Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

You missed my point, which is that such a dogma necessarily undermines any claim of mercy, or even benevolence, made about that god.

Now now now, Parkers, you can't draw those conclusions without presupposing your own personal standard that you are subjecting God to, which makes it a matter of your OPINION, instead of it being a matter of fact...and do you know how I know? Because I have a difference of opinion that you, which proves my point.

According to Matthew, your god is perfect.

I will have to agree with Matthew on this one.

Nonsense. Eternal punishment attaching to one and only one option means that my will is as free as the robbery victim's free choice to surrender his money -- never mind the gun at his head.

Only one option? I count two.

1. Accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and as a ransom for your sins and have eternal life.

2. Reject Jesus as Lord and Savior and be doomed for eternity.

There are two choices, just because you choose the less pleasurable choice doesn't make it a choice nevertheless. You've been evangelized to, you've been preached to, you have open acknowledgement of Jesus Christ...all of this and you still reject him?

You have no one to blame but yourself.

If your god knows everything, he knows our choices. Can I prove your god wrong by making a choice that goes against what he knows I'll choose? If yes, then your god doesn't know everything. If no, then there's no real choice I can make.

Accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and he will "know" that you've made the right choice.

I though you'd spent years debating this issue, kid. Here, let me google that for you.

I did, and there is no coincidence that I've never heard the term before you used it here.

Once again, I'm not basing the expectation of perfect mercy on his alleged omnibenevolence; I'm basing it on Matthew's assertion of his perfection. Aquinas and Anselm agree with me, by the way.

First, define "perfect mercy".

Oddly enough, you're falling back on "Christian theology" here, but immediately above, you're rejecting Christian theology.

How do you reconcile this inconsistency of yours?

I've never rejected Christian theology.

Disparaging an objection you haven't rebutted is dishonest argumentation. You've yet to give a coherent definition because the same "problem of infinity" which you claim negsates a naturalistic explanation also bedevils your god. In short, business as us-- er,special pleading.

I just want an answer to my anaologies, and be spared of the rheteroic.

Also, I notice you didn't present the evidence I asked for, so I will ask again: what evidence do you have for this god-thingy?

Science, philosophy, mathematics, and history.

You compared yourself to Jesus Christ.

There is only one Jesus Christ, and he is not I, and I am not him.

The fact that you cannot see that to be the case doesn't mean it hasn't happened; it only means that you're not very percipient.

You'll notice I haven't argued that humans don't age. You claimed that the human body is a closed system, and you've been corrected. But you're too obstinate to admit error.
Also, it appears to have escaped your notice that cancer is a growth, not degradation.

Why does the second law apply to the human body, then, Einstein?

---

I don't even know for sure that Jesus existed and you want me to guess what thoughts were in the heads of his followers?

Do you know for sure that Julius Caesar existed? Or are you committing the taxi cab fallacy?

None of their adventures are well-documented either, unless you count Paul.

So what? King Tut's reign wasn't well-documented, when he spent 8 years on the throne...the same length of time as the President of the U.S, and the President's adventures are well-documented...so why not a king?

Catholic church traditiion has most of them dying horrible deaths as martyrs, but again, that's the claim, not the evidence. Certainly people have willingly died for beliefs that fall far short of believing in a literal resurrection, so that doesn't prove anything.

If they actually died as martyrs, then it proves everything.

So it beats me. Some early sources make it sound like a 'spiritual resurrection', others make it sound like a literal one, but none of them are actually contemporary to the event in question.

It was a physical resurrection.

If the future can be changed, it can't be fully known. That's what I lean towards. I don't think true omnisicence is possible, and if there's a God, it can't logically foresee everything.

An omniscient being would know about the changes, right?

That's the other way to approach it, but it puts God in the position of not having any options, God must do what God already knows God will do. Where's God's free will in that scenario?

Good question

It's always interesting to see which leg a Christian will choose to cut off of the theodicy tripod to save what they can. You chose to limit omnipotence, which is a worthy choice in my book. So many Christians choose to take their saw to omnibenevolence instead.

Well, I mean not even God can do what is logically impossible, like squared circles and one-sided sticks.

Too bad that argument fails. There's no more evidence that Jesus resurrected than that the Trojan War started because of an argument among Greek goddesses. Have you considered using an argument based on something actually known to be true?

Then accept a debate regarding the Historicity of the Resurrection, or are you all talk?