So, I'm in the process of debating a christian on youtube with the help of another atheist, the christian is trying to prove god exists along with objective morality, but he's really confusing me, I'm starting to see contradictions in the very definition of god. For example:

God's omnipresent, but he's a person? To me, that makes no sense. One person can't be in two places at once, let alone everywhere in a specific moment in time.

God is everything, but God is love? To me, that doesn't sound like everything. Love is a single emotion, not everything in existence, and so therefore that definition is nonsensical.

God is a personal god, but yet billions believe in this "personal" god as one god? Is it just me, or does that really sound like the opposite of "personal?"

If god is all knowing, he has no free will because he knows what he is going to do in a million years, so he's not all powerful because anything he does in the future is limited by time. For example, if he knows he is going to move a mountain at 6pm tomorrow night, then that's what he's destined to do, and he can't change that. So, if he is all powerful, then he can't know what he's going to do tomorrow at 6pm and thus he isn't all knowing.
It's similar to the 'rock he can't move' argument. Can god create a rock he cannot move? Yes, then he's not all powerful because he can't move the rock. No, then he's not all powerful because he is incapable of making the rock that he can't move.

I'm sure these examples probably suck, I could probably make them sound better if I were on my meds. But these are some reasons why I feel 'God' is starting to make less sense to me. Theists say "Just keep searching and you'll find god." Well, I don't see that happening anytime soon, because the more I think about it, the less it makes sense.   Even though I tell them I want evidence, not a "divine revelation." This particular christian I was debating became upset when I became more confused at the idea of God, that he said I was plugging my ears, closing my eyes and saying "Lalalalalalala!!! I can't here you, LALALALALALA!!!" Which is ironic for obvious reasons. No, the more I think of it, the less it makes sense. That's what's going on. Not me closing my mind. Why is that so hard to understand?

All I know is that God is omnipresent. He is in all places all the time. This includes my asshole, shit, cum, farts, etc.

Those theists are probably right, people do tend to find what they're looking for...even when it isn't there. The idea that you aren't listening, or just can't hear them...is a defensive reaction to a perceived rejection of their self by means of their explanation. If you express your dissatisfaction with an explanation that immediately calls into question their own satisfaction. One of you is defective, the implication is clear...guess which one of you the believer thinks has a nut loose?

God is a dick because the men who invented him were dicks.

Regarding the term "God" not making any sense, take a look at:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Also, this has been discussed before:

(May 24, 2015 at 10:18 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(May 24, 2015 at 10:09 pm)whateverist Wrote: ...

It would be nice if any evidence/argument for believing in gods could be preceded by an adequate god definition.

It would be nice if people were reasonable, but that, too, is just a fantasy.  You are not likely to get more than gibberish for a "god" definition, and if you do, you will find them retreating from it, erasing it into nothingness.  This idea has been discussed by Antony Flew:

Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revolutionary article "Gods." Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

...

http://www.svsu.edu/~koperski/flew.htm

Now a couple of minor points:

(June 16, 2015 at 6:44 pm)IanHulett Wrote: ...

God is a personal god, but yet billions believe in this "personal" god as one god? Is it just me, or does that really sound like the opposite of "personal?"

I believe they typically mean that they have a personal relationship with God.  And God is supposedly capable of keeping track of everyone, so that isn't a problem.

That you have a personal relationship with another person does not prevent that other person from having a personal relationship with other people.  The same idea applies to god.

(June 16, 2015 at 6:44 pm)IanHulett Wrote: If god is all knowing, he has no free will because he knows what he is going to do in a million years, so he's not all powerful because anything he does in the future is limited by time. For example, if he knows he is going to move a mountain at 6pm tomorrow night, then that's what he's destined to do, and he can't change that. So, if he is all powerful, then he can't know what he's going to do tomorrow at 6pm and thus he isn't all knowing.

Think about it in more ordinary terms.  Suppose you decide today that you are going to open a bottle of beer tomorrow after you get home from work.  And suppose that after you get home from work tomorrow, you open a bottle of beer.  You are not going to tell us that you could not have done otherwise, if you had wished to do otherwise, are you?  It is not "destiny" or forced for you to decide to do something in advance and then do it.  It is that at the time you do it, you still want to do it.  Otherwise, you would not do it.  The same idea applies to god.

(Free will is often problematic for other reasons, and I would recommend waiting for your opponent to bring up the subject, and then have them define it and see what can be done with it.  Otherwise, you are possibly going to be faced with the question of what, exactly, is "free will."  You probably don't want to be in that situation.  For more on that, read this.)

(June 16, 2015 at 6:44 pm)IanHulett Wrote: It's similar to the 'rock he can't move' argument. Can god create a rock he cannot move? Yes, then he's not all powerful because he can't move the rock. No, then he's not all powerful because he is incapable of making the rock that he can't move.

...

Although I have encountered idiots who believe contradictory nonsense, the standard approach to "all powerful" is to say that it means able to do anything that can be done; anything that is not self-contradictory or logically impossible.  One cannot make a round square, either, but that is not what is generally meant by "all powerful."  You don't want to be accused of arguing against a straw man, do you?


None of this is to suggest that the god belief is sensible or anything like that.  But you should be careful about presenting a bad argument, or your opponent will latch on to that to get you away from things that are better.

(June 16, 2015 at 9:27 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 6:44 pm)IanHulett Wrote: If god is all knowing, he has no free will because he knows what he is going to do in a million years, so he's not all powerful because anything he does in the future is limited by time. For example, if he knows he is going to move a mountain at 6pm tomorrow night, then that's what he's destined to do, and he can't change that. So, if he is all powerful, then he can't know what he's going to do tomorrow at 6pm and thus he isn't all knowing.

Think about it in more ordinary terms.  Suppose you decide today that you are going to open a bottle of beer tomorrow after you get home from work.  And suppose that after you get home from work tomorrow, you open a bottle of beer.  You are not going to tell us that you could not have done otherwise, if you had wished to do otherwise, are you?  It is not "destiny" or forced for you to decide to do something in advance and then do it.  It is that at the time you do it, you still want to do it.  Otherwise, you would not do it.  The same idea applies to god.

Your missing the point that omnipotence AND omniscience is not possible. It's not a question of God DECIDING he will do something in advance, it is KNOWING what he will do in advance. If he changes his mind, his prior knowledge would then be incorrect, violating his omniscience.

Satan says god is a dildo, and I like satan so.....

"Mordechai: Can I ask you, Ezra, do you see any use for a God who's not personal?

Ezra: A use? Is it up to me to find a use for God?

Mordechai: Do you know what a god who is not personal is?

Ezra: No.

Mordechai: It's weather. That's all, just weather."

-- God On Trial

You are spot on, Ian. I started a whole thread here just asking for a coherent definition of God. I got diddly squat. It's just a load of garbled nonsense, usually self contradictory. And crucially, the believer couldn't identify this "God" in a lineup. How could they pick it out from a load of very powerful seeming aliens? What exactly makes something a god? Over 20,000 hit points? All we hear is how powerful they are, yet how impossible they are to detect with science. Yet somehow they can just talk through these science barriers directly to God...

They want their master to be infinitely powerful, but then cover their ears when you simply point out the consequences, such as God having no free will. They cannot defend it logically, so they just throw a tantrum.

This is my personal opinion about the overwhelming most likely case:

"God" is indeed a personal God. A very personal God. It exists only in the imagination of each believer. It is the only way that can explain:

1) How the believer knows so much about god, its innermost thoughts, desires and history, without being able to demonstrate it even exists.

2) That God knows everything believer knows! But never anything more than that. Try asking a believer to "get information" from God.

3) This "one true God" happens to agree with the believer about everything (for most people at least). It likes all the things they like, and condemns all the things they condemn. However, each person disagrees with each other person on at least some aspects if not entirely. So clearly this is not one God, at best it is a god for each person. Or more reasonably, it is just themselves.

4) The believer knows the "correct" way to interpret the holy book in order to reach exactly the conclusions they want. It's just not the same "correct" way as anyone else.

(June 17, 2015 at 1:57 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Satan says god is a dildo, and I like satan so.....

Bos, I hope you're not doin' it wrong matey...

We're supposed to "blow" Jesus out our arse, not stick him "up" our arse!