There is no possible way god exists unless you believe in utter hate and evil Gary Lindsey Jr

Hi Backwardseden,I will try to respond as best that I can in debate format.I believe your points are that God does not exist because:(1) God knows about suffering, and lets it happen (2) God creates sickos to commit suffering, and creates the aftershocks of that suffering(3) God creates sickos to commit suffering, so God enjoys watching horrific pain(4) God is omnipotent, so it is ultimately God that causes pain, not humans(5) God could have created a better world of peace, but did notIn addition, you anticipate the free will theodicy, and reply to it with:(6) God values the free will of rapists better than the free will of children being raped.(7) human free will is compatible with no suffering in heaven, so human free will is compatible with no suffering now.The rest of your points are quotations from other sources, so I am not sure what your main point is from those quotes. In reply, first of all, I would not believe in a God that endorses (1)-(7) either. That sounds like a really bad God, so I agree with your resistance of the existence of such a God. So, perhaps I am not the right person for you to have this debate with - sorry about that. If, however, you would like to have a discussion with someone who believes in the traditional God of theism, I will try to explain the nature of this God a bit.With respect to (1), it is true that the traditional God of theism knows about suffering. In fact, according to the Christian tradition, Jesus was murdered as well, so God would know of suffering more than you or I. Does God let it happen? Yes and no. Yes: God does not always actively intervene, that is true. There are reasons for that, see below. No: God has a plan to stop suffering. The plan involves God suffering for us, and teaching people how to stop hurting each other, then making a heaven where people are wise enough to not hurt each other anymore. True, people don't listen to God's wishes on earth. And God is as upset about this as you are. And, if you hope for some sort of justice for these terrible things, God does too. You will probably object: God is ultimately to blame, cuz God made everything. I will deal with that concern in (4). You may also object: God can just stop it from happening at any time. I will deal with this in (4) as well.With respect to (2), God creates humans with free will, which means the potential for helping or harming. Is this bad? Well, would you rather be a puppet on a string where no one can freely help or hurt you, or would you rather be free while knowing that people can freely help or hurt you? Most people would choose the latter. I suspect you do as well. But, perhaps you don't. If you do accept the latter, then you agree that free will, as a general category, without anyone doing anything good or evil yet, is good. Now, some people use their free will to help others, and we should praise them for doing so. Others use their free will to hurt others, and we should blame them for doing so. We should not blame someone who does not do a crime: don't put Joe in jail for murder if Stan did it. So, if a person harms another, don't blame God, blame the person. I suppose this Gary is to blame in your particular example, since he actually did these terrible things. So, the aftershocks should be traced to the person who actually did the crime, not someone else. So, God is not to blame. Unless, perhaps God stepped out from the sky and cast a lightning bolt down on these people. If that is what happened, I guess God is to blame. But you said Gary did it, so I will just believe you on that. About (3), the God of theism states that God is upset when humans hurt each other, and is actively trying to stop it, and actively instructs them to stop it. So, the traditional God doesn't enjoy watching suffering. I suspect that your point here is connected to (4). On to (4), the God of theism limited his omnipotence to give humans a small slice of free will and control over their lives. Note: not all theists believe this. Some Calvinists disagree, for example. But, I will assume my theology here. If God was good to give humans free will, then some humans used that free will to hurt others, it is not God that is to blame, but the people who actually hurt others. Think of it the other way: Jonas Salk cured polio. Should we praise God for what Jonas did? No. Jonas did it, praise Jonas. Humans are slowly developing out of their poverty. Should we praise God for that? No. Praise humanity for our progress, since we did it. Sally loves Joe and treats him well, should we praise God for that? No, Sally did that. We do not praise God for the good of humanity, nor do we blame God for the bad of humanity. Perhaps you object: God is all powerful, so God should just stop harm on the spot. God has given humans free will, so God cannot take it away once they choose to do bad. It sounds like you hate that idea. You say: a good God would stop this suffering. Well, I say God has given the world to us to fix or destroy. It is up to us to stop all the suffering. If a child is starving in Africa, we should blame ourselves for that. On (5), I argued that free will + help/harm is a better world than no free will + no help/harm. If that is correct, this free will + help/harm world is better than a world of no free will, but unending peace. Perhaps you object: we could have both free will and unending peace. See (7).About (6), no. God gives all people free will, and enjoins them to help others, not harm others. That is the extent of God's involvement. Everything beyond that is to be placed at the hands of humanity. Blame Gary for what Gary did. Blame the state, or the country, or humanity, if it does not enact laws to stop Gary. So God values the free will of everyone equally, and wants everyone to use it to help others. Gary, obviously, will face consequences, both among humanity, and with God. About (7), free will is compatible with people using free will to do good, yes. And, in heaven, that is what people will do. Or, should I say, the people who use free will to do good will be the people in heaven, so it makes sense why heaven would be a place of both free will and helpfulness. Earth is still full of people who are using free will to do both harm and help. So, we are stuck with bad down here.Anyway, I'm sure I missed a lot of your points, and I was purposely avoiding your anger, as that is not helpful in these types of debates. But, that is a start.