Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

That is the key word there: was. Not at the time we are speaking about, at this time he does everything in his power to ruin this world so I think your statement there is totally irrelevant.Again, this is irrelevant. Unless you are insisting that by him rebelling he suddenly experienced amnesia. Everything Lucifer knew as an angel he would have also known as a fallen angel. You don't need to keep reassuring me that you don't believe in God, you are atheist and I get that 100%. Yes, God did know that Lucifer would rebel against Him and attempt to draw humans into dark places. What is your point here?What do you think my point is? With foreknowledge of future events he would be in a particularly advantageous position to prevent all these things from happening, so either he doesn't know or he doesn't care or he isn't able.The simple solution would be to have never created Lucifer in the first place.you state that offense does not always follow from insults, which implies that it sometimes does (in my opinion, often does), which proves that there is a big chance that the 'insult' verse I included refers to offense.Chance has nothing to do with it. People are not offended by insults on the basis of probability, they are insulted on the basis of the content of the insult, and on the type of person they are. A child may call me a booger-face, and I wouldn't be offended by that because the insult doesn't apply to me in any real sense. Notice I said People. The personality traits which all contain some degree of imperfection, allow people to become offended. This would not apply to a perfect entity.Nope.So your plan here is to make me answer 'yes' or 'no' then force me to not supply reason so that you can then go on to diss my lack of reasoning and tell me I am making "bald assertions"? You have got absolutely no idea how to debate do you?No, my 'plan' was to show that your argument is inherently contradictory, and thus irrational. You can't have it both ways.If you say that God's perception of time DIDN'T impair his sacrificing his son in the most beneficial way, and then in the same breathe say that he didn't sacrifice his son sooner because of his perception of time. <-----This is an impairment!You are contradicting yourself.Thats why I didn't say 'same thing', I said "same difference".Watch closely:Same Thing/Same Difference...SAME DIFFERENCE!Ha! Interesting how that works, eh? These two statements actually mean the same thing, "Same Difference" is just a less coherent (and more oxymoronic) way of expressing it.You truly are a 90 year old without marbles who shits his pants and can't see without a magnifying glass which you evidently forgot to use which would make sense due to lack of marbles.^Perfect example of an insult which does not offend.That sentence doesn't make sense. Satan is aware of God's power, He was not out to destroy God (as he knew he would be a fool to even think it let alone try) but rather wanting to destroy Job's faith in God....Thus he would be aware of the power to see into the future, assuming he posses such power.We would never know the consequences of disobeying God if He did things like this and our fear for Him would be far smaller.So even though God knew that humans would act in such a way (within the limitations that God created humans with) that he would have to wipe out millions of people including babies, so that he could use this genocide as a way to scare humans into obedience? Which is some how preferable to creating humans with the propensity towards doing good?...AND you believe he is a loving God? Interesting.Obviously a benevolent being such as God could not do those things; He is omnipotent as Revelation tells us and we know that He can do anything (except lie, sin, deny himself, which is pretty obvious for a benevolent being).Then he isn't omnipotent. Pure and simple.Consider that the authors, used the concept of omnipotence, because it is the closest approximation of what Yahweh is, but even Yahweh is not totally omnipotent. If there are some things which he cannot do, see into the future, could be one of those things.