Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

God doesn't test us because he wants to know what will will do.

That's why I said God is not doing it for his benefit, but for ours and others that are reading the narrative. It is for our benefit. When a teacher gives his students a test, the test is not for the teacher's benefit, but for the students.

And the "ok, there are some areas that I need to work on" argument is probably the weakest I've ever heard.

Hey, can't please everyone.

Either he is all-knowing, all-powerful or he's not. If he is, there's nothing to improve on, since his creation should have been perfect in the first place.

Non-sequitur.

---

The bible claims regarding the exodus have been found wanting (i.e. nothing has ever been found to give any validity). and whilst absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of absence, the total lack of any sort of evidence for those claims lends weight to the argument they are total nonsense.

You are the one using the canard of animal x only produced animal x as a way to somehow discredit evolution, when if you knew anything about the theory to which you are criticizing you'd know that evolution doesn't deny this is true. You conveniently miss out all the variables that in fact do inform the hypothesis and subsequent conclusions drawn through ToE.

Your non-rebuttal only again informs the general audience here that you know nothing about the theories you are arguing against and casually dismissing. It would actually be embarrassing for anyone, except you, it seems.

See evolution debate. Coming soon.

Yes, doubly so because you've omitted the main conclusion you've drawn from the above. Shame you can't see it, though. I can only assume you are either really, really stupid, or a POE (or indeed both).

Word.

120, actually (Deuteronomy 34:7).

Which would put his age even more closer to the age of the oldest living person today, which is 116. Never knew a correction would be in my favor.

Still a ludicrous age for the time, but possible.

Even more possible if there was a God that existed which wanted him to live that long.

Impossible for Noah and the other Patriarchs though, as above.

Again, it isn't impossible if there was a God that existed which allowed man's tenure on earth to be longer than it is today.

Not taking a position is not equivalent to taking a position of rejection.
You're the idiot making the claims/assertions and not substantiating them with anything aside more claims/assertions.

You stated that the Exodus never happened...that is an unsupported assertion.

Saying "we don't know" is intellectually honest. Combining that with what we currently know, and what we theorise could have happened and then testing those theories is also intellectually honest.

I am saying "We have reasons to believe".

Saying "Godidit", or shoehorning god into the gaps of knowledge formed by the aforementioned lack of knowledge, is lazy, intellectually dishonest, and the cornerstone of every ignorant apologist who can't be bothered to read up on what s/he's rejecting (evidenced by every post you've made thus far that has misrepresented the various scientific theories you seek to discredit).

Saying "Godidit" isn't any more lacking knowledge, being lazy, ignorant, or dishonest than saying "Naturedidit".

Don't be stupid. We're looking for someone with either new arguments or, even better (the best actually), evidence to support their assertions .

Good luck with that.

Yes it is. What, you think you're different to the other guys in the AIG crowd who think because they've done a 5 minute google search they know better than people who have done millions of hours of research and have an infinitely better grasp of the principles of their field?

5 mins? Almost 15 years.

---

Nior did I say that it does. I'm drawing your attention to the fact that torturing someone for skepticism doesn't fit any definition of mercy I've seen.

Torturing someone for skepticism?

Also, Aquinas and Anselm both argued that your god is the most perfect in everything. Here, you appear to be contradicting them; yet earlier in this thread you'd used one of their arguments in a post. How do you explain this inconsistency of yours?

What did I say that would allow you to draw the conclusion that I contradicted them regarding God's perfection.

That might be the case. But in thinking this over, it comes to me that if he knows everything, including how we will respond to his tests, then we really don't have free will.

Ok...assuming you don't believe in God, are you freely not believing in God, or are you forced to not believe in God? Which is it?

Also, why can't he just teach us, instead of forcing us to suffer in order to learn?

It is called "tough love".

So god didn't create cancer? He didn't create the 2LoT?

I was under the impression that he created everything.

2nd law of thermodynamics.

No, all humans die, and that's a fact. Of course you realize that I'm talking about physical death, and you're deliberately equivocating here.

If when you physically die you will spend an eternity with God, then physical death doesn't really seem to mean much, now does it?

But you worship a god who has killed every huma who has ever lived, because the first two bit the apple. That is hardly a picture of perfect justice there.

Anyone that accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior will live forever. You keep talking about physical death on earth...that is not the big picture, the big picture is eternity with God.

Um, have you not heard the phrase "hide nor hair"? It means you can find no sign of him.

No, I haven't.

If English is not your first language, let me know, I'll be happy to write more formally if that will help your comprehension.

Ebonics is my first language.

Behind what? You only answered one question with a modicum of sense, and even that is much more problematic than your facile answer would indicate.

Not even Jesus was able to please everyone.

Whoever those atheists were you claimed helped you hone your argument did a shitty job. The only difference between you and most Christian trolls is that you type more.

My posts are of good quality, and good quantity.

Do you not know their consituent molecules? Would you like a class in that?

Your avoidance of the question "Where did amino acids come from" is quite apparent.

Or, if you're asking where did matter come from, it came from the singularity, which you've already had explained to you.

That is like saying "the furniture IN the house came FROM the house". Makes little to no sense and you don't even have to think too critically to draw that conclusion.

---

Exactly!
So if an infinite regress does in fact happen, it's not illogical.

There is no "if's, and's, or but's" about it. It cannot happen in reality.