Ybe an atheist

[brewer]

That's not a "necessary" conclusion, only a conclusion. It's the believers that use it's "necessary" when not necessary to prop up arguments for their god. So ya blew that one. Definition fail. 

When the premises are true and the conclusion  is the only possible conclusion that can be concluded given the premises, then you have my definition of
a "necessary" conclusion...

---

IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE THAT CAN HELP THESE GUYS?

I AM LEAVING AND WHEN I COME BACK I HOPE SOMETHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL CAN BE MUSTERED.

You shuck and jive with all your bullshit for all these pages and at the end this is the best you can do to represent yourself?

Come on boy (little man), you started this, time to step up and finish the game you started. I'll repeat.

You admit that bible verses define your god then, great. Then by definition your god provides direction for the killing of children and that is my logical rational reason for not believing in your god. Does this satisfy your criteria for rational logical reason for my atheism?

Don't change the goal post. Yes people die all of the time. Does god give directions for people to kill others in all of these deaths?

Post #258, you stated that:"Merciful G must exist as there are multiple G(s) around sounds like a logical reason to me. Your not going to tell me G isn't merciful." What are your biblical "multiple gods"?

Man up and admit you were wrong.