Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

I will be glad to solidify the conclusions I wish to draw, which is
this: I want atheists to agree with the following conclusion:
____________
If {11} is not true.
Then {12} is not true
But if {11} and {12} are true, then {14} is ALSO true
_________________________________________

{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross.

 

I note that you seem to like using the concepts of
"irrelevant" and "isn't relevant" quite a lot --- even though I
try hard to make my points practical and useful and keep
them out of the area of mere philosophical speculation.

For example as a human being I have an interest in Fry's
ultimate well-being. My Christian faith teaches me to Love
people. Love means desiring what is in their best long term
interest as I understand that to be. You dismissed my piece
about Fry's certain coming Death Bed End as "irrelevant"
to some point you had in mind that you thought was what
really mattered -- but maybe there is more important
realities afoot.

Love can turn and go down a different road, can it not?
How many are staying strictly on topic in this thread
anyway -- so why can't I turn and do an aside for a
short-jiffy?

Put yourself in Fry's shoes. Picture yourself included
in this story and tell me how it makes you feel. In fact
let me do a Fry-JAG-Swensson story and ask you
for your true feelings on it.

Fry-JAG-Swensson will at some point need a Friend
more than they need to hold forth with philosophical,
political and religious pontifications.

Fry-JAG-Swensson Needs A Friend.
by JAG
The song says "What A Friend We Have In Jesus."
We all have "murderers" that know where we live
and want to harm us. Here are some of those ugly
Killers that are on our trail:
Cancer.
Coronary Artery Disease
Stroke
Lower Respiratory Infection
Diabetes Mellitus
Alzheimer's
Its just a matter of time before one them makes
contact with us. You know this is true.

Moreover Fry-JAG-Swensson are up against two
fierce battlefield generals. General Time and General
Death. They have never lost a battle. They never will
lose one. They are Aging followed by Death.

If Fry-JAG-Swensson die from natural causes there
will come a time when they are going to be far more
interested in their Central Nervous System and their
Physical Bodies than in their participation in philosophical,
religious and political pontifications. .

There will come a point when General Time and
General Death beat Fry-JAG-Swensson to
Death unmercifully. Cancer can be especially
painful -- showing no mercy.

Fry-JAG-Swensson will be laying on our last
battlefield, our Death Bed, with General Time
and General Death hovering over us and our
Doctor, at some point, will shake his head and
walk away. At this time Fry-JAG-Swensson will
need a Savior. Science will not be there for us.
Logic will not be there for us, Empiricism will not
be there for us. Rationalism will not be there for
us. Cogent Argument will not be there for us.
Astute quotes from various philosophers will
not be there for us to give us comfort. We will
die. So? So Fry-JAG-Swensson will need a
Friend and a Savior at the Certain Coming End
of this life. John 3:16 . . .and . .
"God . . .will never leave you or forsake you"
Deuteronomy 31:6

__________

* Swensson, do you ever give any thought to
what I wrote about up there?
* Isn't that up there interesting to you?
* How could it not be, when you KNOW for a fact
that YOU will, for absolute certain, fully participate
in what I described? ---if you die a natural death.
* Do you think it ought to be dismissed without
serious consideration?
* Is there anything about Certain-Coming-Death
that you find uncomfortable?
* Do you believe Logic, Empiricism, Rationalism,
Cogent Argument, and Secular Humanism, will
be there for you on your Death Bed, to give you
comfort?

`

 

Cool phraseology.
I smiled.
Sometimes you can be an interesting wordsmith.

`

 

Can you tell me more about that?
Were you at one time a Christian?
Protestant?
Catholic?
What happened?
Ignore this if you prefer not to answer.

 

The subject was the Personhood of God.
_____________________________________________________
JAG Wrote:
Consider the possibility of God being a Person like you are a person.

Genesis 1:27 "God created man in His own image, in the image of God
He created them."

If you want to know what God is like, go into your bathroom and look in
the mirror at yourself, and you will see and know what God is like. You
were created in God's image.

{ I obviously do NOT mean your physical image or your physical appearance. }

I interpret the "image of God" in Genesis 1:27 to be as follows:

These are the 3 major areas that demonstrate the image of God in human beings

(1) God has an Intellect --- man has an Intellect.

(2) God has a Free Will (volition) --- man has a Free Will

(3) God has Emotions --- man has Emotions.
______________________________________

"Its reasonable to believe a Person did all this below"___JAG
_______

“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks
suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves.

For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples
of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws
of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious
beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be
lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if
"a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".

To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a
designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics.

Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and
you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. It happens that you need to set
thirtysomething knobs to fully describe the world about us. The crucial point
is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned very precisely, or
the universe would be sterile.

Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other
way around, atoms couldn't exist, because all the protons in the universe
would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons,
then no atomic nucleuses and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life.
Like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems
to be just right for life.”
― Paul Davies
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/fine-tuning

_______________________________________________

I believe its reasonable to believe a Person with an Intellect
created and designed this Universe and put it all together so
that it works in perfect life-sustaining harmony.

________

PS
Arguments against Multiverse Speculation to explain fine-tuning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Arguments_against_multiverse_theories



`
`

 

Sure hundreds of our earthly activities matter a great deal.
I will modify what I said and express it this way, "What is
most important, of all the many things that are important,
is where we spend Eternity after we die." At best life is very
short. If you live to be 100, you have a mere 1200 months
to live here on this Earth.

Regarding Certain Coming Death . .
Here Is JAG's Life Is Short Chart:
Based on natural death at age 95
If you are age:
40 you have 660 months left to live
50 you have 540 months left to live
60 you have 420 months
70 you have 300 months
80 you have 180 months

The Lord Jesus said that a man would gain nothing if he
gained the entire world, yet lost his soul, which meant
that if he failed to gain Eternal Life he would lose
everything.{Matthew 16:26} This makes good sense
because you cannot take anything from this world
with you, when you leave this world. Absolute fact.


`

 

Try reversing that. These are all attributes given to any god by man

 

And the majority of "believers" spin that into man creating god in man's image. Whenever they say "look in the mirror" to see what god looks like, THAT is what they are doing.

 

"God created man in his own image. And man, being a gentleman, returned the favor."
- Henri Rousseau -

 

What a waste of time and effort. All you've done is show you believe in a god to whom you attribute all these things. Everything is simply your opinion.

 

Ok, then why do you believe it, and not Hinduism? It seems merely a product of which tradition you're brought up in, which means you believing it has nothing to do with it being true.

 

The post I replied to asked whether this was something I would agree with, not what other atheists would say. Your question was:

Here below is what I understand you to be agreeing with:
{I removed the one about agnostics to avoid unnecessary
confusion}

So you agree with the point made in the following:
(source)​

It does not seems to refer to what atheists say. Either way, it is confusing enough that one of us has it wrong, if it was concise and to the point, the difference wouldn't matter.

My point here was that if we don't agree with the Bible anyway, then 7 does not follow from 6, since the Bible can just be mistaken (which is indeed what many atheists think). In particular, the points already include point 7, point 6 seems not to add to the argument, it just introduces uncertainties and extra long-wordedness.

Again, you seem to avoid a point that I have made. An atheist may agree that 13 and 14 are true, but that is not the same as saying that atheists should be expected to "advocate" it, or create posts about it. The points they present are presented because they illustrate a particular point, and therefore they have a purpose. Points 13 and 14 do not illustrate that point, or any very closely related points, and so are irrelevant in the context, just as 2+2=4 would be irrelevant to the discussion, and therefore aren't brought up.

The problem is that points 13 and 14 do not lead to an argument that says that God is evil or that God is good. The idea that atheists should list things because they are true is mistaken, they (and everyone else) should list things that illustrate the point they are making, and that is what they do.

I disagree. It seems to me plenty of people have agreed with the logic you have presented, but do not agree with your unjustified conclusion that atheists are to be expected to keep repeating it.

 

With the exception of course that if the atheists are right, then there is no additional eternity, and in face those 40 or 70 year you have to live is 100% of your life, and you have quite able to use it fruitfully. Again, you construct arguments which only work if you already accept the conclusion, which is circular reasoning, and a fallacy. It's not actually a good reason to believe something.

 

Well, then what does God doing good things have to do with anything? As I've mentioned, the points that atheists bring up are used because they provide a straight logical path from some premises to some conclusion. The same seems not to be true with the other points that you keep trying to add in.

I'm not saying you can't do asides, I'm saying you shouldn't be surprised to find that atheists aren't making your personal favourite asides when it doesn't affect their argument.

Yes, it is interesting, it warrants a fair bit of thought and I have given it a fair bit of thought (that's not to say I'm not open to thinking more about it). However, none of this resolves the comment I had, which was that we were already engaged in another important and interesting conversation, and you seem to have used this line of thought to avoid answering questions on that topic. Like with the 2+2=4 example, it is very interesting, but it would be dishonest to use that to derail another interesting conversation.

 

That's not the conclusion I was referring to, I was referring to your repeated conclusion that atheists are expected to post threads about it, or insert it into other discussions.

 

I would argue that you have mistaken the principle. They have presented an argument from evil, and they have the principle to present supporting pieces of argument. To be consistent with that principle, they would have to present 12, and they do. They have no principle that says that they must present every other proposition which follows or may be at the same time true, so it makes sense that they wouldn't present it. In short, the problem is that you have misidentified the principle in question, not that the atheists are doing anything particularly weird.

 

Well, I'm referring to what atheists say. If the person we're talking about is secretly not an atheist, then by definition, we're not talking about them.

 

Sure, but it seems like even more of an aside to what is already a confusingly wide line of argument.

I was brought up in Sweden, and for a few years, my parents sent me to the local Lutheran church. I'm not certain that I could describe my beliefs perfectly, but I don't think I would say I believed in Christianity. My best friend for many years was South-German Catholic, I went to a (secular) choir school, through which we studied music from many different religions. I've lived in Calvinist Switzerland, Anglican Scotland and England, I attended an Anglican Bible discussion group (really non-denominational, but organised by an Anglican priest). In my spare time (not to be confused with formal education), I've studied Buddhism, Taoism, old testament, Hare Krishna, philosophy, and kept relatively up to date with the atheism debate, and have a decent amount of information and understanding of other views as well.

Between all these views (as well as the knowledge that other ideas exist, and that the truth might be inconsistent with all of the above), it is not enough for a religion to present something that is internally consistent (they all do that), but really, "what happened" is that nothing happened, about any of these.

 

Swensson, thank you for that post.
I see you have replied to several of my posts.
I will get back with you on all of them as soon as possible.
Sounds like you have had an interesting life up there.

Yah. It is a wide line of argument.
i have no idea what the subject is , , LOL , ,

Later , , ,

 

This is silly, God didn't create the Universe. God IS the universe. He doesn't get credit or blame for good or evil because neither one of those things exists without the other. And it's no less than Augustine that says that.

 

Points:

They say honesty is always the best policy.
They are correct.

So honestly what you call "circular reasoning"
is what the Bible requires of each person.

This would have to be true because Christianity
is a Faith.

If Christianity was an intellectual system based
on Science, Logic, Empiricism, and Rationalism
then it could be tested and measured like other
physical entities in the material world.
But it is not that.

It is in a Faith system that requires "circular reasoning"
that is, the Bible is presented to you by God's apostles
and you are thereby told by Him that it is true. "All
Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching"
said Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16

Paul says that the "Holy Scriptures are able to make you
wise unto salvation which is in Christ Jesus the Lord",
in 2 Timothy 3:15
_________

Paul says that it is the Holy Spirit that bears witness with
out spirit that we are the children of God, in Romans 8:16

This is how we can know that Christianity is true, and how
we can know that Hinduism is not true.

The Lord Jesus in John 3:3 explained that a man had to
be "born again" before he could understand spiritual
truths. Sometime take a peek at John 3:1-21
___________

Paul says the natural man, that is, the man that has
not been "born again" cannot understand spiritual
truths because they are revealed by the Holy Spirit.

This means they are not revealed through Science,
Empiricism, and Rationalism.
Here is the quote:
____________________________________________
"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things
that come from the Spirit of God but considers them
foolishness, and cannot understand them because they
are discerned only through the Spirit.1 Corinthians 2:14
_____________________________________________

If I told you otherwise, I would be telling you a lie.
Sure you can "pick to pieces" what I told you up there.
I fully understand that. And you will do that. You can not
do otherwise. The Bible is bold and clear that you
cannot do otherwise. It specifically says that the man
without the Holy Spirit cannot understand spiritual truths.
1 Corinthians 2:14

Christianity is a supernatural faith and attempts to make
it an intellectual system that can be demonstrated true
with Empiricism will always end in skepticism and unbelief.

By the why the simple "sinner's prayer" is powerful and has
been used by God to save untold millions of human beings.

Pray the following prayer sincerely, from the heart, and
your life will do a sudden miraculous turn-around. Its
supernatural.
_____________________________________________
"Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for
Your forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose
from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come
into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as my
Lord and Savior. In Your Name. Amen."
_____________________________________________

You wrote some interesting stuff up there.
I'll be back later , , ,


``

 

JAG wrote:
{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross

But they want it both ways.
They want to say that the "God-That-Does-Not-Exist causes
or is ultimately responsible for the evil in the world. They say
this in threads all the time. They base this on {6} through {12} up
there.
So? So if {6} through {12} are not true, then they ought to stop
claiming that the God-That-Does-Not-Exist is ultimately responsible
for the evil in the world.
And if {6} through {12} is true, then God is also responsible for causing
the good in the world, Hospitals, Warm Beaches, the Red Cross, etc
and we're back to {13} and {14} being true.

I will be glad to try and face the point head on.
I can't understand why they would not advocate it. Atheists
say they desire the truth. If {6} through {12} is what they
believe and it IS what they believe ---then {13} and {14}
will logically follow.
The DO create posts advocating {6} through {12}. They do
this all the time in threads.
So? So why not create some posts that also present
{13} and {14}?
Why would they do that?
Because Atheists love the truth.
They say they do.
So? So if {6} through {12} are true,
then {13} and {14} are also true.
Proclaim the truth!

I want to help them see the light. LOL
They need to learn to embrace {6) through {14} and NOT only
{6} through {12} which is what they now do.

{13} and {14} do not illustrate the points that THEY want to make,
but {13} and {14} DO illustrate the points JAG wants to make.
Question: Am I merely a "ham sandwich" , , LOL , , Why is it
that what JAG wants is not important, but what OTHERS want
IS important? Why is that?

I understand that.
My point is NOT that God IS good or that God IS evil.
My point is that God PERFORMS both good and evil acts
based upon {6} through {14}. Remember {6} through {12}
is what atheist say --- {6} through {12} is NOT what JAG
says. I do NOT have to be consistent with a position
that I do NOT hold. But atheists do. Why? because they
DO hold {6} through {12} to be true and they DO advocate
for {6} through {12} all the time in threads. You know they do,

I disagree.
What is true ought to be stated.
Because it is true.
That is reason enough.

Exactly.
That IS what they do.
They "pick & choose" what they like and what they don't like.
Cherry picking is what they call it. And inconsistency.
They need to embrace {6} through {14} below:
________________
{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross
________________________________________________________

Why do they keep repeating {6} through {12}?
Answer: Because they LOVE {6} through {12}.
Why do they NOT advocate {13} and {14}?
Answer" Because they DON'T LIKE {13} and {14}.
Its called cherry picking.
Or better its called being inconsistent.
You cannot deny that its being inconsistent.
Here is the message they send out:
We like {6} through {12} because it serves our interest.
We do NOT like {13} and {14} because they do NOT
serve out interest.


More Later , , ,

 

I agree with that, as long as you substitute "This god, if he exists," for "God."

I don't think I've ever met an atheist who wouldn't agree, as it's basic logic.

But what's the point you're trying to make? After all, atheists have still demonstrated that said god is _not_ omnibenevolent, which rules out the existence of the Christian version of god. Saying "but look, God does good as well as evil!" doesn't refute the fact that said god is not omnibenevolent, which was the point of the argument.

That is, atheists leave out 13 and 14 not because of inconsistency, but because they're not relevant to the proof that this god is not omnibenevolent.

So, we're not beng inconsistent. You're misrepresenting our position.

 

I have explained it all below:

{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross
______________

Some Atheists want it both ways.
They want to say that the "God-That-Does-Not-Exist causes
or is ultimately responsible for the evil in the world. They say
this in threads all the time. They base this on {6} through {12} up
there.
So? So if {6} through {12} are not true, then they ought to stop
claiming that the God-That-Does-Not-Exist is ultimately responsible
for the evil in the world.
And if {6} through {12} is true, then God is also responsible for causing
the good in the world, Hospitals, Warm Beaches, the Red Cross, etc
and we're back to {13} and {14} being true.

.
Atheists say they desire the truth. If {6} through {12} is what they
believe and it IS what they believe ---then {13} and {14}
will logically follow.
The DO create posts advocating {6} through {12}. They do
this all the time in threads.
So? So why not create some posts that also present
{13} and {14}?
Why would they do that?
Because Atheists love the truth.
They say they do.
So? So if {6} through {12} are true,
then {13} and {14} are also true.
Proclaim the truth!

I want to help them see the light.
They need to learn to embrace {6) through {14} and NOT only
{6} through {12} which is what they now do.

{13} and {14} do not illustrate the points that THEY want to make,
but {13} and {14} DO illustrate the points JAG wants to make.
Question: Why is it that what JAG wants is not important, but
what OTHERS want IS important? Why is that? This is my thread.
Am I not allowed to discuss ONLY the subject of my own thread?
Can not you go and start your own thread? And discuss what you
want to discuss? Yes you can do that.

My point is NOT that God IS good or that God IS evil.
My point is that God PERFORMS both good and evil acts
based upon {6} through {14}. Remember {6} through {12}
is what atheist say --- {6} through {12} is NOT what JAG
says. I do NOT have to be consistent with a position
that I do NOT hold. But atheists do. Why? because they
DO hold {6} through {12} to be true and they DO advocate
for {6} through {12} all the time in threads. You know they do,

What is true ought to be stated.
Because it is true.
That is reason enough to state it.

Some Atheists "pick & choose" what they like and what
they don't like.
Cherry picking is what they call it. And inconsistency.
They need to embrace {6} through {14} below:
________________
{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross

Why do they keep repeating {6} through {12}?
Answer: Because they LOVE {6} through {12}.
Why do they NOT advocate {13} and {14}?
Answer" Because they DON'T LIKE {13} and {14}.
Its called cherry picking.
Or better its called being inconsistent.
You cannot deny that its being inconsistent.
Here is the message they send out:
We like {6} through {12} because it serves our interest.
We do NOT like {13} and {14} because they do NOT
serve out interest.

No.
Regarding Omnibenevolence:
That is not my subject.
It may be your subject.
But its not mine.
My Opening Post is NOT about God's Omnibenevolence.
My Opening Post has NOTHING to say about God's Omnibenevolence.
My Opening Post and my follow-up posts in this thread is strictly limited
to what I put up-post under your question "But what's the point you're
trying to make" --- and limited to what I put in my opening Post.

I say the following in kindness:
If you want to discuss God's Omnibenevolence then you need to start
your own thread. This thread has NOTHING to do with God's
Omnibenevolence.

Anyone who does not wish to stay within the limits of my Opening Post
ought to go start their own thread and talk about what they want to talk
about.

This below is what my Opening Post is strictly limited to:
_____________________________________________
"My point is NOT that God IS good or that God IS evil.
My point is that God PERFORMS both good and evil acts
based upon {6} through {14}. Remember {6} through {12}
is what atheist say --- {6} through {12} is NOT what JAG
says. I do NOT have to be consistent with a position
that I do NOT hold. But atheists do. Why? because they
DO hold {6} through {12} to be true and they DO advocate
for {6} through {12} all the time in threads."___JAG
_____________________________________________





``

 

If God is truly responsible for evil things, then he is not omnibenevolent, which would disprove God as a concept (at least in the omnibenevolent form). Point 12 can be used to make that argument, so it makes sense to mention it.

Point 14 however, cannot be used to prove that God is evil or good or exists, or anything like that. So, there is no reason for it (at least in the context that these atheists use it) which means it would at best be a distraction.

I'm sure they want truths, but I don't think they want truths in an unintelligible mess, or for people to use one truth to hide another. Again, your assumption that things that are true should be proclaimed at the expense of other things seems simply unfounded.

I have shown you that they acknowledge 14 as well, the only issue is your assertion that atheists would be inclined to post it all over the place or insert it into arguments where it doesn't fit.

You're welcome to make whatever points you want, and so are they. However, you're not resolving the issue they bring up by talking about some other points, and they are not wrong in leaving out statements that don't address their point.

If that is your point, why are you expecting atheists, who are already making their own point, to provide lines of argument to it? Stephen Fry very likely does not know who you are or what points you would make, why would he have to take your point into account? Again, I'm happy for you to make whatever points you want, I'm questioning your insistence that atheists should do it for you, when it doesn't address or impact their point.

Why? 2+2=4 is true, yet it would seem irrelevant to state it. In particular, if someone is presenting an argument, stating things (even true things) that don't have an impact on the argument is irrelevant, and likely a distraction or red herring, all things to be avoided. If you asked a shopkeeper "how much is this chocolate bar?", and they answered "grass is green", he would be avoiding/dodging the question underhandedly/unnecessarily, even if it is true that grass is green.

They pick and choose what to present, just like we all do in every situation. That's not inconsistent any more than it is inconsistent for you to not say that 2+2=4.

No, because 6 through 12 directly lead to the argument of evil, which is what they're trying to present (indeed, it's the only reason they're entertaining the thought of point 3).