment section. Continue reading closely for more specific orders throughout this debate. Also don't point this out as being a fake debate in the comment section (at least until long after this debate is done). The contemporaneous French philosopher Michel Henry has however proposed a phenomenological approach and definition of God as phenomenological essence of Life. Now to uphold the resolution. It is rather clear that God is a serial killer and likes hot chocolate. As for hot chocolate, contrary to what my opponent points out, he has a mouth as that guy in the passion of Christ movie showed. As God the Son, he could drink hot chocolate. Furthermore, since he is omnipotent, he could simply create a mouth and He could drink hot chocolate. Plus, the fact that my opponent thinks he can drink grape soda should suggest that he thinks he can drink hot chocolate. Also, since hot chocolate isn't of sin and God only hates what is of sin, this would suggest that he likes and/or enjoys hot chocolate, hence being reason as to why it is more likely he likes hot chocolate than it being that he doesn't, thus upholding my side of the resolution As for God being a serial killer, this is easily proven when we take into account how he had the boys who mocked Elisha mauled by bears. Due to this alone, he could be considered a serial killer. The rest of what my opponent says is irrelevant and I shall address it all at a later time in this debate. Next, we must consider what chocolate actually is. Chocolate contains alkaloids such as theobromine and phenethylamine, which have physiological effects on the body, and has been linked to serotonin levels in the brain. Scientists claim that chocolate, eaten in moderation, can lower blood pressure. Dark chocolate has recently been promoted for its health benefits, including a substantial amount of antioxidants that reduce the formation of free radicals, though the presence of theobromine renders it toxic to some animals, such as dogs and cats. It is rather clear that someon who enjoys chocolate would go crazy, when we take all of this account, thus good motivation to be a serial killer. Stephen Jay Gould proposed an approach dividing the world of philosophy into what he called "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA). In this view, questions of the supernatural, such as those relating to the existence and nature of God, are non-empirical and are the proper domain of theology. The methods of science should then be used to answer any empirical question about the natural world, and theology should be used to answer questions about ultimate meaning and moral value. In this view, the perceived lack of any empirical footprint from the magisterium of the supernatural onto natural events makes science the sole player in the natural world. Another view, advanced by Richard Dawkins, is that the existence of God is an empirical question, on the grounds that "a universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. " A third view is that of scientism or logical positivism: any question which cannot be defined cannot be answered by science and is therefore either nonsensical or is not worth asking, on the grounds that only empirically answerable questions make sense and are worth attention. Regarding whether or not God is liking hot chocolate is bad, i must point out that it is badly good. Indeed, for good from badly good cannot be all that good, due to the bad that is claimed to be good, for all such things are bad that are not good, but being good is simply a form a being bad. All that is bad enjoys hot chocolate and is a serial killer, thus God is a serial killer. Finally, and most importantly, it is absolutely necessary that we question what is truly the fruits of a serial killer. Serialkiller Alexander Pichushkin, after he was accused of killing 48 people, came back to the Moscow courtroom and said he was "almost God" and had the power to decide who was to live and who was to die, and that he enjoyed hot chocolate. This is irrefutable evidence for my position.