I never said that mere disagreement equals arrogance. In fact, I said quite the opposite in the next to last paragraph. If you want to disagree, say I’m factually wrong, say I’m objectively wrong, or even say I’m going to hell (if you believed that), I wouldn’t bat an eye.

JR disagreed staunchly with me. I never thought or claimed he was arrogant.

What is arrogant is your tone. Specifically, your words about “don’t hurt anybody” was silly.

Now, as far as your arguments in this comment go, first, notice that you’ve changed the subject. In your last comment you listed a few Bible verses and made some claims about them. I called you on them. In this comment, rather than take up the challenge, you’ve switched to the logical argument from evil.

Here, here, and here

are some good commentaries on that argument (and don’t worry, this time I’m making sure I have the right links!).

A few brief comments from me: The definition of omnipotent in the quote is untenable, the definition of malevolant is untenable, and the problem must assume that objective evil exists in order to even get off the ground. That last one is a problem for an atheist to ground without borrowing capital from a theistic worldview. The second link (the first Koukl article) gets into this. The first article gets into the way the Epicurus quote strains the definition of omnipotent and malevolent.

This is old well tread ground, and we can argue about it in circles forever:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

-Epicurus, 341 BC, Samos – 270 BC, Athens

————–

30,000+ children will die of starvation just TODAY on planet earth, but I’m sure god listens to YOUR prayers!