god

I think I may have internalized the example Pro used to argue that I am an "insane monster", which prompted me to declaratively state my concerns. Ah I see what caused you to want to declare your concerns, but that was simply an example used to help you understand my argument. Which was essentially you can use quotes or words out of the bible to make the bible sound different than it really does sound in context. I will address the love as pain argument first. My opponent brought up the issue that a benevolent god--and parents—would/should allow pain. Just because you wouldn't do it doesn't mean god shouldn't do it. But maybe for good measure, the next time I am at the playground with my son I will throw him off the jungle gym to toughen him up a bit, show him what life is reality about and how much I love him . No god simply just allows humanity to sustain injuries, god doesn't cause it. So throwing him off the jungle gym is little bit different than allowing him to fall off the jungle gym every once in a while. The logical extension of my opponent's pain point would be that if someone is dying of painful metastatic bone cancer (2), this is god's way of demonstrating love for his creation. I think not. For me it establishes proof that the god of the bible does not exist. From my perspective, a benevolent god would do the same thing I would do as a parent. I honestly believe that once I have kids I won't raise my kids to be wimps (maybe a poor choice of words), because I would rather my kids to be exposed to reality as much as possible to prepare him/her for the real world. (3) tells us that god works for the good of those who love him. And it goes on to suggest that god has actually chosen those who are predestined to conform to his will. The reality is that god doesn't work for the good of those who love him because he allows Christians to be killed in vain. (4), And if what is written in Romans is correct, than those who love god have been chosen to do so and thus don't have free will. I don't want to argue about that specific logic since it would take several rounds to do so and we're on the last round. Free will My opponent keeps harping on free will as though it is an absolute phenomenon; but has never actually proved that it exists. Good point But this is circular logical because the premise is derived from the conclusion. I understand this and I won't argue with this. My comments on free will thus far have been used to demonstrate that if an all-knowing, all-power god exists and he wants us to follow his commandments, than free will is illogical, irrelevant and unfree. I have failed at explaining to you that I don't see how you reached that conclusion. I simply don't believe that knowing the future is the same as controlling the future. Last, my opponent has not proper discussed what she believes free will is. For example, is it separate from the body? From my perspective, free will may actually be hard-wired into the structure and function of our brains. It doesn't matter where it comes from as long as it exists does it? If it is separate from the body, or in the brain does not prove or disprove god at all. This specific question is irrelevant to the argument. Although I do believe that god has put free will in our physical brain. This is the last round of the argument but I'm going to skip the closing statement, since I always find them slightly illogical and insulting.