Arguments Against GOD - Part 1

[soapmt123]

you just burnt your own arguement if god is not bound by logic ( that is correct)

then he can create a rock so heavy in both way he can't and CAN lift since he is not bound by logic .

[camoaut]

I can't explain to you these things. Once you get the holy spirit on you, you cannot deny god. Jesus didn't hang around with religious people. he hung out with the sinners, trying to teach them.. all i can say is if you truly wanted to fell gods power you need to want his power. So if you don't want his power, you can never feel it. He gives us a choice. Have you ever felt as if something is missing in your life? nothing can feel it permenantly, only temporary. come to church and give it a try.

[smalltownatheist]

@camoaut This is the problem with thinking like that: in order to believe, you have to first believe. That's not the right way to go about finding out the validity of things. Instead, you should only believe things when there's first a reason to. The way you're talking (and I espoused this very same thing when I was a tongue-talking Christian) is to first believe and then look for reasons to back it up. That's not how things work. Wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.

[camoaut]

I can't explain to you these things. Once you get the holy spirit on you, you cannot deny god. Jesus didn't hang around with religious people. he hung out with the sinners, trying to teach them.. all i can say is if you truly wanted to fell gods power you need to want his power. He gives us a choice. I will pray for you.

[Lifeistehe]

God created the universe and us for his delight and pleasure, being perfect and holy has nothing to do with it. You can be flawless and perfect and still delight in your own creations.

[helpmetony]

I feel sad now.

[SLBS1234]

First Argument

This argument makes two huge assumptions. First, how do you know god had a reason to create our universe.

Second, both your first and second arguments assume that human intellect is the highest form of intelligence possible. Provide me a shred of evidence that this is true.

[SLBS1234]

Second Argument

The omnipotence paradox is flawed. Precisely because god is all-powerful there are certain things he cannot do. For example, god cannot make a mistake. Neither can he create a self contradiction. An example of a self contradiction is a circular square or 2+2=5. So the answer to your question is no, god cannot create a self contradiction within our universe, as such contradictions cannot exist within our universe.

[NYballa12]

"Can god create a rock so big he can not lift?"

As you said you can't say yes or no but how can you make a argument against someone you don't fully understand

[ransomholland]

"Can good create a rock so big he can not lift?"

NO

Why..... well it's not the size of the rock that causes God problems [or the idea of God a problem] but rather believing he has a power so great he can't control. By saying God has this power means that there is something more powerful then God and that would be God's own powers.... But according to scripture NOTHING IS MORE POWERFUL.

[ransomholland]

So,... if God has full control over all his abilities [even though his abilities or endless] he therefore could not make a rock soooo big he can't lift. Because like his infinite power the size of that rock would have to be beyond an infinite size [which is impossible].

[latinoheatlopez]

The first part of your video didn't even consist of a logical argument, it was actually just a question that involves an implicit argument. You ask, "what reason would a perfect being have to create the universe?" while presupposing the answer is there is no reason. If you could provide sufficient support for that postulation then your "argument" would hold more ground. But you didn't even do that much. That would be a great starting point.

[smalltownatheist]

Perfection implies lack of need or want. Many theists insist that God created the universe for someone to love him, or for some other reason that has a base in need. There is no reason for a perfect being to need, want, or lack anything.

[latinoheatlopez]

Perfection not only implies a lack of need and want, but also a lack of change. Any theist that claims the above of God is making a crucial mistake. God does not want or need anything from humanity, rather humanity needs God. Also, God is immutable. For a theist to deny this is to deny God all together. So I'm not really sure where a theist would get off asserting that.

[latinoheatlopez]

And your argument is named the "no reason" argument for a purpose I'm assuming, that there is no reason for God creating the universe. I asked what support you may have for that conclusion.

[othellopiano]

@smalltownatheist  What theists hold that view? o_O...

[bogesintehhouse]

of course you can prove that god doesn't exist if you explain it in terms of a self-referential system. "can god make a rock so big he cant lift it?" is a form of godel's theorem, and godels theorem showed that logic in self-referential systems is incomplete. so you cant be logical about a form of logic that is invalid at the most fundamental level, you can try but in the end its nothing more then the musings of biological beings confined to mental strait-jackets.

[paul8bee]

Here is how I work it. I upgrade my definition of god, and state that god is absolute reality, and if the whole is but a sum of its parts, then Volcano's on mars, or fish in the sea, or religious ideas are part of that reality. No one item can define the whole. Religion can explain a small part of the picture, science can fill in a lot of parts,and the rest will eventually make sense if you just keep on asking your questions. The answers will come. Then share what have learned.

[aniretakaks]

therefore GOD knewing this or poor human nature with attand to save us and teach us was born in the body of Jesus and he proove to us with the facts that God is most powerfll and showed us many mirakles that he is doing even this days , but we don`t want to see that, he died and resurrected in front of world`s eyes to give us proof of the truth. and even after this he done for us we are still denaying him. shame of us and that`s why he is so angry to us and in a short future u`ll see who is GOD!

[aniretakaks]

so we are born with this ego that don`t give us possibilitis for see the reality as it is coz we are subjectiv creatures. for exsample one child from 3 years believe is the most powerful, most perfect and that he can get what ever he want or else he will cry, so we must teach him or put him limits of his ego. so if want to grow up in more higher spiritual level we must see the things as they are no metter if that will hurt our ego or not.

[aniretakaks]

God was exsisting ,He is and He will. our human nature is to believe in what ever our ego want`s. our ego is controling us. so if we want to believe that there is no God, and we have freedom to do killing, raping, stealing, lying,torturing, care only about us etc. in this case we`ll not like idea of god`s existing coz we`ll not like the idea of punishment`s.

[e1m2m3a4l5i6n7e8]

fuck yourself

[noizeof77]

Athiests are glittering jewels of collossal ignorance. You can't contrast logic and faith. Just as Christians can't "prove" there is a God, you can't prove there isn't. Basing arguments against creation with a THEORY of the Big Bang, is exactly the same. You people simply replace God with chance. So believe in a chance thats been around for over 2000 yrs,that teaches values, or one thats been arnd 200, that teaches unrest, rebellion, and lack of morality?

[Magnulus76]

It seems to me you aren't arguing against God, so much as a particular idea about God. Why would God create? Only God would know for sure. Some have suggested it is part of his being or nature. God is a "living God", he is not simply an abstract principle, he is immanent as well as trascendent.

[fluffywoods]

Christians are all losers.

Christians cannot think for themselves and need a bible to help them justify all actions.

Christians do not understand that they are a part of the human race and connected to the 'collective consciousness' that is what makes a human. Christians do not also understand that the bible and 'religion' is a form of materialism. Christians are in chains everywhere........put that on your plate and eat it.

[fluffywoods]

If people knew their history they would know that the word 'god' has evolved from the word back in time for the meaning of 'sun'.

The word 'god' basically means 'light' which was what was worshipped back in the pagan times. Light was the meaning of life and death back then for the pagans. So as we can see words/language/culture also evolves. Christianity like all other evolved things must do what it can to survive.

[MinisterMatthew]

atheist it is nice to see someone have regular, non- angry or i should say calm relevant arguments.. I am going to subscribe to you so that we can debat on this for a while and pick it apart to see diffrent angels of the situation

[MinisterMatthew]

that last comment was to battle armornot you small town atheist

[Richardtheincredible]

The Omnipotence Paradox makes little sense. God also can't lie, that doesn't mean he's not God, its just a against his nature.

[smalltownatheist]

"God's nature" appears to be defined as "the things that God is capable of doing." In this case, the claim of omnipotence is nothing more than the tautological statement, "God can do all things that God can do." Under this usage, people are also "omnipotent."

[Richardtheincredible]

you've created the logic by which you disprove God. Which is also not "logical"

[battlereadyarmor]

no offense, im completely down with these kinds of debates... but to be honest, they are irrelevant. instead of arguing about what you think... try arguing about the historical facts. the story of horus from egypt pretty much disproves the christian faith. its the same story of jesus, only its 4000 years older. christianity is a FRAUD. all you believers are being FOOLED.

[smalltownatheist]

I know, but I think it's still relevant to point out the absurdities and fallacies in their arguments. If you understand why certain things are impossible, you'll see the reasons not to believe in them...or at least feel foolish for doing so.

[MinisterMatthew]

wow if I make a documentary and put it on tv you'll bellieve it!

[offlots]

Something else interesting; (No, I'm not Christian, I've just read a bit o' da bible...) In Genesis Jacob (Re-named Isreal after this encounter I believe...) wrestles God. Jacob wrestles so well, God submits and withdraws. Jacob sees, the entire encounter, not the face of God. If God created a man who could best Him in a wrestling match (Knowingly and such...), was not God's will seen through? And again, is that not power (To most folks?)?

[offlots]

If God is present as both lifter and stone, and the two of them interact, can one overcome the other? If, whatever the outcome of that "Inter" - action, God is present in both lifter and stone, is not God's will seen through? And is that not power (To most folks?)?

[mannella12]

haha

This is great.

I am currently writing a paper in my language and paradox class on this very subject (the omnipotence paradox) so we are seeing eye to eye. The easy way out is in fact: God is not limited by logic/space & time. Is God outside of logical constraints though?

This type of paradox rests on a presupposition. That presupposition is: Rationality does not allow for inconsistency.

Good work, I enjoyed this. Keep 'em coming.

-Chelsea

[Matur1n]

God obviously values good companions. I don't at all see why you think that makes him imperfect. Seems to me a "loner" like you want him to be isn't very perfect.

[BattleshipTx]

The term "perfect" is meaningless without context. A titanium hammer may be the perfect birthday gift for a carpenter, but a lousy gift for a 10 year old girl wexpecting a new dollie. You can't just throw the word "perfect" out there and it have meaning without context. You make the unsupported claim that "perfect" beings wouldn't want. Obviously untrue. Why did you assume that? A being that didn't want anything wouldn't be perfect. God is perfect as he wants stuff AND achieves what he wants.

[smalltownatheist]

"A being that didn't want anything wouldn't be perfect."

Oh? How so? You also claim to know that "God is perfect", yet you give no proof.

[BattleshipTx]

Since I don't think the term perfect means anything without context, maybe in some contexts he isn't perfect. He isn't the perfect villain, as he is good and loving. He isn't the perfect village idiot, as he is too smart.

I just don't see any reason wanting something would be a flaw or why you assume that it is. Certainly a being that didn't want anything would be boring, stilted and not going anywhere. Wanting things and achieving them seems important for any healthy being.

[smalltownatheist]

I agree that "perfect" can be ambiguous.  It seems you're basing the idea of not wanting something = being boring on a "human" level, no? This is supposedly the creator of everything we're talking about. I thought he was perfect in every way? If not, what way is he "perfect"?

And you still haven't given me any proof of how you know *any* of this.

[Matur1n]

"This is supposedly the creator of everything we're talking about. I thought he was perfect in every way?"

Why would you think a perfect entity would be an anti-social loner? Wouldn't someone who is perfect at least want someone around to admire their perfection? Can a tree be perfect in the woods if no one notices it? Can you give me some proof that a perfect being wouldn't have any desires? Sounds illogical to me. You can call it antisocial or a loner or a hermit, that isn't perfection.

[smalltownatheist]

"Wouldn't someone who is perfect at least want someone around to admire their perfection?"

A human, perhaps. But we're talking about a inhuman entity. You're judging it based on human emotions. Perfection (or at least the way I'm using it here) = the ideal instance or embodiment of a concept without a flaw or defect. Want is necessitated by lack of something (whatever the want is). If X lacks Y, then X is not incomplete without Y and thus not in an ideal state.

[smalltownatheist]

"Can a tree be perfect in the woods if no one notices it?"

If trees can be perfect, yes. They also make a noise if they fall, because sound has nothing to do with an observer -- the act of perception of sound, is.

[NEWSTOGOD]

The problem with god and the dominant reason you can say he doesn't exist is because he is too flexible. You are saying he has needs-- next christian says, he listens to his prayers-- next one says, he took his child because there was a plan-- next one says, tsunami 130,000 deaths was to prepare for the rapture. If there was a god the answer would not always be, Yup he can do that. Does anyone not see a problem with this?

[Matur1n]

"You are saying he has needs"

Needs and wants are not the same thing. I didn't say he "needed" anything. He seems to want certain things. There is a big difference. He isn't a "static" entity and you don't have to be "static" to be perfect. In fact, being static may even be considered be a fault in some situations.

The fact that some Christians may not understand God fully or have varying opinions about him is irrelevant to whether he exists or not. Christians are just humans, not perfect.

[NEWSTOGOD]

I'm sorry, but as long as there is opinion about god you can be sure there isn't one. It's not a question of human perfection. When people all agree on what/who god is he will exist. This would probably require gods appearance on earth with accompanying interaction with us all.

Is he lonesome? Need/want what's the dif. He needs something or he would not have gone through all the trouble.

[BattleshipTx]

"The problem with god and the dominant reason you can say he doesn't exist is because he is too flexible."

Wouldn't he have to be flexible to be perfect? Rigid isn't perfect. I agree with Matur1n, God wants certain things. That is expected of God, after all he is God, and in no way does that make him imperfect.

"If there was a god the answer would not always be, Yup he can do that."

If he is omnipotent, then "yup he can do that" should always be the answer.

[uvauva2]

So explain to me, you think a "perfect being" can change? If he acts, if he wants to do things, certainly he changes. Furthermore, you want him to act due to your actions, namely, say, prayers. So you, an imperfect being, can supposedly cause change in a perfect being? BS

[BattleshipTx]

So explain to me, you think a "perfect being" can change?"

Yes. How could a being stuck in one position be perfect? Unable to react at all to changing events? To be perfect, a being would have to be flexible and changeable.

"So you, an imperfect being, can supposedly cause change in a perfect being? BS"

But I am not the cause of anything. It is totally his decision whether to grant an entreaty. Do you think the perfect King always turns down requests from his subjects? He wouldn't.

[uvauva2]

"But I am not the cause of anything. It is totally his decision whether to grant an entreaty. Do you think the perfect King always turns down requests from his subjects? He wouldn't."

How pathethic and arrogant. I really like how religious people can´t possibly assume that their god doesn't care about them. How incredibly arrogant to assume that the definition of perfection implies caring for YOU.

[BattleshipTx]

Nothing I have written so far said anything about caring. You can grant an entreaty from someone you don't care about or even like. At work you see bosses who actively dislike subordinates grant some of their requests. I think he does care from what I read in the Bible. But whether that is correct or not, a perfect being can change and react to his surroundings, in fact, he wouldn't be very perfect if he didn't. So it doesn't matter whether he cares or not, perfect entities change.

[uvauva2]

He doesn´t CARE???? It's good to know that he imposes rules on us just because... Theists attempts at making sense are the most ridicullous thing existent. Just admit that you don't think god "can't be fully understood by our flawed imperfect logic", because attempting to justify all the paradoxes is just riddiculous. Because your ONLY argument is basically that god's motives and reasonings are not understandable (and to be correct, even calling them reasonings and motives is not accurate)

[BattleshipTx]

He doesn´t CARE????"

I didn't say he doesn't care, I said I thought God did care because of what is written in the Bible. But it wouldn't matter whether he cared or not with regard to being perfect and whether something that is perfect can change [it can].

[smalltownatheist]

I didn't want to get into this now...but many theists claim that God is "timeless". He knows the future and the past. There is nothing that *can* change when you know the future.

Don't go confusing your finite existence and need to be "flexible" with the infinite powers of your God. There is no X to move to that would be greater or better than the X it is already at. Perfect entities cannot change, because, what is change? Reaction, judgment, and a shift to something "better" or "right".

[BattleshipTx]

Perfect entities cannot change, because, what is change? Reaction, judgment, and a shift to something "better" or "right"."

They absolutely have to be able to change, because if they couldn't that would be a defect and they wouldn't be perfect. Change is not always to something better or more right, sometimes it is a change just to be different. You have a bizarre limitation on what change is.

[uvauva2]

This is tiring and ridicullous. Answer smalltownatheist. Is your god "timeless" or not?

And for the record, for me perfection certainly implies non change (because we are talking about ABSOLUTE PERFECTION. Being absolute and ultimate certainly implies uniqueness and timelessness)

For the record, and this is tiring, what you theists do, is with your arrogance, lump into your god all the adjectives you think are good and great, and you don´t understand that you get a contradiction

[BattleshipTx]

For the record, and this is tiring, what you theists do, is with your arrogance, lump into your god all the adjectives you think are good and great, and you don´t understand that you get a contradiction"

And atheists like to take words like "perfect" and "omniscient" and play word games with them. You make your idea of what perfect is something incompatible with God, not undertsanding that all that means is you are using a different idea than what Christians who use the term are meaning.

[uvauva2]

Wrong.

For the record, since this is relevant, I am a mathematician (or to be correct, a mathematics student, and I'll be starting my PhD next year). As such, I make the greatest effort to define concepts as clearly as possible. One of the things that I have noticed repeatedly, unfortunately, is that common language has clear inadequacies in that respect, since people try to define words in some sense by "adding up" the ideas transmited in each of the contexts you saw the words used on.

[uvauva2]

That directly implies that words don´t have precise meanings but rather a certain range of meanings, somehow.

However, that should not aply to the term perfect when refered to a god. As I've repeatedly said, your god is supposedly the ultimate being. The notion of perfection associated to him has got to be an ultimate notion of perfection. It certainly can not be derived/obtained by comparison to the word as applied in mundane contexts, such as a "perfect mother".

[uvauva2]

The definition must be intrinsic and self-contained. It can not appeal to examples, because examples can not do justice to god. My (careless) attempt at a definition is "that which can not be improved".

Please do not reply here, but reply on the other sequence of messages.

Notes:

1The first concrete memory I have where I am sure I was an atheist is of my 10th grade (note: I'm portuguese) phylosophy work were I proved that only Nothinghness can be perfect. Not sure I think it is perfect or not.

[uvauva2]

2 I am also convinced that trying to define "perfect" by taking your common usage term and trying to take some superlative of it (that is, to imagine the thing that fits that "concept" to the highest degree possible) is just silly. That's because you can't possibly know if your concept even makes sense. In mathematics terms: You can´t be sure it is even well defined (take this math language as a bit of a joke, if you want).

[smalltownatheist]

I wanted to save this, but we'll do it now...

If it's absolutely perfect, there's no (#1)REASON for change.

Now, in order to change, you must react. You can't react if you know the outcome of the thing you're reacting to -- or you know what change you'll change to (if that makes any sense). So, either your god doesn't know the future, or it isn't "timeless". So there's no (#2)WAY to change. This would eliminate the fallacy.

Please define your god.

[BattleshipTx]

"Now, in order to change, you must react. You can't react if you know the outcome of the thing you're reacting to -- or you know what change you'll change to (if that makes any sense)."

That's stupid. Circumstances change. Consider the perfect mother. She dresses her kids in heavy coats in winter and light clothes in summer. You want her to only dress the kids in one manner? There is no reason a perfect God can't change as circunmstances change. Even if or especially if he knows the future.

[uvauva2]

The "perfect mother" is not an almighty being. It's perfectness is merely relative, it is not absolute. Why are you comparing a pathetic human with your ultimate supreme god? Clearly when you say god is perfect what you mean is a bit different. It is the ULTIMATE PERFECTION.

So, like STA said, either define your god, or shut up, because if all you have are pathetic comparisons with imperfect beings, that's nothing

[BattleshipTx]

"Why are you comparing a pathetic human with your ultimate supreme god?"

I don't consider humans to be pathetic, I think they were made in the image of God. Perfect is perfect, whether talking about the perfect mother or the perfect creator. If perfection of any kind changes with changing circumstances, why wouldn't the ultimate perfection do that as well? I don't consider an inflexible, unable to change, locked in place, rigid entity to be perfect and am baffled why that is your expectation

[BattleshipTx]

"Clearly when you say god is perfect what you mean is a bit different"

Nope, I mean it exactly the same way.

"The "perfect mother" is not an almighty being"

So? Almighty-ness is a measure of power and might. It has little to do with perfection. The perfect snowflake may be very fragile and nearly the opposite of almighty. I don't see the relevance of might when talking about what perfection means.

[uvauva2]

This is getting rather pointless (specially because my personal opinion on the matter is that the concept of perfection is somewhat contradictory, but I won't go there).

Answer me this: Do you think that "perfect" completly describes god or not?

So that we can make this clear: For me, "perfect" means something along the lines of "something that can not be improved". Notice that when you talk of a "perfect mother", what you mean is actually that she is "pretty darn good as a mother".

[uvauva2]

(unless you are refering to this hypothetical perfect mother, but honestly in that case just call her the "ideal mother", it's less ambiguous). So my point is that such perfection is only ever some sort of very partial and relative sort of perfection.

On the other hand, the perfection of god is certainly absolute. It seems clear to me then, that god should be perfectly defined by the concept of perfection, or in other words, by the property that "it can not be improved"

[uvauva2]

(or rather, to be correct,it seems clear to me that you think your god should satisfy that,which I think is of the utmost arrogance, by the way,as if the idea that your creator is anything less than perfect is unaceptable.And since I'm talking about your arrogance,the idea that you're created in god's image is even more so)

So that was my rant.Remember I made a question:

Do you think that "perfect" completly describes god or not?

(in other words, Is god defined by the property of perfection?)

[BattleshipTx]

"Answer me this: Do you think that "perfect" completly describes god or not?"

Not really. I don't think the word "perfect" has any meaning without context. The "perfect" birthday gift might be a titanium hammer for carpenter, while it is a lousy birthday gift for a little girl expecting a new doll. If you want to put it in the context of the "perfect creator" or "perfect deity" that would make more sense.

[BattleshipTx]

Notice that when you talk of a "perfect mother", what you mean is actually that she is "pretty darn good as a mother"."

No, I mean the perfect mother. Even using your definition "something that can not be improved." It would mean a mother that is the best she can be and there isn't a single thing you could change about her to improve her. If you found that mother, she likely dresses kids more warmly in the winter than in summer. It is like you expect God to be oblivious to the seasons. Why?

[uvauva2]

I guess we have a fundamental difference about the meaning of perfection. The only comment I'll do about that is that the reason I am a mathematician is due to my love of perfection and absolute knowledge, so I'm more than convinced I have a better grasp on the concept than you do, but that's a pointless discussion. I'll try this: Do you not think that god, being perfect, ultimate, etc... (lump here all the adjectives you love lumping in god), then he should be independent of everything else?

[BattleshipTx]

" Do you not think that god, being perfect ... then he should be independent of everything else?"

Independent, yes, as in not requiring the help of others or being in the control of others. But what you describe isn't independence, it is being OBLIVIOUS. There is no reason a perfect God should be oblivious to all around him. He may take a different action in winter, than in summer. He may decide to reward a good man, or not, his choice. God doesn't have to be oblivious to what goes on Earth

[uvauva2]

Let me point out the problem. Your god changes depending on us (at least you claim so). That means he is not independent. If you don't think this is so, then we have a fundamental different interpretation os the meaning of independence, and it is therefore irrelevant to continue this discussion. However, I still want to clarify whatever your muddled position is. You say god has no needs, but he has a will (and a plan, I guess). Why? What's in it for him? Would he be feeling happy somehow show he

[uvauva2]

I guess we have a fundamental difference about the meaning of perfection. The only comment I'll do about that is that the reason I am a mathematician is due to my love of perfection and absolute knowledge, so I'm more than convinced I have a better grasp on the concept than you do, but that's a pointless discussion. I'll try this: Do you not think that god, being perfect, ultimate, etc... (lump here all the adjectives you love lumping in god), then he should be independent of everything else?

[uvauva2]

And if so, the fact that he cares about you clearly shows he is not independent.

It is rather clear this conversation is going nowhere, by the way, like all theists you define god as satisfying the properties you want it to... the only reson I insisted in the concept of perfection is, because I mentioned, that was the first flaw I remember finding in the god principle. But I'll drop that and suggest another problem (next post)

[uvauva2]

You admit, I assume, that god knows the future. That would mean that before he created the universe he already knew everything that would happen (which in itself makes the creation itself rather pointless, but lets ignore that). On the other hand, we, the creatures he supposedly created, have this "free will". But how can we have a free will and yet have god know the future? I would call it a paradox. On the other hand, if we don't have free will, god just created us knowing some would go

[uvauva2]

to heaven and others to hell, which actually makes life a mere deterministic experience (at least from god's perspective). So he actually created people fully knowing they would go to hell. Such a loving god. Even better, he wants people to worship him, but since we are assuming people don't have free will, he simply has a bunch of puppets telling him how great he is (I'm sure that does wonders for his ego). Finally, the hipothesis that god doesn´t know the future constradicts omniscience. QED

[BattleshipTx]

"So he actually created people fully knowing they would go to hell. Such a loving god."

Yes, because he so values those that freely chose him. If there is any conflict between "free will" and "omniscience" then the Bible clearly comes down on the side of free will. The word "omniscience" is not used in the Bible to refer to God. However he does it, we clearly (I mean in the Bible) are rewarded or punished for our choices and are seen as having the free will to choose. If you choose evil ...

[uvauva2]

Cool, one less atribute for your perfect, not all-knowing anymore god... I hope that shows you how careless you are when you lump all of god's amazing atributes.

Since you conceded a point here, there's little to say, but I will note your god's concept of evil doesn´t seem very coherent. Unless you agree that people should be killed by collecting sticks on the Sabbath, in which case I will steer well away from you.

[BattleshipTx]

Remember God personally led the nation of Israel out of Eygpt. God was like the President or CEO or general, making decisions about what the Jews ate, who they fought, sanitary issues, where they slept, when they worked, etc. Many of these decisions weren't deciding between good and evil. They were commands from the head general. Working when you know you aren't allowed to would be a direct afront. That's the downside to have an all-powerful leader. On the good side, you win a lot of battles.

[uvauva2]

I would say that doesn´t exactly cover my objection to killing because of the Sabbath (what you say would be more in the line of justifying Moses anger at is soldiers not having killed whoever they had spared), and I of course do not agree anyway. If you think there are circunstances where killing is acceptable (short of saying, something like self defense), then we will simply have to disagree. Specially when killing someone who can in no way be considered guilty of anything

[uvauva2]

(and if you're going to pull an original sin argument, I think we will finish here, since evolution is as factual as science can get (short of mathematics)). Nor do I agree with a god that wishes to be followed blindly. I would have far more consideration for your supposed god if he valued integrity and non-hipocrisy over obedience. By no means do I think blind obedience is in any way a virtue, quite the contrary.

[uvauva2]

(and yes, I know blind obedience is a necessity say, in the army, but being necessary doesn´t make it correct. And to defend oneself is not the same has attacking others, and in cruel ways, no less). If you somehow believe all that is acceptable, I guess we should call an end to this discussion. However, one would ask why an all-powerfull being couldn´t find an easier, less bloody way of getting his people out of Egipt than by killing all infants.

[uvauva2]

Basically what I mean is that the fact that he is all-powerfull kind of undermines your analogy to a General. He is no General, he is a god. His "battle tactics" are actually a whim of his, and not tacticts, since he could do pretty much whatever he wanted.

The reason for all this, of course, his that your "sacred" book was written by cruel, uneducated man, who took pleasure in such cruel ideas, and who made their god in their image (instead of the other way around)

[smalltownatheist]

Please see the next video.

[memblor]

Nice one. Keep them coming!