Yes, but now you’re talking about a God that isn’t any of these things. So what’s left?
Yes and that’s why I mentioned dystheism, a malevolent God.
So what does the word “God” mean in the phrase “malevolent God”? How does it differ from a malevolent human or a malevolent parrot? Why do you continue to avoid answering the question?
A malevolent God = An evil God. It’s quite different from an OOO-God.
I’m asking you what the word “God”’ means not what the word “malevolent” means.
We’re just going around in circles here. Let’s recap. The theistic God is all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing. This God is problematic for reasons we already went through. What is God then, if not omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent? He is malevolent is one possibility. So we could be presided over by an evil deity instead of a good one as conceived by theists. Theism is not true, dystheism is. I hope this clarifies your confusion.
A separate matter to how atheism is defined.
1 Like
• contra “Omnibenevolence” …
re: Problem of natural evil.
• contra “Omnipotence” …
… ergo the “OOO-God” is “disproved” as being conceptually incoherent as well as inconsistent with both the natural world and the human condition.
Appeal to popularity fallacy.
Appeal to tradition fallacy.
Natural evil. Dystheism works.
Dysteleology + Bad design. Dystheism works
Appeal to popularity? Appeal to unpopularity rather. Only some of the intelligent, educated, informed folk are theists and some of these are Christians.
Appeal to tradition? We’re talking about intelligent, informed, educated theists i.e. their theism a well-reasoned position
Mentioning fallacies is not the right thing to do. It suggests that theists are unreasonable or illogical, which is not the case. We’ve already crossed that bridge.
Not at all, theists are just (at best) profoundly mistaken. Many, in fact, are “unreasonable” or “illogical”, though not all. Mention of fallacies was directed at you, Scorpion, for bringing up “believers” and “live choice”, respectively.
Likely if they believe in an omnnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God, yes. 
Note: No Proof(God doesn’t exist).
Be honest, poor fideist! Confess that you believe despite (my) disproof and (your) lack of evidence. 
Satanism. 
“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” ~Verbal Kint
“The devil is merely the leisure of God on that seventh day.” ~F.N.
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” ~Isaiah 45:7
1 Like
Yes, because you won’t answer the question. What does the word “God” mean? Telling me that God might be malevolent isn’t an answer. It’s like saying “Floogle is malevolent”. I’m asking you what “Floogle” means and you just won’t tell me.
1 Like
So a bimoral God. 
Since we seem to have opened the Christian box, there are reasons for evil in the world as appears in the bible.
- Punishment for sins
- Ha Satan + minions
- God can do whatever He wants (Job)
I’m no fideist. I see evidence of a malevolent deity (evil). 
@Michael God is bimoral (good and bad). You seem to be stuck in some kind of linguistic vortex. We’ve already defined “God” as omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient. That didn’t work (vide supra, my response to 180Proof) and so 180Proof and I came to the conclusion that we have a Deus malus, not a Deus Bonum.
This is getting tiresome. I don’t know why you won’t just answer the question. Is English not your first language and you just don’t understand what I’m asking?
I’ll try asking you a different question; what is the difference between an evil God and an evil human?
Let’s take a break. I’ll rethink what you said properly and get back to you.
Clearly, I did not “conclude” any “Deus” whatsoever. 
Scriptures are ‘evidence’ of poetry, nothing more.
Or, what is the difference between an OOO God and an OOO human. I can’t think of any difference at all. They are both infinitely intelligent, infinitely powerful and infinitely benevolent. They can’t possibly be any different.
1 Like
A God that’s bimoral vs. a God that’s all-good.
You cited scripture 
and so I picked up on it. It maybe poetry but it isn’t idle poetry. There’s meat there for those who make the effort.
I’ve already laid out the problem for atheists
- You don’t have Proof(God doesn’t exist). This God is the OOO-God
- An evil deity goes with whatever the OOO-God didn’t go with. I believe it’s the atheist’s move now
- Theists don’t have Proof(God exists) but that doesn’t mean we can fall back to atheism. My pastry in the fridge scenario clearly demonstrates the issue at hand. It’s a textbook case of argumentum ad ignorantiam. If atheists had proof that God didn’t exist why would they play the silly game of you’re it? We land our plane on agnosticism. I have no issue with agnostic theism or agnostic atheism, at least not now.
Recall here my earlier kangaroo example. As a child I had no evidence of kangaroos but then if I had come to the conclusion kangaroos don’t exist I would have been profoundly mistaken. There are kangaroos, I simply didn’t have proof of them.
