In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[Aroura]

That isn't what pedantic means, either.  A person can be nitpicky and still be incorrect.  Just as a being can know everything and still be a dick. Also, that being is not, by definition, also able to do everything, so they might not be able to take the action they deem "perfect".

So if a being knew every outcome but could not take all actions, that's a perfect example of your requested scenario.

I clearly stated:

God is omniscient, which by definition means his decisions are always perfect, they cannot be improved upon.

We're clearly talking about decisions that are MADE, so what exactly are you talking about?

Or if they knew every outcome but desired a negative outcome, that's another example of your requested scenario. 

Now if you pair omniscient with omnibenevolent and omnipotent, you might begin to have an argument, but then we butt up against the problem of evil.

But yeah, you can't just toss out one of the three and act like it covers the whole gamut.  It doesn't.

Doesn't matter, If you were an malevolent, omniscient being, and desired a negative outcome, you'd still know the best way possible to make it happen.

So what you are saying that an evil and cruel god is also perfect and makes perfect decisions that cannot be improved upon. Good, I'm glad we've cleared up your stance on that.

(But also still, you simply cannot jump from A to therefore C while assuming B is simply part of A.  That's a logical fallacy.)  That is what you did in your opening line, and saying "Hey,I clearly MADE this assumption and stated my assumption clearly" doesn't fix the fact that you are making an assumption, a leap from A to C.

Omniscient does not  mean what you said it means. Period.  You can say you then assumed it also means he can make the decision, but that is simply not part of the definition of omniscient, which is literally what you said, that is was the definition. Things can be tangentially related without being part of the definitions of each other, and you cannot assume that one causes the other without showing it.

Here let me show you:

John is happy, which by definition means his decisions are always kind, they cannot be any kinder. 

Happiness does not necessarily equate to kind behavior.  In such a way I am saying that omnipotence does not necessarily equate to perfect decisions.  You have got to show the steps in the middle, you cannot just leap from your premise to your conclusion without showing your work.

---

Also I'm actually trying to show you a flaw in thinking. I suspect you will respond defensively, but I just want you to step back and look at your own work here. I'm not arguing with you about the existence of god, I just want you to see how you present your own argument.

The next time you approach this same subject, you could instead explain why you think Omniessence alone would lead a god to make perfect decisions, instead of skipping that part and trying to include it in a definition it does not belong in.

Don't always just defend blindly. It's ok to have made an error in thinking (everyone does it!). Stop defending an obvious error, that just makes people take everything you say in the future less seriously. Go back, and just fill in the gap you left. REalize the mistake you made. It's not the end of the world. That's all I'm saying