The Christian God Does not Exist

RE Re: Argument 1: The Problem of Evil (Suffering).(a)The instigator is annoyed with my reply believing that I have not satisfied his parameters. However, PRO should take another look at both his parameters and my argument. For this, I have but two points to add: He provided no definition of 'omni' terms which he supplied at the beginning of the round. He simply listed them, thus inviting me opportunity challenge his understanding of them. Anything outside of the parameters is fair game. As per my previous round, I claimed "Seeing as I don't subscribe to either omnibenevolence or omnipotence at least in the fashion the instigator does." I stand by my assertion of God's omnibenevolence not being true, but clarify in saying that it is the instigator's hyper literal treatment of these terms which I truly reject. Just as I may believe bottomless pits exist, I would be quick to correct anyone who believed that there are actually holes on the planet which have no ground and/or eventual stopping point. As for pre-empting such a refutation, if that is true, then it follows that the instigator considers attacks on his understanding of these concepts as valid arguments.As for conceding, this is nonsense. In spite of the absurdity of the argument, I've pacified the instigator at each instance, going further to demonstrate that his reasoning is always invalid even in the most favorable light.(b) RE P1: The instigator refuses to justify his assumption and passes it off as self-evidence, but a more applicable term would be 'begging the question.' As for what the term means, even going by his warped definition, it means being entirely comprised of love. Beyond that, we know nothing more, much less that such nature would compel one to end all suffering if in said position. He claims that nowhere in P1 did he a mention a being comprised of love would automatically end all suffering, but that's the intent of the argument, being that a being (no pun intended) entirely comprised of love would end all suffering if it had the ability.The instigator addresses my parental love example by pointing out that parents do not possess omni-characteristics. This is true, but completely besides the point. The implication is that love may compel one to allow their children to suffer so that they may learn from said suffering or be accountable for their actions, hence progress. PRO's notion is love is far too simple and is by no means comparable to the concept realistically which has far more implications than we would have time to discuss even in a dozen rounds. Using the Bible (a source which PRO stressed we cater to), we are reminded by the parable of the prodigal son, in which the father allowed his son to suffer, God allowing the Israelites to suffer in slavery or God in allowing Jesus to suffer. Clearly, going by the Biblical understanding of love, love does not automatically compel one to prevent suffering. RE P2: PRO drops my contention requesting that he prove suffering exist. Please extend said contention.RE P3: The instigator doesn't seem to understand the ramifications of the possibility I insinuated. I made that analogy to demonstrate that even by playing his game, his conclusion is unjustified. If someone is "omnibenevolent" and omnipotent, maybe that someone is capable of doing X and has the desire to do X. After all, X is benevolent. On the other hand, since Y is more benevolent, so maybe the 'omnibenevolent' Joe will decide to do Y insteadRE Preemptive refutation (1): See my rebuttal in "a" at the beginning of this round.RE Preemptive refutation (2): PRO is incorrect to assume I 'need' to do a thing as far as his pre-emptive contentions go. Still . . . It's quite simple: In enabling suffering, one is free to suffer and one is forced to be accountable for actions which lead to suffering, whether these acts self-caused or not.RE Preemptive refutation (3): This was actually in response to the three sentences crafted after two sentences labeled under 'refutation 2.' I responded to the portions separately.RE RE: Argument 2: Omnibenevolent and Omnipotence can not co-exist.Once again, it should be noted that I've pacified the instigator's contentions throughout this debate after offering reasons to dismiss them at face value, hence it's absurd to claim I've forfeited.In the previous round, I pointed out that his 5 premised argument on this contention was broken as per the claim made in the second premise which asserted that PRO assumes without justification that the omnibenevolent being hasn't chosen to be omnibenevolent. Once more, the instigator opts not justify his assumption. Hence the chain remains broken. If Joe the omnibenevolent crossing guard's omnibenevolence is merely a result of him only desiring to be benevolent, then this is an indication of free will. Should Joe decide one day to be omnilethargic or omniabhorrent, let us hope we are not frequenting the streets that day.RE RE: Argument 3: The Great FloodI addressed God's regret in great detail in the previous round and even posed a question pacifying the instigator's understanding of regret. Seeing as the instigator has neither addressed my explanation or question, you are to extend it to extend across to this round.As for the request to address how their suffering is consistent with omnibenevolence and omnipotence, refer back to my explanation concerning love and suffering above.RE RE: Argument 4: The Tower of Babel1: Yes, the first point is ignored---my point that is. Extend it to this round. To add, I'm not certain as to what PRO considers behaving like an omniscient being, but I do know what the Bible passes for such behavior. As per the explanation I offered in the previous round, God punishing people upon them committing punishable acts makes plenty of sense. Law enforcement as well as the Judicial branch may be able to predict that many criminals will break the law, but they aren't going to intervene until the criminals actually break the law.2: The assumption is still not justified. PRO is trying to link God coming down to "see the city and the tower" to lack of foresight, but to use another real world example, last ear, I went on a cruise to Alaska. This was the second time I had gone on such a cruise to this location. Throughout much of the cruise, I would go out on the balcony of my stateroom to appreciate the scenery. I did the same thing the previous year. I did not go and "see the scenery" on the grounds that I had never seen it before (as I had), but that I simply like to view the scenery. In the same light, it's silly to conclude that God went down to the earth to see a tower which he had never seen before3: PRO does not contest my assertions, but simply vaguely claims that they support him. Extend.4: And where is this notion of the tower being "best for mankind" mentioned in the text? PRO decided to interpret the attributes of having the tower. Why am I to be denied the same liberty? Not to mention that unlike his interpretation, mine can be inferred from the text as the tower was being built to "symbolize man's power and greatness."============And that will be all for now.