Another long-ass reply:
Your God says in your holy book that he will supposedly reveal himself to everyone.
It says that eventually, He will. Not now,
eventually. It actually says that God purposefully
doesn't reveal Himself to certain people.
yes, God is omnipotent, he can not only fit two of every single animal into one vessel, and not only make them all impervious to one another for 40 days (even though there are carnivores who have basic hunting instincts) but they will survive those days eating dead carcasses when there are none and vegetation which cannot grow without light.
Whoever gave that explanation to you is an idiot, on several levels.
God can also make 2+2 = 5, give me airbourne aids, and make it rain hammocks
This, too, is retarded. Who the hell would say that stuff? That's just stupid.
If he was all-powerful why would he do such bad things man?!? Like wtf, what's the DEAL with THAT?!? He says humans have free-will be just for the f**k of it creates these disasters which kill them? That's not like at all free-will! Durrrrr
I don't believe in free will, but to answer the rest of those questions, one would need to assume the Christian God exists, not according to your own perception of Him, but according to what He says He is. If that's done, the questions are pleasantly answerable.
A: LOL we can't fully comprehend God, he does things which no human mind can understand, our brains are like the size of an ant's brain in comparison
OH REALLY? So we're suppose to worship a being who has infinite knowledge when we only have human logic at our disposal? Why would God create humans with such inferior brains? You think if he would make them dumb enough so that they couldn't call him out of his bulls**t all the time though
Now you're just not thinking this through, ha ha. If we're calling Him on on His bulls**t, but we're unable to comprehend what that BS actually is... then your accusation is one of ignorance.
Nobody claimed we understand God. We don't need to understand Him completely to be able to worship Him, we just need to know that He is good. Our definition of good may be dark compared to the blinding brightness of God's goodness. but the attitude of worship for the essential characteristic of God's goodness is what matters.
A: Well idk man my parents raised me as a Christian and the Bible says to believe in God, so why the hell not? He's like an invisible friend who is always there by my side! He's the perfect companion, he listens to me and never calls me a faggot or whips my ass for talking back to him. He is always there, I pray to him and sometimes things I pray for come true other times they don't I just ignore the times they don't and rationalize God when I just said human beings cannot fully comprehend him so I just use the blanket statement "God has a purpose for my life" and I'll live my entire mortal existence for him even though I cannot prove for a fact that he exists cause he lives in heaven
Your angst is a bit dissapointing compared to your previously well-justified propositions, my friend.
God does punish people for being disobedient, like any good parent would if they want to instill a good morality in a child. Good parents don't punish children from spite, though, and neither does God.
Your view on prayer also displays a lack of understanding as to how prayer works, as well (which, by the way, is normal. Most Christians don't seem to get it, either).
As for justifying God's existence... we covered that in the other thread, I think. Also, the baseball/logic analogies are a bit fallacious, for they do not accurately represent the premises.
Christians only claim in a God because they believe in it, atheists claim there isn't one because they don't believe there is a God, and agnostics don't know because they
don't know if there is a God. If the question is the existence of God, then truly agnosticism is the
only answer; since theists can provide no positive or negative proof of God's existence, and atheists cannot demonstrate the logical impossibility of God. Both sides can present what they believe are evidences, but the other side may not believe that the evidence is credible.
Evolution vs. creationism is a classic (although still ripe) example of this evidential credibility argument. There is extensive research that factually oppresses propositions made by macroevolutionary theory, but they are generally ignored. On the flip side, some “creationists” have displayed appalling ignorance in the sciences, and propose the most idiotic things (kind of like the 2+2=5 thing). Neither side has really proved anything, but each rests firmly on gross extrapolation of their known fact, and seems to ignore the good science from the other side.
The difference between atheist agnostics and theist agnostics is
belief. One believes there is a God, and one does not believe there is a God...
neither has a plausible, logical basis for their belief.
This whole thread is completely stupid.If Brent was previously a Christian,then he knows enough/everything about it and he made a decision to deliberately go away from it.
Some would argue that if you knew what it truly meant to be a Christian, then you would not deliberately turn away from it. In this and other threads, our friend has actually displayed some ignorance on the basics of Christianity, so I would challenge your proposition that he knows “enough,” if he misses some of the most basic things. I'm here because I think it would be cool if I could clear up some misconceptions, that's all.
To be clear once again, I don't dismiss the idea of a creator of the universe, just the ones found in organized religion.
Makes sense. Assuming (not believing) that the God I believe in (I am a Christian, if you didn't pick that up) actually exists, what do you have against him? Maybe better for a different thread (you could make an accusations against God thread, that would be great fun).