What do you think?

[SnakeLord]

erm - the fact that they are only pretending under a very thin veil

Fact heh? The only 'fact' around here is that you'll do anything to dismiss your own arguments when they turn round and bite you on the ass.

I thought we were talking about god and how lenny fits the bill

Fits what bill? Lenny is a leprechaun, (ergo: Lenny the leprechaun), not a god.

Bertrand russel eat your heart out

Lack of argument. Once again:

"Lenny is real and you cannot comment on that unless you are willing to undergo the process one must go through to come to direct perception of Lenny. You are the unqualified high school dropout trying to blame everyone else for you being an unqualified high school dropout"

Have you gone through the process, yes or no?

 

[Singularity]

No! this basically proves that god is not omnibenevolent, since he allows evil to happen. But then again the theist will resort to "free will" thus evil happens cause of evil men. Alas! but what do they say if the little girl dies in an earthquake? It's god's will of course! ...

Good point. The girls will is more important than rapist. But god is always with the rapist it seems.

 

[stretched]

LG

So, then, if you were your all powerful and all loving god, would you allow this?:

"Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most."

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
erm - the fact that they are only pretending under a very thin veil
”
Fact heh? The only 'fact' around here is that you'll do anything to dismiss your own arguments when they turn round and bite you on the ass.

if there is no serious party willing to take the stance of direct perception, it becomes a bit tiring playing your games of imagination ("just suppose I had a book that works on the same principles of the bible" "just suppose I had a process" etc etc)

“
I thought we were talking about god and how lenny fits the bill
”
Fits what bill? Lenny is a leprechaun, (ergo: Lenny the leprechaun), not a god.

then you have to tidy up your analogy rather than trying to cram it into any theistic sized aperture

“
Bertrand russel eat your heart out
”
Lack of argument. Once again:

Bertrand Russels analogy, which is identical to yours, works on the principle that there is no one in the position of direct perception

"Lenny is real and you cannot comment on that unless you are willing to undergo the process one must go through to come to direct perception of Lenny. You are the unqualified high school dropout trying to blame everyone else for you being an unqualified high school dropout"

Have you gone through the process, yes or no?

the foundation for the process is your imagination (in other words you can make anything up and aask that we pretend it is credible according to the book of lenny, even though the best books on the subject, such as the FSM are bereft of even an iota of th ephilosophical credibility of any scriptural presentation - th eobvious reason being because they are satirical presentations and are as substantial as political cartoons (the punch line gets rehashed seasonally)- in theism however the process is practically identical despite barriers of language, time, culture and geography

 

[lightgigantic]

LG

So, then, if you were your all powerful and all loving god, would you allow this?:

"Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most."

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1346763&postcount=7

 

[SnakeLord]

if there is no serious party willing to take the stance of direct perception, it becomes a bit tiring playing your games of imagination ("just suppose I had a book that works on the same principles of the bible" "just suppose I had a process" etc etc)

High school dropout trying to blame everyone else because he can't understand electrons. "No, I wont do the process, electrons are imaginary!" *puts fingers in ears*.

then you have to tidy up your analogy rather than trying to cram it into any theistic sized aperture

Wake up. I brought Lenny into the discussion because it fit the conversation better than car mechanics did. Lenny and gods are beings written about but generally unseen, unevidenced, etc etc. In all this time you have tried to equate gods to car mechanics, physicists, rocket scientists and other completely irrelevant things. The minute I actually force a more pertinent comparison you start crying about it and then go on to show that you are actually the high school dropout you've been talking about all this time.

Bertrand Russels analogy, which is identical to yours, works on the principle that there is no one in the position of direct perception

Proof that you do not pay attention. I have direct perception of Lenny, we get along well. See, you're just plain wrong, but like every other high school dropout want to believe you're onto something without having to ever put any effort in.

the foundation for the process...

This doesn't look like a yes or no to me. Can you not follow simple requests?

Yes or no?

the foundation for the process is your imagination (in other words you can make anything up and aask that we pretend it is credible according to the book of lenny, even though the best books on the subject, such as the FSM are bereft of even an iota of th ephilosophical credibility of any scriptural presentation

A) Have you read the book of Lenny? If not, how could you make claims to "best books"?

B) I didn't ask that you "pretend" anything. Look it's simple.. Remain the high school dropout or do the process. Without doing the process you have no say in the matter. This is your own argument, and here you are trying to weasel your way out of it. It's pathetic.

C) Part of the process can hardly be considered my imagination since it has existed in writing and in culture for hundreds of years.

th eobvious reason being because they are satirical presentations and are as substantial as political cartoons

Every high school dropout will come up with an "obvious reason", unaware that he is actually the one in error.

in theism however the process is practically identical despite barriers of language, time, culture and geography

How so and what process? (you never did say what the process was).

 

[stretched]

LG

Is that a "yes"?

So unless there is an unblemished track record there is no room for mercy?

 

[lightgigantic]

LG

Is that a "yes"?

So unless there is an unblemished track record there is no room for mercy?

welcome to the material world buddy

SB 6.1.44: O inhabitants of Vaikuṇṭha, you are sinless, but those within this material world are all karmīs, whether acting piously or impiously. Both kinds of action are possible for them because they are contaminated by the three modes of nature and must act accordingly. One who has accepted a material body cannot be inactive, and sinful action is inevitable for one acting under the modes of material nature. Therefore all the living entities within this material world are punishable.

its not so much about having a sinful background but more about having the desire for a sinful future that creates the most wonderful learning experiences for us

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

if there is no serious party willing to take the stance of direct perception, it becomes a bit tiring playing your games of imagination ("just suppose I had a book that works on the same principles of the bible" "just suppose I had a process" etc etc)
”
High school dropout trying to blame everyone else because he can't understand electrons. "No, I wont do the process, electrons are imaginary!" *puts fingers in ears*.

at least with electrons we are talking about something tangible - even in the case of religion, credibility in the form of philosophy and scriptures are tangible (you make disbelieve scripture but you can't disbelieve the existence of scripture) - your game is kind of like playing in a sand pit and having imaginary cups of tea (imagine I have a book of lenny, imagine I have a process etc etc) - perhaps it was entertaining for a bit but its quickly becoming a waste of time

“
then you have to tidy up your analogy rather than trying to cram it into any theistic sized aperture
”
Wake up. I brought Lenny into the discussion because it fit the conversation better than car mechanics did. Lenny and gods are beings written about but generally unseen, unevidenced, etc etc.

"care for another cup of tea" (*pours sand out of the teapot)

In all this time you have tried to equate gods to car mechanics, physicists, rocket scientists and other completely irrelevant things.

at least they actually exist as tangible objects of study

The minute I actually force a more pertinent comparison you start crying about it and then go on to show that you are actually the high school dropout you've been talking about all this time.

pertinent = imaginary???

“
Bertrand Russels analogy, which is identical to yours, works on the principle that there is no one in the position of direct perception
”
Proof that you do not pay attention. I have direct perception of Lenny, we get along well. See, you're just plain wrong, but like every other high school dropout want to believe you're onto something without having to ever put any effort in.

certainly illustrates why Bertrand Russel is a different callibre of academia

“

“
the foundation for the process is your imagination (in other words you can make anything up and aask that we pretend it is credible according to the book of lenny, even though the best books on the subject, such as the FSM are bereft of even an iota of th ephilosophical credibility of any scriptural presentation
”
A) Have you read the book of Lenny? If not, how could you make claims to "best books"?

thats the point - its imagination - discussion on god however involves real books and real people that have a real history of philosophical application

B) I didn't ask that you "pretend" anything. Look it's simple.. Remain the high school dropout or do the process. Without doing the process you have no say in the matter. This is your own argument, and here you are trying to weasel your way out of it. It's pathetic.

Wake up
Knock on wood
we've been there before remember
(actually now you are starting to put me to sleep)

C) Part of the process can hardly be considered my imagination since it has existed in writing and in culture for hundreds of years.

I don't think you have seriously investigated leprechauns - but if you do, which I am sure that you haven't and won't, I think you would be hard pressed to present a historically backed account that spans hundreds of years (unless of course it is your request that we accept another serving of your famous imaginary tea)

“
th eobvious reason being because they are satirical presentations and are as substantial as political cartoons
”
Every high school dropout will come up with an "obvious reason", unaware that he is actually the one in error.

"more tea I say?"

“
in theism however the process is practically identical despite barriers of language, time, culture and geography
”
How so and what process? (you never did say what the process was).

erm - get free from sin - how's that for a beginning?

 

[SnakeLord]

your game is kind of like playing in a sand pit and having imaginary cups of tea (imagine I have a book of lenny, imagine I have a process etc etc) - perhaps it was entertaining for a bit but its quickly becoming a waste of time

More accurately; that's your game. The book of Lenny exists, as does a process. You, being the high school dropout, don't want to learn about it. That's your right, but it leaves you unable to address the issue with any value.

at least they actually exist as tangible objects of study

So does Lenny, you've just closed your eyes and ears while blaming everyone else for your inability to see and hear.

pertinent = imaginary???

If that's how you perceive the gods, then sure. It works both ways. However, if you had have read my last post you would have seen the explanation as to why Lenny is a more pertient analogy than car mechanics.

certainly illustrates why Bertrand Russel is a different callibre of academia

*snore* When a high school dropout is cornered, (shown they're wrong), they resort to idiotic statements like the one you just made.

thats the point - its imagination

Incorrect. Let's try again shall we..

"Have you read the book of Lenny?"

Wake up
Knock on wood
we've been there..

Once again:

". Remain the high school dropout or do the process. Without doing the process you have no say in the matter. This is your own argument, and here you are trying to weasel your way out of it. It's pathetic. "

Do you agree or are you now changing your own argument?

I think you would be hard pressed to present a historically backed account that spans hundreds of years

I don't understand the relevance. For something to be true/for a being to exist it has to be backed up by an ancient bit of text? However, given my statement I was referring to "knock on wood". The origins of that can be traced.

erm - get free from sin - how's that for a beginning?

Not very good. From a christian standpoint there's no such thing as a person free from sin. The only being ever to manage it was jesus, who's god and thus has an easy job being free from sin. If we take that stance then your claimed process is unattainable.

Doh! Better luck next time.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

your game is kind of like playing in a sand pit and having imaginary cups of tea (imagine I have a book of lenny, imagine I have a process etc etc) - perhaps it was entertaining for a bit but its quickly becoming a waste of time
”
More accurately; that's your game.

except I can refer you to sources in history and philosophy - you know, real persons in fields of philosophy and science in history

The book of Lenny exists, as does a process.

while you can refer me to craft manuals for st patricks day - do you see the discrepency

You, being the high school dropout, don't want to learn about it. That's your right, but it leaves you unable to address the issue with any value.

at least when one talks of electrons or religion one can refer to actual texts and actual persons

“
at least they actually exist as tangible objects of study
”
So does Lenny,

so you keep saying, but you insist we accept it on the merit of your imagination, as opposed to anything intellectually substantial

“
pertinent = imaginary???
”
If that's how you perceive the gods, then sure. It works both ways. However, if you had have read my last post you would have seen the explanation as to why Lenny is a more pertient analogy than car mechanics.

You don't get it yet?
god is a far way away - at the moment we are just discussing whether actual books and actual people stand behind the claims being made - never mind at the moment what the claims are

“
certainly illustrates why Bertrand Russel is a different callibre of academia
”
*snore* When a high school dropout is cornered, (shown they're wrong), they resort to idiotic statements like the one you just made.

you don't get it?
Bertrand Russel's analogy works when there is no platform of direct perception - the moment you introduce direct perception (as you are doing with lenny) it becomes a game of teacups and kettles in the sand pit - at the very least it explains why bertrand russel's writings are considered philosophical

“
thats the point - its imagination
”
Incorrect. Let's try again shall we..

"Have you read the book of Lenny?"

have you indicated the book of lenny exists within any credible field of intelligent inquiry?

“
Wake up
Knock on wood
we've been there..
”
Once again:

". Remain the high school dropout or do the process. Without doing the process you have no say in the matter. This is your own argument, and here you are trying to weasel your way out of it. It's pathetic. "

we've been there -yawn

Do you agree or are you now changing your own argument?

we got to here
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1338807&postcount=119
you might want to reread what was said before to save rehashing old issues - particularly in regard to knocking on wood etc
“

I think you would be hard pressed to present a historically backed account that spans hundreds of years
”
I don't understand the relevance.

it would help take the discussion out of the sand pit for a start , and further more you suggested it

C) Part of the process can hardly be considered my imagination since it has existed in writing and in culture for hundreds of years.

For something to be true/for a being to exist it has to be backed up by an ancient bit of text?

certainly help you take the discussion out of a myopic spirals into imagination, particularly since you insist it is all factual, historical and acclaimed by the direct perception of credible persons

However, given my statement I was referring to "knock on wood". The origins of that can be traced.

so shoot

“
erm - get free from sin - how's that for a beginning?
”
Not very good. From a christian standpoint there's no such thing as a person free from sin.

but there is such a thing as a person getting free from a sin

The only being ever to manage it was jesus,

and guess whose example christians follow?

who's god

jesus is god?
I thought he said he was the son of god?

and thus has an easy job being free from sin.

having direct perception of god certainly made the task easier

If we take that stance then your claimed process is unattainable.

I think you are messing up in the theoretical foundation - although it may be possible that you can encounter pathetic versions of christianity that advocate there is no use attempting to refrain from sin - at the very least I wouldn't expect a high level of credible information from them in relation to god

 

[stretched]

LG
"its not so much about having a sinful background but more about having the desire for a sinful future that creates the most wonderful learning experiences for us"

Why did your god create you this way then?

 

[lightgigantic]

LG
"its not so much about having a sinful background but more about having the desire for a sinful future that creates the most wonderful learning experiences for us"

Why did your god create you this way then?

with free will and the marginal capacity for independence you mean?
Quite simply, because it is impossible for love to exist without free will (a man who demands that his wife loves him otherwise he will beat her with a stick will not have a happy marriage)

 

[SnakeLord]

except I can refer you to sources in history and philosophy - you know, real persons in fields of philosophy and science in history

I would request again that you show why history is of any relevance to the reality of a god. Does Gilgamesh exist because real people believed in him and it was written about a long time ago? Can I refer you to those sources and say "hey look LG, Gilgamesh exists"? Don't be naive.

while you can refer me to craft manuals for st patricks day - do you see the discrepency

What orifice did you pull that statement from? The discrepancy here is you're making things up. I said nothing about craft manuals, and told you the book of Lenny exists. If you show genuine curiosity I shall let you read it.

at least when one talks of electrons or religion one can refer to actual texts and actual persons

Oh I see, and I'm just a robot and these aren't real words, they're imaginary ones.

so you keep saying, but you insist we accept it on the merit of your imagination, as opposed to anything intellectually substantial

I insisted no such thing. Indeed the opposite; I gave you some of the process and asked that you try the process to show to yourself that it's true. I also offered you the chance to read the book of Lenny. You sir are a liar and trying to blame me for the fact that you wont go through the process that you yourself have argued one must go through.

god is a far way away - at the moment we are just discussing whether actual books and actual people stand behind the claims being made

That would depend entirely on whether I am an actual person or not. Hmmmm let me think for a moment.....


Yep, I'm an actual person.

The book of Lenny also exists, you just wont give it the time.

Bertrand Russel's analogy works when there is no platform of direct perception

Great so we differ because I do have direct perception, and so can you if you go through the process that one must go through to attain direct perception, (YOUR exact argument).

have you indicated the book of lenny exists within any credible field of intelligent inquiry?

Credible to who? You?

we've been there -yawn

See? High school dropout unwilling to try the process but thinking he can actually say something about it. The hypocrisy is extraordinary.

you might want to reread what was said before to save rehashing old issues - particularly in regard to knocking on wood etc

I fail to see the relevance of the link. Have you tried the process, yes or no?

it would help take the discussion out of the sand pit for a start , and further more you suggested it

I mentioned that the process has a history to it because you, for some bizarre reason, seem fixed upon history - that something must have been written about a long time ago to be true. I suppose this is one of your arguments against evolution.. "they didn't write about it thousands of years ago!"

I'm sorry but I just fail to see the worth of your argument.

certainly help you take the discussion out of a myopic spirals into imagination, particularly since you insist it is all factual, historical and acclaimed by the direct perception of credible persons

You'll know it's factual if you go through the process, I am a credible person, and I still fail to see the relevance of something being written about millennia ago as making it true.

but there is such a thing as a person getting free from a sin

But there is no such thing as a sinless person. The point.

and guess whose example christians follow?

A pointless point. jesus could apparently walk on water. Because christians follow jesus example does that mean they too can walk on water? No, don't be foolish. So once again: The only person ever to have been sinless was jesus so your starting point is worthless.

jesus is god?
I thought he said he was the son of god?

Guess christianity isn't your strong point. It depends entirely upon sects.

having direct perception of god certainly made the task easier

Or more to the point.. being god certainly made the task easier.

I think you are messing up in the theoretical foundation

See the walking on water part to work out your error, then your thoughts here will change. It's not me messing up, it's you.

although it may be possible that you can encounter pathetic versions of christianity that advocate there is no use attempting to refrain from sin

Sorry, who decides they're pathetic? You right? Now, if you ever paid any attention you'll see I mentioned nothing about not attempting to refrain from sin, just the the goal, (a sinless state), is unattainable.

at the very least I wouldn't expect a high level of credible information from them in relation to god

Of course you wouldn't. I think most of us have already learned that when it comes down to credibility or lack thereof only your opinion counts.

 

[stretched]

LG
"with free will and the marginal capacity for independence you mean?"

If we have a "marginal" capacity for independence we can not sin as we have minimal control. This god is thus an unfair and cruel being. Also this god is impotent and immoral. What use is such a god? We are in a no win situation. Logic dictates there is no god and mankind in this example is acting out of pure animal human nature. Whether this god exists or not, the incident still happens. Why?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

except I can refer you to sources in history and philosophy - you know, real persons in fields of philosophy and science in history
”
I would request again that you show why history is of any relevance to the reality of a god.

even science can get a bit whaky if your doivorce its current practice from it s historical continuum

Does Gilgamesh exist because real people believed in him and it was written about a long time ago?

certainly following the historic traditions that have (or haven't) supported it up to th epresent would help determine its validity

Can I refer you to those sources and say "hey look LG, Gilgamesh exists"?

Don't be naive.

historical source smeans more than the wild guesses by someone in the anthropology dept

“
while you can refer me to craft manuals for st patricks day - do you see the discrepency
”
What orifice did you pull that statement from?

google - lenny the leprechaun brings up a lot of craft activities for st patricks day

The discrepancy here is you're making things up.

do a google search ( and bring your own crayons and scissors)

I said nothing about craft manuals,

then you truly are not familiar with lenny the leprechaun and ar ethe laughing stock of every child activity centre on st patricks day

and told you the book of Lenny exists. If you show genuine curiosity I shall let you read it.

real religion doesn't need to dress its self up in the garb of esoteric mysticism to lend it authority (although such things certainly attract those bereft of theoretical foundation)

“

at least when one talks of electrons or religion one can refer to actual texts and actual persons
”
Oh I see, and I'm just a robot and these aren't real words, they're imaginary ones.

certainly your lenny book and the historical continuum behind the involved practices are

“
god is a far way away - at the moment we are just discussing whether actual books and actual people stand behind the claims being made
”
That would depend entirely on whether I am an actual person or not. Hmmmm let me think for a moment.....

we are not discussing your existence - we are discussing how substantial the book of lenny an d the historical continuum behind the involved practices are - at least according to google, the answer can be found in references to craft activities on st patricks day

“
Bertrand Russel's analogy works when there is no platform of direct perception
”
Great so we differ because I do have direct perception, and so can you if you go through the process that one must go through to attain direct perception, (YOUR exact argument).

except I can source real people (aside from myself) and real books (outside of craft manuals for st patricks day)

“
have you indicated the book of lenny exists within any credible field of intelligent inquiry?
”
Credible to who? You?

any historical continuum that involves lengthy criticism,preferably in fields of philosophy (like you can find with any scripture you care to mention)

“
we've been there -yawn
”
See? High school dropout unwilling to try the process but thinking he can actually say something about it. The hypocrisy is extraordinary.

but we have actually been there already - remember - knock on wood - did you read the link I gave to it - we took the conversation to a certain distance and then you just dropped it - and now you want to start it again (C'mon, I must have wasted a whole 180 seconds of my time just to locate the old link)

“
you might want to reread what was said before to save rehashing old issues - particularly in regard to knocking on wood etc
”
I fail to see the relevance of the link. Have you tried the process, yes or no?

erm - we were discussing that in the link I gave but then you dropped it

“
it would help take the discussion out of the sand pit for a start , and further more you suggested it
”
I mentioned that the process has a history to it because you, for some bizarre reason, seem fixed upon history -

even science operates on the same 'bizzare' foundation - it helps determine whether something is 'substantial' or 'progressive'

that something must have been written about a long time ago to be true.

since you are failing to come across as an intelligent person in yoru advocation of lenny, certainly citing a few intelligent people along the way (preferably with credible links to history) would certainly help your case

I suppose this is one of your arguments against evolution.. "they didn't write about it thousands of years ago!"

actually my argument about evolution is that is accepted as an empirical fact even though it transgresses the prerequisites for empiricism (and interestingly enough, this is revealed by studying the historical continuum on the subject)

I'm sorry but I just fail to see the worth of your argument.

my argument does not rest on my own subjective nonsense - it relies on the foundations by which we accept or reject something according to standards of empiricism

“
certainly help you take the discussion out of a myopic spirals into imagination, particularly since you insist it is all factual, historical and acclaimed by the direct perception of credible persons
”
You'll know it's factual if you go through the process,

since its only you stating the process you will require a bit more rather than wild claims

I am a credible person,

at the very least, google disagrees

and I still fail to see the relevance of something being written about millennia ago as making it true.

for a start it helps one from making the folly of believing in the words of a goofball

“
but there is such a thing as a person getting free from a sin
”
But there is no such thing as a sinless person. The point.

some people are cultivating sin and some people are reducing sin

“
and guess whose example christians follow?
”
A pointless point. jesus could apparently walk on water. Because christians follow jesus example does that mean they too can walk on water?

luckily jesus didn't require them to do that in the name of christianity - he did how ever give numerous instructions which seem to get back to the point of not being a sinful brute

No, don't be foolish. So once again: The only person ever to have been sinless was jesus so your starting point is worthless.

and by following jesus's instructions (which don't involve walking on water - thats kind of optional) one can reduce one's brutish mentality which can allow for the beginning of a glimmer of understanding god

“

jesus is god?
I thought he said he was the son of god?
”
Guess christianity isn't your strong point.

It depends entirely upon sects.

congratulations - looks like you are developing some spiritual discrimination (unless of course you feel that anyone who says anything about jesus can be accepted as a christian)

“
having direct perception of god certainly made the task easier
”
Or more to the point.. being god certainly made the task easier.

its not clear why you think it is impossible for a living entity to be sinless

“
I think you are messing up in the theoretical foundation
”
See the walking on water part to work out your error, then your thoughts here will change. It's not me messing up, it's you.

would walking on water make one sinless?

“
although it may be possible that you can encounter pathetic versions of christianity that advocate there is no use attempting to refrain from sin
”
Sorry, who decides they're pathetic?

if their bottom line is "You can't stop sinning so why bother but jesus died for your sins, and no doubt he will do it again, so just keep on going with whatever floats your boat" it seems pretty pathetic

You right?

scripture - you know, that funny book that you are accustomed to throwing in the bin and tormenting your dog with?

Now, if you ever paid any attention you'll see I mentioned nothing about not attempting to refrain from sin, just the the goal, (a sinless state), is unattainable.

so if sinlessness is unattainable, why endeavor for it?
(sadly, this is the state of affairs amongst many christians stabilized on an unsatisfactory standard of performance)
“

at the very least I wouldn't expect a high level of credible information from them in relation to god
”
Of course you wouldn't. I think most of us have already learned that when it comes down to credibility or lack thereof only your opinion counts.

so you think, but actually credibility comes down to people who matter saying it is credible, hence a historical continuum can help your case

 

[lightgigantic]

LG
"with free will and the marginal capacity for independence you mean?"

If we have a "marginal" capacity for independence we can not sin as we have minimal control.

no - it just means the extent of your activities are curtailed - just like a person can remain a criminal to their hearts content, but they will probably end up in jail and be retained by four large walls

This god is thus an unfair and cruel being.

if one insists in being a criminal (by misuse of independence) they wind up in jail - sounds more reasonable than the prime minister giving them a cheque for half a million dollars don't you think?

Also this god is impotent and immoral.

if an agency can place one in jail for misuse of one's independence they sound both potent and moral

What use is such a god?

the same as the use of the power of state - management

We are in a no win situation.

give up being a criminal and get out of jail - sounds easy

Logic dictates there is no god and mankind in this example is acting out of pure animal human nature.

before you venture into logic you should establish your premises

Whether this god exists or not, the incident still happens. Why?

I am not sure what you are talking about here