An omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscent, omnipresent god exists

"Wait a minute.... your argument basically implies that free will is the ability to choose wrongfully. It has to if free will MUST come with the will to make others suffer. I would find it odd for an omnibenevolent being to even CREATE something will the ability to make other creations suffer. Why can't we just have only the ability to make RIGHT choices" Free will is the ability to choose the right thing to do, so yes, it gives the option of choosing the wrong option. However, you're saying that something should never be created that could harm other creations, and yet that would mean that he should create nothing. 'Tis better to have lived and suffered than to have never lived at all. "And you're 100% correct, this god chose between 'free will' over freedom from suffering. You know what that's like? That's like giving a child a gun and then justify it by saying 'not giving my child the option of doing something bad is a greater pain than preventing him/her from making bad decisions by keeping them AWAY from those things.' What I challenge you to do is answer this question, which is more responsible parenting, to expose your kids to explicit and mature content OR to keep them away from those things to prevent possible suffering?" Well, handing the child a gun is obviously stupid. However, I'll extend your question: Is it justified for a mother to lock her child up in her house, never let outside, with the justification of, "It's dangerous out there! My poor baby could get hurt!"? "God had to come up with a punishment?" Yep. "O.o" o.O "Well, here's the problem with that argument. Since this god is omniscient, before he created this person he would have already knew what she would have done with her 'free will,' in this case meaning she would've sinned. And the fact that he created her with that knowledge instead of preventing it would make him responsible and therefore guilty. That's like me winding up a toy, telling it that it's a sin to fall over the table although I already knew it would when I was winding it, and then when it falls over the table breaking it. It's my fault because the whole thing was set up from the beginning, and if anything that's clearly is not omnibenevolence." Well, he either had to create Eve with the knowledge of the fact that she would sin, or never create Eve. It was also Eve's fault for being tempted by the Devil, who could be said to also have some powers that limited God's omniscientness. Furthermore, it is kind of like dumping shoes on the ground, then locking up your dog in his carrier when he starts to chew on the shoes. When repeated enough times, the dog finally gets the message, "Don't chew the shoes!" "Now, as far as your parent child analogy, parent's are neither omniscient NOR omnipotent. So that argument doesn't quite pertain to this debate." Yes, but parents do know that an undisciplined child is more likely to fail and go to jail than a disciplined child. Also, the parents have a large amount of control over the child's life, such as food, entertainment, and suffering & pain. "An omniscient god would know how to obtain long range goals.... WITHOUT ANY EVIL!" Not really. What if he looked into the future, and realized that evil was NECESSARY for his long-range goals? "That's just straight up contradictory. If I'm omniscient and create beings capable of being evil, then if they do evil, the evil is my doing! Like I said before, I knew they would do evil from the beginning! Therefore their suffering would be my fault as well and therefore I'm not omnibenevolent." Their creation and free will would also be God's fault, and he decided that they'd be better off suffering and living than not living at all. "And while I'm still at it, yes omnipotence itself means being able to do what is logically contradictory and therefore is a logical contradiction in itself. Can I make a being that nothing including me can destroy? But wait, if I'm omnipotent I should be able to destroy this thing! Is there something I can't do? No? Then I can't do anything I will, and I am not omnipotent." http://en.wikipedia.org... "1. A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do." "What does this have to do with the debate? And worse, how can an omnipresent being die on a cross?" Suffering for the people was necessary for them to understand God's suffering on the cross, and thus be saved. God can compress himself onto the cross. "Well, that's proof that he lacks omnibenevolence, otherwise he would make beings already moral. But he'd rather punish his creations for his own doing? Yet another O.o" He cares about us enough to know that morals have to be gained. "So is that why this god manipulates the events in his creation's lives? So they will be closer to him? To me that's not omnibenevolence, but all-selfishness." Unless, of course, being closer to God is what saves people from Satan, in which case, it's in our best interests to have the ability to suffer. "1) PROVE god's existence. Otherwise it will be a mere argument of ignorance or argument from lack of imagination. And I didn't say give me a testimony or what you BELIEVE, I want EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE." We already established that the Instigator, which is you, bears the burden of proof. Therefore, your lack of proof against God is my proof for God. "2) Explain to me how lack of free will means lack of suffering. Do computer's suffer? Do rocks suffer?" Computers and rocks have no free will. To suffer requires a nervous system. To have free will also requires a nervous system. This is probably not a coincidence. To answer your question, your two inanimate objects suffer from the lack of a free will. "3) Explain to me how creating something with omniscience and omnipotence wouldn't imply responsibility. And with that, how is that omnibenevolence to punish something for your doing. Otherwise, this being is responsible and guilty for every evil his creations have committed to." God's responsible for us, and thus, he protects us and teaches us. Go back to the dog chewing shoes example. "4) Explain to me how omniscience wouldn't come with the wisdom to prevent suffering. Just because you can't think of a way to end suffering doesn't mean this god can't" Ah, but if he could come up with a way to end suffering that coincides with his plan, He would have done it by now, or perhaps it is one of the later steps in His plan. "5) Explain to me how the argument of omnipotence is logically sound?" By definition, omnipotence can ignore logical contradictions. "Like I said before I'll say again, if this god was omniscient he would have known how to end suffering, and with omnipotence he would've prevented it. An omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent god would void the existence of any suffering. Yet there is suffering." There is suffering because you must suffer to live, and 'tis better to have lived and suffered to have never lived at all. "The resolution is negated" The resolution is not negated. "I urge a CON ballot" I urge a PRO ballot. "Thank you" Thank you, too. ":)" (: