Epicurean Paradox

[genkaus]

I am stating I do not have to "prove anything" if you engage into a conversation discussing the recorded attributes of God. Why you ask??? Because if we are having a conversation about a documented subject you assume responsibility to properly represent said subject. (whether you believe in it or not.) Otherwise know you are simply trying to distract everyone reading this post by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak on;P

If we have a discussion about Red riding hood, the fact that whether she was a real person or not is inconsequential unless that is the exact discussion we are having. Why? Because we both agree to speak about red riding hood. As such the parameters of the discussion are limited to the works of James barker. Otherwise if you went off reservation then we would not be having a discussion about RRH. (Do not confuse this point with the informal fallacy you are guilty of.)

In turn if you wish to have a discussion about the recorded nature of God then you surrender your right to protest the evidence. UNLESS We are Speaking directly of the "Evidence" of God. Which we are not.

That is where you are wrong. The purpose of discussion of any attributes of god is ultimately to determine if such an entity is realistically possible.

Suppose I make claim about the existence of a species I'd call "Suras". As an attribute I claim that these things have completely black fur. Also, their fur is completely white. No, they don't have black and white stripes - their fur is black all over and white all over at the same time.

The attributes stated here are self-contradictory - as are the attributes of omnibenevolence and omnipotence. We can discuss all day if such a thing is possible, but if I show you he evidence of existence of the species with those specific attributes - the discussion ends there.

You talk about properly representing the subject and accepting biblical standards about it. But the problem here is that its the biblical standards that are wrong and self-contradictory and it is those standards against which criticism is being leveled. Arguing from a given premise to show that it leads to a contradiction and thereby disproving the premise, is a well known and often used method of logical inquiry.