I can't believe you're seriously using the argument of evil in 2021 to deny God's existence.
I don't believe "good" or "evil" exists, my point is that based on
THE CRITERIA THAT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE CLAIM CONSTITUTES "EVIL", GOD IS ALSO "EVIL"
The argument has nothing to do with what I believe about God, it has to with testing the logical consistency of the purported beliefs of religious people
For example, you can't say that someone that locks a person down in a basement and tortures them for 10 years is evil when your God is literally going to be locking people in hell and torturing them
FOR ETERNITY (that's logically inconsistent)
Let me guess, God is "mysterious", sorry, bullshit excuses don't hold any weight
God doesn't have to do what you think he should do retard. And he doesn't have to be what you think or was told he should be
I think you need to learn to read retard, the argument has nothing to do with what God
SHOULD do, it has to do with the
TRAITS that
RELIGIOUS PEOPLE CLAIM GOD HAS
If somebody says that their mother is "loving" and "responsible", and then I come to find out that their mother sexually abused them and didn't put them into school to be educated, I think it stands to reason that their mother doesn't live up to the
CRITERIA for the terms
LOVING and
RESPONSIBLE
BASED ON THE DEFINITIONS WE KNOW THOSE TERMS TO HAVE (you can't reason or debate without established definitions)
Me saying that their mother
COULD have not abused them and
COULD have sent them to school
IN ORDER TO FIT THE CRITERIA is not me saying their mother
SHOULD have done anything
I literally posted the Epicurean Paradox and you still didn't get the point smh
ONE CANNOT CLAIM X PERSON HAS X TRAITS, WHEN X PERSONS ACTIONS CONTRADICTS THE TRAITS THEY ARE CLAIMED TO POSSESS
I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or you are just that fucking stupid
Come back when you have an actual argument
And being loving doesn't mean it has to translate in way you can comprehend
Enjoy playing bullshit semantic games with someone else, but I won't be continuing a back and forth with someone pretending as if we don't have an established definition of love, you are pretty much trying to argue that
"Well someone can torture you and jerk off to your screams and still "love" you"
Ok dude, you can play those semantic games by yourself
I know how religious people use the terms "love" and "loving" in their everyday lives, so I assume that when they ascribe it to God they are using the
SAME TERM with the
SAME DEFINITION
Not going to play disingenuous word games when we both know what Christians mean when they say "loving"