exceptionally unsettling fundy experience

[Learner]

Sadly, children unfortunately have died at home, despite them having loving parents.

This has never happened unless the parents were lacking in omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence.

If your gods lack in one of these qualities (the gods are too stupid to put the tree outside the garden, too weak to be able to put the tree outside the garden, or are not that interested in the kids' safety) then your analogy holds up. Otherwise, not.

(responding in no particular order)

Sure, I DO see where you're all coming from.

Basically, on the perspective scale of human comprehension. You (plural) think can devise analogies, which you think "can" somehow, "illustrate" God of the bible, whilst 'overlooking' what's written: The unfathomable, on the greatest and grandest of comprehension scales. Say for instance, being at the 'ultimate destination', seeing a different world; where God who possesses the power for many many billions of individuals to be 'brought back to life', wiping away tears & fears etc.. existing without any of the evils and hazards we've recorded and witnessed, throughout all our human existence to date.

By this, I would therefore find it hard, to consider the 'mismatch' of your (plural) analogous comparisons to God, which obviously would be a wee bit too much a capacity for parents, as 'mere mortals' go..

 

[steve_bank]

Learner, we are going by what is written.

God destroys his creation with a flood because he is displesed.

Plagues on Egypt.

If yiu read all the details of the bible the bible gid is not a nice guy. He is a dictor, and a control freak.

Again, what exactly are the ways of god you see written in the bible that are worthy of emulating?

I expect for Christians as yourself it is all about that feel good feeling you get talking about god and the bible. The Christian ritual. What the bible actually says is irrelevant. It makes you feel good to believe and quote scripture. A perpetual rapture so to speak.

 

[James Brown]

When I read the fantastical stories of Tolkien, of Lucas, or even Aesop's Fables, there is a part of me that wants them to be true. I want to meet Hobbits and Ents. I want to fly an X-Wing and make the jump to lightspeed. I want to glean wisdom from talking animals. I know that they are not true stories, but I want them to be true.

But then a Christian apologist informs me that God flooded the world because he loves us so much. He says that God was very very wise to tell Abraham to kill his son. That God knew exactly what he was doing when he planted a poisonous tree in his garden. If I say those stories repulse me, the apologist tells me that I'm not reading them right. He says that I'm just too immature to understand them. He says that I'm being sarcastic, or that my analogy is strained, or that I'm focusing on the negative.

When I'm told things like that by an apologist, I end up having two thoughts.

1) I don't believe your stories. I don't think they're true.
2) I don't want to believe your stories. I don't want them to be true.

The God of the Bible is not an admirable figure. He is not someone I want to emulate, or converse with, let alone worship.

 

[Rhea]

Learner - it sounds like you want to eat your cake and have it yet. It sounds like to you want to judge your god by a book’s words, but not judge him by what you see around you. It sounds like you want to claim there is no objective way to look at the stories in the bible or the world around us, and therefore it’s valid to just claim punishment suffering equals love.


It sounds like you are admitting that your holy book really just SUCKS at conveying values, but you don’t care and you wipes the tears from your eyes and pretend they are rain from the sky, and you tell people they didn’t read what they just read.

The last refuge of apologists; Well, yes that looks like cruelty, but we just don’t understand him well enough. I’m sure he’s hitting us out of love. I’m SURE of it. So SURE that I will try to convince other religionists to help pass laws that perpetuate the hurt.

And you don’t realize that you’ve just admitted that your bible is unreliable trash that absolutely requires you to cover it up with, “we just don’t understand.”

Because your god is not powerful enough to inspire a factual, usable, useful, reliable book.
He can’t even inspire a book.

What a weak and pathetic god you worship.

 

[Wiploc]

Sadly, children unfortunately have died at home, despite them having loving parents.

This has never happened unless the parents were lacking in omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence.

If your gods lack in one of these qualities (the gods are too stupid to put the tree outside the garden, too weak to be able to put the tree outside the garden, or are not that interested in the kids' safety) then your analogy holds up. Otherwise, not.

(responding in no particular order)

Sure, I DO see where you're all coming from.

Basically, on the perspective scale of human comprehension. You (plural) think can devise analogies, which you think "can" somehow, "illustrate" God of the bible, whilst 'overlooking' what's written: The unfathomable, on the greatest and grandest of comprehension scales. Say for instance, being at the 'ultimate destination', seeing a different world; where God who possesses the power for many many billions of individuals to be 'brought back to life', wiping away tears & fears etc.. existing without any of the evils and hazards we've recorded and witnessed, throughout all our human existence to date.

By this, I would therefore find it hard, to consider the 'mismatch' of your (plural) analogous comparisons to God, which obviously would be a wee bit too much a capacity for parents, as 'mere mortals' go..

I don't understand your post, Learner. Can you rephrase, please?

 

[Learner]

Yes sure.. no worries - briefly in the form of an analogy.

We are scaled like ants, making analogies about what the human has in mind, 'a big mind', for our ant scale existence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sadly, children unfortunately have died at home, despite them having loving parents.

This has never happened unless the parents were lacking in omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence.

If your gods lack in one of these qualities (the gods are too stupid to put the tree outside the garden, too weak to be able to put the tree outside the garden, or are not that interested in the kids' safety) then your analogy holds up. Otherwise, not.

(responding in no particular order)

Sure, I DO see where you're all coming from.

Basically, on the perspective scale of human comprehension. You (plural) think can devise analogies, which you think "can" somehow, "illustrate" God of the bible, whilst 'overlooking' what's written: The unfathomable, on the greatest and grandest of comprehension scales.

But the Narrative of the Fall indicates than Man and Woman were equal with God on knowledge. They had to only eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life to then become like they were. God's words, not mine. So if we already have all knowledge, where is this unfathomable thing coming from? According to the Narrative of The Fall we are still just one magic tree away from being gods.

Yes, god has a plan. We can't understand it... maybe because it sucks. Not even God suggests its a good plan... that's you saying that. Maybe we are just stuck with this crap plan of God's, much like the Hebrews who were "enslaved in Egypt" for HUNDREDS of years after getting the ball rolling with the Patriarchs. Three generations and he was already bored. What a dick!

 

[Learner]

Pardon me, I was still referring to the 'lethal poison in the bedroom' scenario, which was still in my mind. In that scenario, children wouldn't have a full productive life, if they're dead.

Then you are dodging the question. Because it was about how Yahweh harmed his cheldren Adam and Eve. And you seem to be saying, ”but they lived long and productive lives,” except they DIDN’T by comparison to being immortal.

I answered the question. By comparison to the "rat poison in the bedrooms" scenario, they DID live long full lives after partaking fruit from the tree of 'knowledge', which notably is why you and I are here.

So if that’s what you meant, then no, you have not absolved your god. He killed them. Infinitely sooner than they would have died if immortal. And that assumes one believes the silly and childish assertion that they lived to be 900 years old. (I can’t believe Christians and Jews are not embarassed by that entry in their “holy” book.

Briefly slipping out of the 'hypothetical mode'... this is assuming you were, since you were presenting your analogies. Inserting little side comments like: "Assuming one believes the silly childish assertion..", and, "I can't believe Christians and Jews are not embarrassed by that entry...", is another discussion, but isn't a point for integrity.

And. I have never EVER put a weapon in my kids room, told them not to touch it, then sent a person trying to talk them into using it, and then punished them with early death for failing to ignore it. Nor would I ever. That would be 100% my fault.

Is this your reply to what a monster Yahweh is for setting up his children for failure and then punishing them for it?

I'm humoured by the structured "weapons in the kids room" & "poison in the child's bedroom" analogies. Why not the whole house, or garage where children can have access to house-hold chemicals, electric power points, dangerous tools and medicine cabinets? Sadly, children unfortunately have died at home, despite them having loving parents.

Your attempt to absolve your god by pretending that he is as powerless as humans while still maintaining that he is a god, is noted.

I don't of course hold to that. It takes an ultimately strong will, like God to allow certain events, ( whilst being painful and regretful to God), for the creation to develop itself... independently growing, declaring for themselves as humans, their valued significance, developing the worthiness or eminence - required for a perfect world.

Here’s where we are:
You claim that you have a god. And that he CREATED Eden. All of it. With his massive, bigly powers. I mean, y’all claim he created DNA, and volcanoes, and viruses and redwood trees and embryonic development.
We acknowledge that this is your claim. And you will be measured by it.

That's the best thing to do, to measure someone by their claims, ( naturally, I will be on alert for any underhand nuances should there be such an attempt.

We create an analogy of a similar environment that a parent can create and control like a bedroom.

Of course you do; I thought my analogy was much closer though. But fair enough, you make your analogies as you see them. Detestation of Christianity. What else's is new in the world?

And you, realizing that yor God is, indeed, a fucking monster, try to change the setting so that your god is just as weak as a human parent in the wider world.

From a list of talents you seem to possess... it looks you've taken the role of a "character-profiling psychologist"; the statement above, you make by analyzing my posts, which seems to concludes for you: "I realized God is a so-called "monster...as weak as..", is unfortunately wrong (again). I don't think there could be a "realization" if it's an unrecognised, descriptive characterisation to me - which should mean, I don't ascribe to your god, which neither of us believes in.

And so that’s what you’re selling now? [...]. What a pathetic god you have. So he’s not all powerful at all, is he. He’s just another schmo. Sad.

I managed to keep my kids out of the chemicals and the electric by actively parenting them and helping them navigate the dangers, but your god is just not quite that good?

What a sad sack of a god.

Rhea, neither of us believe in this god.

Changing the scenario again because your all powerful god was not able to navigate the first one?

If it makes you happy.

Joke’s on you, Learner. My kids did not have internet devices that they could use outside of my supervision until they were old enough to handle them. They had one computer, in the kitchen, visible to me, with non-online games. They got their first phones when they learned to drive and had a need to make calls on their own.

Well kudos to you, (I didn't see the punch-line but I see the irony); there are families who are Christian, who also raise their children that way too.

So your god is still weaker and stupider than some backwoods yahoo mom.

And you keep coming back with new ways to argue that your god is weaker, less protective and less caring than the typical parent.

New ways? You mean you debate Christians out there who use the old ways? Or is it, that some of your arguments could be redundant. I mean, Christians born in modern world, also live with the times; knowing more about the bible than they did 5, 10 years ago.

With friends like you, your god doesn’t need enemies!

With neighbors as your enemies, Jesus would be a 'God send'.

 

[steve_bank]

From this thread we can see how the Christian theological debate has existed for 2000 years.

 

[Wiploc]

Yes sure.. no worries - briefly in the form of an analogy.

We are scaled like ants, making analogies about what the human has in mind, 'a big mind', for our ant scale existence.

My first objection was going to be that ants don't have scales .
But now I think I get your gist.

Christians use logic (or alleged-logic) to draw conclusions about your gods.
They claim many things about their gods. For example, they often claim that their gods are:

- good.
- loving.
- perfect.
- forgiving.
- all knowing.
- omnibenevolent.
- omnipresent
- the source of being that sustains the existence of the universe
- able to create ab initio, from nothing
- able to do anything
- unable to defeat iron chariots
- torturing people forever
- unable to save sinners
- really three gods
- really just one god
- as far beyond our comprehension as we are beyond the comprehension of an ant.
- outside of time
- perfectly just

Christians don't (usually) say they just made this stuff up. They say they base these claims on logic.
They say we should believe these claims because they are logical.

But when we point out errors in their logic, they say that god is beyond our logic.
They say logic doesn't work on god. They say that we don't get to reason about gods.

But then they go right back to making claims about their gods, claims that they insist are logical.

They claim, in effect, that logic is good stuff when they talk about gods but is forbidden when we talk about gods.

That's special pleading, a logical fallacy.

The claim that gods are beyond our logic is itself a claim purportedly based on logic.
The claim that gods are as far above us as we are above ants is itself a claim purportedly based on logic.

If you believed your own claim that our logic doesn't work on gods, you wouldn't make such claims.

If you want to be consistent, if you want to be logical, then you'll pick a position and stick with it:
Either we do get to reason about gods, in which case you don't get to dismiss my arguments as reasoning about gods,
or we don't get to reason about gods, in which case neither of us should be making any claims on the subject.

So long as Christians two-step back and forth between two incompatible positions (logic works on gods but it doesn't work on gods) then they are guilty of special pleading.

Arguments based on special pleading are worthless; they weigh nothing in the scales of persuasion.

 

[Learner]

Yes sure.. no worries - briefly in the form of an analogy.

We are scaled like ants, making analogies about what the human has in mind, 'a big mind', for our ant scale existence.

My first objection was going to be that ants don't have scales .
But now I think I get your gist.

Glad you got the gist - "ants don't have scales...", the gentle sarcasm is kind.

Christians use logic (or alleged-logic) to draw conclusions about your gods.
They claim many things about their gods. For example, they often claim that their gods are:

- good.
- loving.
- perfect.
- forgiving.
- all knowing.
- omnibenevolent.
- omnipresent
- the source of being that sustains the existence of the universe
- able to create ab initio, from nothing
- able to do anything
- unable to defeat iron chariots
- torturing people forever
- unable to save sinners
- really three gods
- really just one god
- as far beyond our comprehension as we are beyond the comprehension of an ant.
- outside of time
- perfectly just

Each in the list can individually be expanded as a wider topic. I am assuming "as far beyond our comprehension as we are beyond the comprehension of an ant", is to be considered in the list, to be an analogy and not a statement.

Christians don't (usually) say they just made this stuff up. They say they base these claims on logic.
They say we should believe these claims because they are logical.

But when we point out errors in their logic, they say that god is beyond our logic.
They say logic doesn't work on god. They say that we don't get to reason about gods.

That is how opposing views usually plays out ... pointing out errors in the logic of their opponents.

You can reason all you want about gods, it is a good thing, Christians would welcome that challenge, because it would help Christians to study and learn the bible more.

But then they go right back to making claims about their gods, claims that they insist are logical.

They claim, in effect, that logic is good stuff when they talk about gods but is forbidden when we talk about gods.

That's special pleading, a logical fallacy.

The word forbidden, immediately sticks out, at a quick glance. You may have had these kinds of conversations but it's not the case here.

If we were to rephrase your post without the line, "..forbidden when we talk about gods", we should get back to the platform, where we usually are, debating two different viewpoints, otherwise you could be thought of as 'specially misleading', so to speak.

The claim that gods are beyond our logic is itself a claim purportedly based on logic.
The claim that gods are as far above us as we are above ants is itself a claim purportedly based on logic.

If you believed your own claim that our logic doesn't work on gods, you wouldn't make such claims.

If you want to be consistent, if you want to be logical, then you'll pick a position and stick with it:
Either we do get to reason about gods, in which case you don't get to dismiss my arguments as reasoning about gods,
or we don't get to reason about gods, in which case neither of us should be making any claims on the subject.

I believe I AM sticking to a position. I think you're seeing it wrong. You CAN reason about gods by logic; we don't pronounce or state this to be forbidden. I don't have to agree with your conclusion from what you read in the biblical text.

So long as Christians two-step back and forth between two incompatible positions (logic works on gods but it doesn't work on gods) then they are guilty of special pleading.

Arguments based on special pleading are worthless; they weigh nothing in the scales of persuasion.

Yes well as I mention in the above, this isn't the case here.

(I got a much bigger screen, and I can see...I can see!)

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sin means going against God, against Jesus, against Gods ways and Laws.

Is that really what sin means? How do you know? god's ways are unfathomable and beyond understanding. So you cannot make any inferences from anything you've read or believe you can even understand it. You are just an ant.

 

[James Brown]

Interesting, isn't it? "God is ineffable," saith the apologist. "And is deeply offended by what you do with your genitalia."

 

[Learner]

Sin means going against God, against Jesus, against Gods ways and Laws.

Is that really what sin means? How do you know? god's ways are unfathomable and beyond understanding. So you cannot make any inferences from anything you've read or believe you can even understand it. You are just an ant.

How do I Know God's 'ways', or was it the 'mind' of God?

 

[Learner]

Interesting, isn't it? "God is ineffable," saith the apologist. "And is deeply offended by what you do with your genitalia."

Have a good day Mr Brown.

 

[Wiploc]

Christians don't (usually) say they just made this stuff up. They say they base these claims on logic.
They say we should believe these claims because they are logical.

But when we point out errors in their logic, they say that god is beyond our logic.
They say logic doesn't work on god. They say that we don't get to reason about gods.

That is how opposing views usually plays out ... pointing out errors in the logic of their opponents.

You can reason all you want about gods, it is a good thing, Christians would welcome that challenge, because it would help Christians to study and learn the bible more.

The Problem of Evil (PoE) points out that if an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god existed, there would be no evil.

Your response was to claim that (in my words, not yours) your gods are as far above my understanding as I am above an ant's understanding.
Your point -- if I understand you -- is that my argument (the PoE) is of no significance because I'm trying to reason about gods.

But, if we should dismiss my conclusion because it is based on reasoning about gods, then we should do the same with your conclusions.

As my daddy, a Christian, would say, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

But then they go right back to making claims about their gods, claims that they insist are logical.

They claim, in effect, that logic is good stuff when they talk about gods but is forbidden when we talk about gods.

That's special pleading, a logical fallacy.

The word forbidden, immediately sticks out, at a quick glance. You may have had these kinds of conversations but it's not the case here.

If we were to rephrase your post without the line, "..forbidden when we talk about gods", we should get back to the platform, where we usually are, debating two different viewpoints, otherwise you could be thought of as 'specially misleading', so to speak.

Then please disregard the word "forbidden."

The claim that gods are beyond our logic is itself a claim purportedly based on logic.
The claim that gods are as far above us as we are above ants is itself a claim purportedly based on logic.

If you believed your own claim that our logic doesn't work on gods, you wouldn't make such claims.

If you want to be consistent, if you want to be logical, then you'll pick a position and stick with it:
Either we do get to reason about gods, in which case you don't get to dismiss my arguments as reasoning about gods,
or we don't get to reason about gods, in which case neither of us should be making any claims on the subject.

I believe I AM sticking to a position. I think you're seeing it wrong. You CAN reason about gods by logic; we don't pronounce or state this to be forbidden. I don't have to agree with your conclusion from what you read in the biblical text.

Then why do you invoke your ant/human/god analogy to dismiss my conclusion but not yours?

So long as Christians two-step back and forth between two incompatible positions (logic works on gods but it doesn't work on gods) then they are guilty of special pleading.

Arguments based on special pleading are worthless; they weigh nothing in the scales of persuasion.

Yes well as I mention in the above, this isn't the case here.

If it is not the case, then I wholly misunderstand the point of your ant/human/god analogy, and I would like clarification.

(I got a much bigger screen, and I can see...I can see!)

Yay!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sin means going against God, against Jesus, against Gods ways and Laws.

Is that really what sin means? How do you know? god's ways are unfathomable and beyond understanding. So you cannot make any inferences from anything you've read or believe you can even understand it. You are just an ant.

How do I Know God's 'ways', or was it the 'mind' of God?

Nobody knows. You're just an ant. I mean, you can't even conclude that he is unknowable and beyond understanding because that is trying to understand him. On the other hand, you wrote that "sin means going ... against Gods ways and Laws." Presumably, you would proclaim to know his ways and laws from reading the bible. But that means there's a book that we can obtain facts and from which we make inferences about those facts....which is what you've done. And that's the same thing that everybody else does around here and from that we see contradictions, both fact problems and moral contradictions. If you throw your hands up in the air and say "well, you can't use logic about god," then nothing is trustworthy about the bible at all...which we already knew anyway.

 

[Learner]

Sadly, children unfortunately have died at home, despite them having loving parents.

This has never happened unless the parents were lacking in omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence.

If your gods lack in one of these qualities (the gods are too stupid to put the tree outside the garden, too weak to be able to put the tree outside the garden, or are not that interested in the kids' safety) then your analogy holds up. Otherwise, not.

(responding in no particular order)

Sure, I DO see where you're all coming from.

Basically, on the perspective scale of human comprehension. You (plural) think can devise analogies, which you think "can" somehow, "illustrate" God of the bible, whilst 'overlooking' what's written: The unfathomable, on the greatest and grandest of comprehension scales.

But the Narrative of the Fall indicates than Man and Woman were equal with God on knowledge. They had to only eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life to then become like they were. God's words, not mine. So if we already have all knowledge, where is this unfathomable thing coming from?

There are limitations to a human's capability - the contextual concept most obvious: humans don't create universes! Now my response, you quoted above, was initially addressing the notion that suggests "God was "weak as humans", the parents in Eden. The general concept understood of God the Almighty contradicts the logic that suggests, "God is as weak as humans", which was why I mentioned 'unfathomable'. The "unfathomable" to mean in every sense, on every level, the Power of God.

According to the Narrative of The Fall we are still just one magic tree away from being gods.

Like gods to know. Or rather... for Adam and Eve to prematurely becoming aware to sudden knowledge; having their eyes suddenly opened to good and evil - being shown the know-how (groomed),to tune-in' through this new awareness, discovering enticements, including harming others just to accommodate ones self-pride, fulfilling those extreme self-harming self-gratifications, sidestepping God's guide instructions.

Yes, god has a plan. We can't understand it... maybe because it sucks. Not even God suggests its a good plan... that's you saying that. Maybe we are just stuck with this crap plan of God's, much like the Hebrews who were "enslaved in Egypt" for HUNDREDS of years after getting the ball rolling with the Patriarchs. Three generations and he was already bored. What a dick!

The plan is for humankind to be part of Gods perfect world, that's what Christians (and non-believers) generally understand it reads.

Like Adam and Eve, the Hebrews ignored God and thought they could control their lives happily without God's guidance. The lives they willingly chose to live... has lead them to the Egyptians enslaving them, being that this was in a 'God free' jurisdiction, so to speak. It was Humans who enslaved humans, and certainly not God!

Here's the sad irony overlooked or ignored :

IT'S YOU (mankind) who have been 'choosing the running of affairs of the world', for well over two thousand years, without God! Poignantly to the Gospels, when Jesus says to those who listen, 'to love God with all your might, to love your neighbor as yourself, to love your enemies, to be strong and compassionate to the poor and sick' BECAUSE of the harsh world situation man chose to live in - man preferred to live that way, without God and HIs guidance. These verses hint the world you're in, it isn't God's. People living the life, while still being vulnerably influenced by the serpent's whispers.

John 12:31: Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.

2 Corinthians 4: in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Isaiah 14:12: How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!

With our current standard of morals, declared by men, to be better than the biblical God - stepping back and taking a glance of our human-governing history. How have we been doing so far 'independently' without the biblical God? I guess "it must be good for every individual", all over our paradise earth.

 

[Wiploc]

Sadly, children unfortunately have died at home, despite them having loving parents.

This has never happened unless the parents were lacking in omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence.

If your gods lack in one of these qualities (the gods are too stupid to put the tree outside the garden, too weak to be able to put the tree outside the garden, or are not that interested in the kids' safety) then your analogy holds up. Otherwise, not.

(responding in no particular order)

Sure, I DO see where you're all coming from.

Basically, on the perspective scale of human comprehension. You (plural) think can devise analogies, which you think "can" somehow, "illustrate" God of the bible, whilst 'overlooking' what's written: The unfathomable, on the greatest and grandest of comprehension scales.

But the Narrative of the Fall indicates than Man and Woman were equal with God on knowledge. They had to only eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life to then become like they were. God's words, not mine. So if we already have all knowledge, where is this unfathomable thing coming from?

There are limitations to a human's capability - the contextual concept most obvious: humans don't create universes!

Humans don't create universes? Nor do gods.

Now my response, you quoted above, was initially addressing the notion that suggests "God was "weak as humans", the parents in Eden. The general concept understood of God the Almighty contradicts the logic that suggests, "God is as weak as humans",

Nobody is suggesting that gods is as weak as humans.

Our point is the opposite: If gods were strong enough, then it would be able to protect the children.

(Sorry if I seem to have trouble matching numbers. Three-in-one gods are tricky that way.)

If people suffer, it follows that at least one of these is true:

1. Any gods who exist are too weak to prevent suffering. (Gods are not omnipotent.)
2. Any gods who exist are too dumb to prevent suffering. (Gods are not omniscient.)
3. Any gods who exist don't care to prevent suffering. (Gods are not omnibenevolent.)

Logically, if an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (tri-omni) god existed, there would be no suffering.
If there is suffering, then no tri-omn gods exist.
Since suffering does exist, there are no tri-omn gods.

We know this.

The logic is bulletproof, so we know this.

If I held a lens so that the sun fried an ant, and the ant thought I wasn't doing that in its best interest, no amount of, "Hey, I'm so smart you don't get to judge me," would begin to refute the ant's logic.

Nor would, "You're saying I'm as weak as an ant," amount to a refutation.

Two more relevant responses to the problem of evil, in addition to the three numbered responses above, exist:

4. Suffering doesn't exist.
5. Logic doesn't work.

I've seen Christians use all five responses. You use #5 yourself, when you're not repudiating it.

which was why I mentioned 'unfathomable'. The "unfathomable" to mean in every sense, on every level, the Power of God.

Why is god unfathomable when we talk about them, but perfectly fathomable when you want to say that it exists and creates worlds and is benevolent and is stronger than human parents?

Is they fathomable or unfathomable? Pick a position and stick with it.

 

[James Brown]

Another common response to the Problem of Suffering.

"If people didn't suffer, then they would suffer for the lack of suffering. God doesn't want people to suffer, so he lets us suffer."