your feels are out of control, we need a medic, stat!

perform the ritual!

Why would you put faith in something you are not sure of? And if you are sure, how?

if you really want the answer why dont u ask a pastor instead.

The Bible is backed up by tons of historical and archeological evidence. you'd have to be literally retarted to deny God's existence

nuff said

leave it to atheists to not understand freewill. dumbass

If god is omniscient, then he knows everything that will happen, therefore there is no free will
If he doesn't know everything, he is not omniscient and not worthy of being called a god.

pic related
Also, calling someone a dumbass isn't very christ-like of you

yet another atheist who doesnt understand omniscience. omniscience means he knows every possibility of every event.

"perceiving all things" yes that means he knows every possible outcome of every possible event

So he knows every possibility of how this conversation could end, but he doesn't actually know the ending? or he can't control it?

because the first would violate omniscience, and the second would violate omnipotence

for any and all other questions, please refer to the pic

at the bottom (then why didn't He?):
some theorize it is due to chaos.
to define black we need white.
to define light, we require dark.
to define good, evil must be potential.
to show that some are righteous, there must be a possibility of evil.
opposites must exist potentially, lest one side have no meaning.

your image was rolled. just my take on it.

glad it was rolled.

but you're missing the point
follow the blue arrow to the right of that box and you'll find your answer
I understand that light needs dark, cold needs hot, etc.
but if god is all powerful, he can make exceptions (when it comes to evil)
if he doesn't, he is not omnibenevolent
if he can't he is not omnipotent

either way he does not deserve to be called a god

in all honesty i've never heard him called "omnibenevolent". but i have heard that God doesn't simply destroy the devil because he 'deserves worse'.

and what i mean is, in this existence, on this physical plane of reality, opposites must exist.

maybe that's what existing is, just a list of things that the person/item/idea is not.

sure, there could be no evil at all, but then what would good be? how might you define it? if there was no sin, not even a capacity of sin, everyone and every thing would love God by default. that isn't choice. that's robotics. and therefore there would be no love. there must be one or more opposites for every item, emotion, and concept for it to be real.

maybe us being "tested" is just a result.

you've never heard of the christian god as being a all-loving god?
thats what omnibenevolent means

and thats exactly my point. on THIS physical plane of reality, opposites MUST exist.
but an all knowing being who has always been and always will be?
definitely doesn't exist in THIS plane.

so he could've created a universe without evil. but he didn't, so he's not all-powerful.
not all-powerful = not god

and the "testing" theory is accounted for in the above diagram.

well He's supposed to love his 'children', every living thing he created. he doesn't love every idea, and things that are not alive.

existing: put it this way. let's say you created a complex race of drawings that could choose to listen to you or not. then you helped the ones that did (and some who you wanted to listen). one can be a creator in a separate plane while the creations are of a lesser existence, and therefore abide by limitations that you don't. think Flatland.

opposites: God is an all powerful creator apparently greater than the expanse of the universe and mostly in the spirit; there is one of Him. inversely, tiny, physical, nearly powerless particles make up the fabric of existence; there are more of these than it is conceivable. and to some form of imagination, every being that could have been and wasn't (the whole 'odds of being born' concept) has the exact 'opposite' lifespan.

universe: He could've done a lot of things that would be worthless. God could've made a universe w/o evil, but He knew better and knew that it would have no point.

imagine if you were 100% happy all the time. from the moment of birth to death. you would have no idea what emotion is because you felt only one. essentially, to this hypothetical you, emotion doesn't exist. only happy, which you have no word for, since it's an necessary state of life, as normal to you as anything. then why would you be able to feel emotion? you wouldn't. you would feel that one thing never feeling emotion, just feeling. this is something that no man alive would be able to describe because we all live in this range. we all know what happy is because we know what it isn't.

excuse my ranting.

You use the same circular reasoning and false dichotomy that every single religious person on this earth uses.

nothing you are saying is new, nor can it be regarded as evidence for a god.

That chart that was rolled explains it all very simply, and if you disagree with its logic, it is because of your blind faith.

if you honestly believe that your god exists, and that all the other gods today, and in the past, do not, i insist that you spend some time reading anything and everything but your bible, torah, qur'an, etc.

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
...Stephen F Roberts

when did i use circular reasoning? all i started with was that the chart my not have been accurate and i thought it needed another blue arrow at the end. it's not as if every concept can be explained with a simple flowchart.

i am not a scientist. some people tell me about gravity, planetary motion, and biology; this person has gotten this info reliably from others who have done research. i have no reason to say no. after all, they are confident in their evidence.
in this same way, some people say God exists, and can explain how He fits in with science and even evolutionary theories; these people get their info from others who have done research. i have no reason to say no. after all, they are confident in their evidence.
i have no one to quote in matters of science or God. but i've experienced enough evidence to lead me to believe that both can exist.

and as for the picture it's all about constants:
if, after everything is erased, Earth's gravitational acceleration is really still 9.8m/s then that is what people will find and know.
if the planets really still move and the universe still expands the same way, that is what we will find and know.
if God really still exists and once again gives humanity His word, that's what we will learn and know.
but there is a possibility that not everyone will believe each.

Alright, you seem to be oblivious to basic logic. We'll try a new approach.
and just to clarify, THIS concept can be explained with a simple flowchart, no one has done research to "fit" god into science, 9.8 m/s^2 IS earths gravitational acceleration and always will be, and EVERYONE DEFINITELY WILL believe in earths gravitational acceleration while absolutely no one will be able to remember every word of any scipture, therefore making it useless.

Now the new approach. What religion are you? When did u choose this religion? (hopefully it wasn't indoctrinated at birth, like North Koreans do with their government) and do you want to convert me, or others for that matter?

im not looking to convert anyone. i suppose you could call me Christian but not too many would. for me, if aliens came tomorrow and gave us documentation from eras ago that proves our evolution from a single life form, ok. if God decides He wants to perform the rapture tomorrow, fine. but to me, there is more to lose by not believing in God. i don't mean kill people because God said so or blindly follow a priest or scripture. i don't mean ridicule anyone who believes in God or any other deity. i don't mean force knowledge/belief/assumption down anyone's throat. i mean take all the info you can and decide for yourself.

and im saying one must consider everything before drawing conclusions. if all books, memory, and technology are destroyed we start from page one, meaning nothing can be assumed. you say everyone will believe in gravitational acceleration because people will experience it. history will repeat and it will be found as a widely known fact. it WILL be real.
in that same way if a god truly exists he/she/it will see this, and will repeat his/her/it's message if he/she/it cares about humanity so much. IF they don't exist, you will be correct; no more scripture, no more talking animals, no nothing.
the difference is the human response. we use clear, constant proof since it defines to us what is real. and if something can not be proven on demand, we take it as false. but if humanity is not truly the top of the food chain, if we don't make the rules, if there are things that exist outside of our realm of immediate perception, well that's just that. and if there is nothing beyond the physical, spacial, and chemical, and science is the truly factual basis of reality, then THAT's that.

and some people have fit God into science, based on metaphorical translations of holy texts.

"there is more to lose by not believing in god"
thats called Pascal's Wager, and it is highly flawed

If you believe in god to be "safe" in case there is a hell, you're only believing because of fear. And the wager can be said by any person of any religion, and the chances that a 2000 year old religion that clearly copies all of the Pagan ones before it it right is completely preposterous.

And we'e proven evolution. The fact that you need an alien to spoon feed it to you only proves that you don't understand it enough to know its true

and not believing something we can't prove on demand is called skepticism and it is one of the single most important traits of all surviving creatures. Just because you believe everything your parents and pastors have told you, doesn't mean you should.

"some people" "metaphorical translations"
your argument is the weakest is could possibly be.

and "clear constant" proof is all i ask for. The fact that you "define" god as real without that is embarrassing to say the least

sigh.

Oh wow, thanks. People don't usually say they give up when they're wrong.
Thats very mature of you.

u hav a point about the historical and archeological evidence, i laugh at ppl when they say they dont believe in jesus or jesus wasent real lmao jesus was a real person.but i feel they have the right to question the existance of god

Calls people retarded for not believing in god.

Spells "retarded" wrong.

I seriously hope this is a troll.

It is.

its not

Oh, alright.
*wink*

KILL THEM BEFORE THEY SPREAD

YOU FOOL! THE IMAGE OF AN ANGEL ITSELF BECOMES AN ANGEL.

I'D RATHER DIE BY WEEPING ANGELS THAN BEIBER!
FOR A BETTER DEATH!