Debate: God Exists

[Ben Davis]

Who are the poor? Will the poor always be poor? will famine always remain in one place? No, the poor are static the move they are or could be the previously wealthy. In truth we are always just a few bad months from living in a van down by the river. let aone living in a war torn area. (Which is where most of the starving people pics come from today) Or areas under economic sanctions by the greater world to put a people on edge with their leadership. For many like that there is little the rest of the world can do.

Irrelevant. It's the simple existence of famine/inequitable food distribution that's the point here; there can not be an omnibenevolent god if famine exists. As I said previously though, some believe in the version of the biblical god that's happy to visit suffering on people for his own ends; this argument can't refute the existence of that god.

BTW, you didn't tell us which version you believe in: omnibenevolent or not?

Indeed.
But, have you ever heard the term a army moves on it's stomach? It means armies loose cohesion if they are not fed. Again many of these war torn areas are the places where the starving live today. If people X are being fed by people Y, but army Z is stealing the food people Y are sending to people X to feed their own army to go and make trouble for people Y or another people Y ally, then what is the logical thing to do? turn off the food people starve. Army is limited to their little version of Hell they created for themselves.

Also irrelevant. There would be no causes of famine if there were an omnibenevolent god.

Now imagine if God did things the way you wanted and everyone had an over abundance of food. Then Army Z is not limited to their little hell hole they created in the world, all they need is some sort of mass appeal idology and the can rape pillage and storm food stores from their little corner of the world till they are happy with them selves.

This shows no knowledge of the main causes of tribal conflicts; it's the shortage of resources that causes conflict, not equitable sufficiency. Abundance would be even more likely to eliminate trouble as even the greedy would likely be satiated. It would only be the few on the extreme edge of psychopathic gluttony who might still cause problems but they would have no mandate for power because everyone else would be satisfied. Plus, if god were omnibenevolent, he'd stop greed and gluttony, too!

indeed, but there is also the side who went into great detail spelling out our obligation to the poor as well. You honestly can not accept one and not the other.

Yes you can and people do, hence my reference to the 'different versions' of the biblical god. Either there's one entity with a severe multiple-personality disorder or there are different entities being described in one book (I'll leave out, for the sake of this argument, the option where different tribal leaders are just writing down whatever they think is necessary to maintain control of their tribes at different points in history). What's honest is recognising that it's impossible to ascribe the 'peace and love' attributes of god from certain parts of the bible to the 'hate and war' character from other parts; they're simply incompatible.

What a tiny little box you think in..
How about option three. a God Smart enough to know if everyone had equal access to equal resources nations (read how hitler began) would rise up out of the resources of others and conquer the world. Look at the regions where people typically starve like most of the time. There is constant infighting and strife along with endless hellish behavior being rained down on one another all the time. Again, what do you think would happen if somali pirates had the resources of the US navy? would the oceans of the world be a safer place or would all over sea commerce simply stop?

You in your utopic view of the perfect world does not for a moment stop to think of the greater good being served by the fact that we are not all similarly equip that we all do not have an over abundance.

I addressed this earlier in this post. Your statement simply fails to understand the primary driver for war since time immemorial.[/quote]

I worship a God smart enough to making things equal for everyone only makes a mess. a God wise enough to only give certain resurces to certain people when they are mature enough as a people to use them. Then simply task us to take care of those in need rather than fuel the evil that look to prey on the poor.

...which critically ignores the fact that an omnibenevolent god would not allow that to happen. It seems you've answered the question as to which god you worship. That saddens me.

Sure except that their is a law against it (BD edit - killing children)..
...except when god orders it, takes control of intermediaries to do it or just does it himself. That's not the act of an omnibenevolent being.

[quote]
  where in the bible is anything like that even hinted at??? You are confusing religion with God. If you do not have a clear picture of a given doctrine all spelled out in one chapter, what you have is empty religious non sense.

Erm... Here are dozens of passages that state humans are born in sin. That means that babies are subject to the punishments of sin should they die. The fact that you would try that dishonest tactic is telling.

No. look at the parable of the talents. God only judges us based on what He has given us. If we do not have the ability to identify sin, then we are not judge by that sin.

One passage to refute the dozens? I think not. But doesn't this just highlight the side-issue I'm illustrating about there being many different versions of god in the bible. The reason why there are so many denominations of christianity is because of this.

Or God simply decides to welcome in those who died based on a command He has given, or he simply turns those souls back around to another body to be tested against sin.. Again My God, the God of the bible has the freedom to do those things as He is the Alpha and Omega. Meaning he can do whatever he wants.

The religious God the Omni-max god.. the god you've disproved it limited to the two scenarios you gave.

My question to you is if you know your version of God does not exist then why would you assume I worshiped it?

I didn't assume, I asked and stated the likely options, to drive discussion. Just so I'm clear, the reason you don't accept this argument against the existence of the biblical god is because you believe that he's not omnibenevolent. Right?

and if those dead and dying people are akin to isis fighters? Again take of the rose colored glasses. Ask your self honestly who on this planet is not getting feed by someone??? ISIS held areas, Somili war torn areas North Korea hell holes like that. Sure there are children involved Not everyone is an innocent child..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o70G8oZBkHU

Okay, I'll pick this up as an aside to the main point of the thread.

So you think that god has the right to withhold food from them? Then here's a situation where I'm more moral than your god. I think everyone has the right to have sufficient, appropriate food. In fact, if everyone did, there would be fewer problems across the world.

We must allow God the room to judge who is and is not innocent.

No, I would not. Even if he existed, I would refute his authority on the basis that he's a sadistic murderer, dangerously inconsistent and dishonest; consequently an unfit judge.

What else would you do? open the resources of the united states to any of those places/people I mentioned? Sorry Sport the world (apart from God) does not agree with your hippy BS. Go sell your crap somewhere else.

The world would be demonstrably better off if there were no tribalism or national boundaries with all resources being equitably shared. Simple. I work towards that end because it's the current, tribal, nationalistic model which is flawed and dangerous.