Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You are arguing against my definition without realizing. I will say it this way: If a being exists and doesn't eradicate evil it is not God.
What you have are personal opinions, and nothing more.Whatever it is, it is NOT God. Omnipotence is NOT sufficient to be God. That's because God is also omnibenevolent, as an essential part of his nature, which entails preventing all evil.
If you state those as assertions, that is another argument from ignorance because there is no way to prove that God would prevent evil if God existed. I am sure many atheists on this forum would agree with me because atheists are generally good at logic, but I would love to hear from any atheists who agree with you.
Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
- true
- false
- unknown between true or false
- being unknowable (among the first three).[1]