[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Good post...

LOL...I would think it hard not to assume a God, any God is not Omnibenevolent...
Benevolent = accommodating, advantageous, affable, affectionate, all-heart, altruistic, amiable, amicable, approachable, auspicious, beneficent, benign, benignant, big, big-hearted, bleeding heart, bounteous, bountiful, bright, broad-minded, caring, charitable, chivalrous, clement, compassionate, complaisant, comprehending, comradely, congenial, considerate, cordial, courteous, dexter, disinterested, do-good, easy, eleemosynary, encouraging, favorable, forgiving, fortunate, fraternal, friendly, gracious, generous, genial, gentle, good-humored, good, good-natured, greathearted, helpful, heroic, humane, humanitarian, indulgent, intimate, kind, kindly, kind-hearted, lavish, lenient, liberal, lofty, lucky, magnanimous, merciful, mild, neighborly, noble, obliging, openhanded, personal, philanthropic, pleasant, polite, princely, propitious, salutary, self-sacrificing, selfless, sociable, sympathetic, tender, tender-hearted, thoughtful, tolerant, understanding, unselfish, urbane, warm, warm-hearted, well-disposed

Hence, "benevolent" basically means "nice." Hence, "omnibenevolent" = "all nice."...taking it further...desirous of no evil.

As to the family question...I love my wife too and I let her out! Heck I love my pets and treat them the same. But that doesnt make me Omnibenevolent....yet.
Not sure where you want to take the point too...but im all ears and fingers!

The point is that you're trying to argue the non-existance of something you don't beleive in based on premesis that are questionable.

Surely someone who goes on as much as you do should understand that you can't try to argue something based on what you BELIEVE (i.e. have not proof) to be true. There you go again using that Humanist double standard of "You have to prove scientifically before I beleive, but my unscientific methods are good enough to refute your beleifes"

Come on man you know as well as I do that this kind of "Proof" went the way of the dodo with this little tidbit.

"Objects that are heavier should fall faster"
"Oranges are heaveir that grapes"
"Therefore if I drop an orange and a grape at the same time, the orange should hit the ground first"

How'd that one work out?

You can't prove an arguement to be correct untill you prove the premis to be correct. You prove that a god must be omnibenevolent (and that this means elininating evil at any cost), and I'll accept your arguement. Untill then, try to stick to your own standards.