Debate: God Exists

[Ben Davis]

Two things. If God gives those who entrusts a surplus of food with instructions to give it to the poor, and the poor die because those who have been told to distribute the food don't how does that mean God does not exist?

Hi Drich, I couldn't let this one slide. It's because, by your own definitions, God could simply give the food to the poor with no intermediary but he chooses not to. Further, God would be aware that the people to whom he entrusts food distribution are limited by personal and financial constraints which will result in the food not reaching its intended recipients. Consequently God, if he were to exist, would be deliberately choosing to kill tens of thousands of people every day. Now when we compare this to the definitions of God provided by the bible, we see that there is, in fact, a version of him which would happily do this, just to prove a point. If that's the version in which you believe, that would make you a sick apologist for a murdering maniac. However, and here's the point, there are other versions which are omnibenevolent in which case such flawed logistics would simply not exist. Since they do, the omnibenevolent god can't, due to the Law of Non-contradiction.

So which is it? Worship of a murderer or a figment of your imagination?

2) how does the death of a child mean God can not exist? Do you not understand to be absent from the body means to be present before God? That means if a kid dies they go home to their heavenly Father who's love knows no limits. How is that a bad thing?

By that logic, it's best to kill children as early as possible, so that they can reach the arms of their 'loving Father' before they have a chance to act on sin. Unless of course you believe that all people are born with sin, in which case the death of children, before they've had a chance to choose 'redemption', is a heinous and abusive act designed to force all babies in to eternal torture. This would have the added benefit of giving Satan more souls to fuel his demonic hordes. It's lose all the way if you follow this argument. So you're left with the same choice as above: either God knows about this and is happy with it, in all its sick glory, or he doesn't exist.

Oh that's right death is about what the selfish want not what is best for the dead or dying.

I firmly believe that what's best for the dead and dying, in this particular circumstance of slow starvation, is to have had enough food to eat in the first place, not to have apologetics preached at them by someone who clearly cares not a jot for the despicable injustice he's supporting. Since, for some contemptible, hateful reason, you've decided that vulnerable people deserve a slow, painful death to feed the ego of your so-called deity, I would suggest that your input to this matter is not longer welcome.

You win today's prize for most insulting post.