Oh God, save Africa from religion.

ooman4: Oh God, save Africa from religion.

Ramen

[size=18pt]43) A god that is afraid of technology![/size]

God never sends texts or emails

Logicboy03: [size=18pt]4. The Paradox of omniscience[/size]


We agree that a "married bachelor" can not exist because it is contradictory and self-refuting. An omniscient God is self-refuting and contradictory.

-Omniscience means knowing all things



If God knows everything, then he can not forget because the moment he forgets, he doesn't know everything. However, if God cant forget, he then doesnt know how to remember or recollect. If he can't recollect. then there is something he doesn't know- he doesnt know how it feels to recollect or remember something.


[img]http://t.qkme.me/42ef.jpg[/img]

Also the example with the stone - Can God create a stone so heavy that even He cannot lift?

zubike01:

i'll like to talk about essence and existence. Now the only scientific explanation of the origin of man is evolution which is just a theory there isn't any substantial proof. However Thomas Aquinas was able to proof that God exist through essence and existence. How do you know something exist it is through its essence. Essence is the underlying characteristics of something for example the essence of Dog is that dogs have four limbs they bark etc are there mot many species of Dogs. if a Dog is lame or does not bark does that it stop it from been a Dog. Now the essence of God is that God is a spirit no matter the desperate manifestation in different cultures the Essence remains the same. That is why we can easily identify the God of others because they share the same essence.

Are you actually comparing God with dog? You just screwed up yourself.
God is supposed to be many omni- things, so it would be no problem fro him to show himself.
About your dog -> even if he does not bark, you can still see it, feel it, touch it -> it is a material evidence.
What more do you want? Where is your essence of God? Where is the essence of fairies?
Get educated. No one can prove God, simply because He does not exist. End of story.

what can we say about pple dat are killed via withcraft or demonic attack? how do they derive der power to kill.oda pple via spiritual method.if u try some juju men u go fear ooo.dis is what is stil bafling .dis God of a thing and demonic powers reali amazes mi .pls help mi o

princeduke 2013: what can we say about pple dat are killed via withcraft or demonic attack? how do they derive der power to kill.oda pple via spiritual method.if u try some juju men u go fear ooo.dis is what is stil bafling .dis God of a thing and demonic powers reali amazes mi .pls help mi o

The people died of inexplicable causes not supernatural

ARENT YOU GUYS NOT SEEING THE WAY
MOSLEMS ARE DROPPING THEIR OWN, WITH
THEIR OWN VERSION FROM THE QUORAN AND
CHRISTIANS ARE ALSO DROPPING THEIR OWN,
USING BIBLE PASSAGES, I don't know why you
guys are not noticing this. It seems that
christians shld sort things out 1st with moslems
before attacking the confused, who then choose
not to believe any. Don't give me this silly point
that its d same God but different ways of
worship. Why will a God cause diversion in his
church. The more you guys appear on this topic,
the more point you prove to atheists. What is
happening here is christians and moslems, using
their own belliefs to make intelligent and
logicalatheists believe. Besides believing in
something with jst mere faith from a book that
contradicts itself(bible) whom a lot of christians
dont even know its origin is jst crazy. starting
from Genesis where God says let there be light
on the 1st day and created the sun on the fourth
day. where did dt light come from??. what kind
of faith do you want to use to believe that. it is
only telling us that the bible was written when
there were no scientists who later found out that
the earth was round and ther are other planets.
(let me ask you guys what did God made them
for?). scientists have seen the arrangement of
the planets and seen that earth's composition is
that which can suit life of humans. I can go on
and on and you will come out of your denial
states and be a deep thinker like me.to see more
errors in the bible, follow the link.(
www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/
inconsistencies.html
) find out answers to those and cone nd
challenge me . it has made me not believe in the
bible. I am not an atheist, but I do believe that
therez somepower/somethinh that started
creation. therez no name for it yet, I could call it
God, but not actually the christian God cos az far
as I am concerned, the bible brings up more
confusion. I c christians goin to hospital to treat
illness. why waste your money when bible said dt
all you need to do is say it with faith as small
as a mustard sees. yet you c ppl embark on
seruous prayers and fasting and when the sick
persob dies, u sayy its the will of God...his ways
are not our ways . are yu kidding me?, so y
pray?then why did he watch you guys pray and
fast if he still wanted the sick person dead I
know the answer that should be comming to a
logical brain by now..
On a final note, to you these nigerian people that
start to curse oders by calling them names like
fo0lish, ignorant and the rest nd try to use words
that are scary to you like saying they arr doomed
to eternal damnatiion or hell or lake of fire. lool,
I was born into a christian home so I have read
the bible well.
i guess I have come across the place which says
that if you call your brother a fo0l, then you are
doomed for hell, so if your bible is true, you
know what you xpect. a lot of you guys like
twisting the bible; I did dt then when I
encourtered things that i could not cope with till I
finally gave up the stuff.
the truth is dt the fear of hell is what is keepinf
95% of christians still practicing it even when
they encounter erronous works. the one dt still
makes me laugh is the wisdom of solomon where
he found tge mother of a baby. DNA does that
everyday......even the computer and internet
which you are even uzn to type answers the
question. its rational minds that did it. irrational
minds cant
conclusion; this is no copy and paste frm any
site, am only saying my mind from my
experience
a lot of ppl are thinking of this, pls lets try to be
rational

^^^^^

Too long. Didnt read

lol

My name is Moiz Omar, I do not believe in the existence of a "God." I do not see any logical argument for the existence of such a being.

[size=18pt]1) The fundamental atheist argument[/size]
Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of God(s)

Within your own definition you are admitting that it’s just a belief and not a fact. You can claim the same thing about people who do believe, but you also take care of that argument for me in the next paragraph when you claim that “The existence of God is taken on FAITH”. The term faith can only be used to show trust or belief in something or someone without any evidence to back up your belief. So if you claim to be atheist then you cannot have faith in anything. If you try to argue that you can have faith that an elevator will take you to the top floor safely and not crash you are wrong. You believe that you will be safe based on statistics and your own experiences with elevators.

The fundamental argument for atheism is that there is no evidence or proof for God. There is no solid or tangible evidence for God nor a logical argument for God. The existence of God is taken on faith and not by evidence.

You try to claim that there is no logical argument for God. Since when did it become illogical to believe in God? Even today there is a greater number of people in the world who believe in the existence of one God than those who do not believe. They range from the very poor to the very rich, highly intelligent to the simplest minds, gays and straights, old and young. Let’s put that aside though and focus on another part of that claim. You want to claim that believing in God is illogical if that is true then you are saying the same for disbelieving in God. Both sides are making a judgment based off of no “scientific” evidence proving either side. Then I refer you back to Faith for the theist belief.

-God can not be proven by science which is the main way we study and understand our universe or natural world. There is no theory of God

Next, you try to state that science backs up the atheist belief that God does not exist. All you stated is that God cannot be proven by science. On that same note, as I stated above, science cannot prove that God does not exist. Your next statement is also very flawed, “There is no theory of God”. First, theory is defined as an idea that is intended to explain facts or events but has not been proven to be true. So your claim that there is no theory of God is completely false. When people believe in God it’s not called a theory even though it can be categorized as one.

-There is no conclusive logical argument forthe existence of God. His/her existence is continuously debated.

Again you try to use logic to back your claim, I have already argued that case above but I will touch on another part of it. You state that the existence of God is continuously debated. This does not prove that God does not exist. A theist can simply claim that because people continuously argue about Gods existence means that God must exist. But I will just call this debate another tie that cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

-There is no comprehensive definition of God. There are many definitions for the same God as there are many gods. This is problematic if one is to ascertain the characteristics of God to judge if God exists or not.

Your last point is that there is no comprehensive definition of God. I can simply put this to rest by quoting the Holy Bible. “I am Alpha and Omega,” first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. This means that he is our beginning and our end. Now I know that this means nothing to atheist, but that is the definition we have for God. I am just arguing your claim. The next part of your claim is that because there is no definition that we cannot judge if God exists or not. I can counter this by stating that we cannot understand God. It would be impossible for us to truly understand God as defined by the Holy Bible. If we could understand God then he would not be God. So your claim that not being able to understand God means he does not exist is flawed.

[size=18pt]2) The paradox of omnipotence[/size]
We agree that a "married bachelor" can not exist because it is contradictory and self-refuting. An omnipotent God is self-refuting and contradictory.
-Omnipotence is the ability to do all things. To have all abilities

Omnipotence is not just the ability to do all things, it is having unlimited power. Not having any limitations or restrictions.

-However, some abilities are contradictory to each other. or some actions negate each other
-To sleep means you are not awake, for instance. You cant be alseep and awake at the same time.
God has the ability to live for ever. Eternal life. However, that means that he can not die and he doesnt have the ability to kill himself

Your claim is that because God can do all things that it contradicts certain aspects of his being.

First you are trying to place God under the same laws and rules that we are bound by on this Earth. This type of thinking is invalid because if God were restricted to these same laws then he would not be God. (Refer to Omnipotence definition)

God has the ability to be everywhere. he is omnipresent. However, that means that he doesnt have the ability to leave a certain place or the ability to be absent.

Next you claim that he does not have the ability to leave a certain place or to be absent. This is where you are wrong. If you have done any research about God or the Bible you would find out that there is such a place where God is not present. Hell is that place. This is not because God cannot be present in Hell, this is because he chooses not to be present there.

This argument is not very strong to disprove the existence of God. It’s only used to try and stump theist who have not done their research.

Bonetoy:
1. The fundamental atheist argument. (COUNTER)
Atheism – the DISBELIEF in the existence of God.
Within your own definition you are admitting that it’s just a belief and not a fact. You can claim the same think about people who do believe, but you also take care of that argument for me in the next paragraph when you claim that “The existence of God is taken on FAITH”. The term faith can only be used to show trust or belief in something or someone without any evidence to back up your belief. So if you claim to be atheist then you cannot have faith in anything. If you try to argue that you can have faith that an elevator will take you to the top floor safely and not crash you are wrong. You believe that you will be safe based on statistics and your own experiences with elevators.

Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of it. Just like not swimming is not a belief, and not being straight is not a belief. You just don't do it.

Bonetoy:
You try to claim that there is no logical argument for God. Since when did it become illogical to believe in God? Even today there is a greater number of people in the world who believe in the existence of one God than those who do not believe. They range from the very poor to the very rich, highly intelligent to the simplest minds, gays and straights, old and young. Let’s put that aside though and focus on another part of that claim. You want to claim that believing in God is illogical if that is true then you are saying the same for disbelieving in God. Both sides are making a judgment based off of no “scientific” evidence proving either side. Then I refer you back to Faith for the theist belief.

The number of people who believe in a particular thing does not equate the validity of that thing. This logic of yours is highly flawed.
There was a time most cosmologists thought the universe was static without evidence, that didn't make the universe static. You people should stop using this illogical argument from number of proponents. It is an irritating logical fallacy.

Bonetoy:
Next, you try to state that science backs up the atheist belief that God does not exist. All you stated is that God cannot be proven by science. On that same note, as I stated above, science cannot prove that God does not exist.

Once again, atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of it. You cannot believe in a negative. You can only believe something is real. Having faith that something is not real is totally out of reason because you cannot believe anything about what you don't believe in the first place.

Science has shown us that no God is needed to explain and understand everything in nature. Science makes God unnecessary.
The possibility of the existence of a God exactly the same as the possibility of the existence of an invisible flying pig on Mars.

Bonetoy:
Your next statement is also very flawed, “There is no theory of God”. First, theory is defined as an idea that is intended to explain facts or events but has not been proven to be true. So your claim that there is no theory of God is completely false. When people believe in God it’s not called a theory even though it can be categorized as one.

Theory in scientific terms is different from theory in non-technical term. When something is backed by evidence, it becomes a scientific theory. God is not backed by evidence, so scientifically, it remains an hypothesis.

In non-technical terms, God is just a theory, he has not been proven true as you said. Still, people believe in this speculation without thought.

Bonetoy:

Your last point is that there is no comprehensive definition of God. I can simply put this to rest by quoting the Holy Bible. “I am Alpha and Omega,” first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. This means that he is our beginning and our end. Now I know that this means nothing to atheist, but that is the definition we have for God. I am just arguing your claim. The next part of your claim is that because there is no definition that we cannot judge if God exists or not. I can counter this by stating that we cannot understand God. It would be impossible for us to truly understand God as defined by the Holy Bible. If we could understand God then he would not be God. So your claim that not being able to understand God means he does not exist is flawed.

That is your definition according to the Christian religion. Need I remind you that there are thousands religions out there?

Bonetoy:
2 The paradox of omnipotence (COUNTER)

Omnipotence is not just the ability to do all things, it is having unlimited power. Not having any limitations or restrictions.

Your claim is that because God can do all things that it contradicts certain aspects of his being.

First you are trying to place God under the same laws and rules that we are bound by on this Earth. This type of thinking is invalid because if God were restricted to these same laws then he would not be God. (Refer to Omnipotence definition)

Next you claim that he does not have the ability to leave a certain place or to be absent. This is where you are wrong. If you have done any research about God or the Bible you would find out that there is such a place where God is not present. Hell is that place. This is not because God cannot be present in Hell, this is because he chooses not to be present there.

This argument is not very strong to disprove the existence of God. It’s only used to try and stump theist who have not done their research.

This post is as self contradictory as it is self destructive.

How can you be absent from a place when you are present in all places?

Need I remind you of the definition of omnipresence?

ooman:

Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of it. Just like not swimming is not a belief, and not being straight is not a belief. You just don't do it.

This is a huge argument used by many atheists and it is an invalid one. Lack of belief is the exact same thing as not believing. And if you continue to try to argue this case, then all you are saying is that; it’s not that you don’t believe in God, it’s that you refuse to acknowledge him. And if that’s the case then you must believe in God. The other option is that you're saying you don't care whether he exists or not, which would mean that you cannot make the claim that God does not exist.

ooman:

The number of people who believe in a particular thing does not equate the validity of that thing. This logic of yours is highly flawed.
There was a time most cosmologists thought the universe was static without evidence, that didn't make the universe static. You people should stop using this illogical argument from number of proponents. It is an irritating logical fallacy.

I never stated that because more people believe in God it is a valid belief. I stated that it's not illogical. As far as your cosmetologist (cosmologist)statement, they believed the universe was static because the stars did not change, this did not make it valid but it was logical at the time. And until God is proven not to exist it is still logical to believe that he exists.

ooman:

Once again, atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of it. You cannot believe in a negative. You can only believe something is real. Having faith that something is not real is totally out of reason because you cannot believe anything about what you don't believe in the first place.

Science has shown us that no God is needed to explain and understand everything in nature. Science makes God unnecessary.
The possibility of the existence of a God exactly the same as the possibility of the existence of an invisible flying pig on Mars.

Already hit the belief topic, And as far as your faith argument, all you did was validate my point.
Again science has not shown us God is not necessary to understand everything in nature. There are countless subjects and events that science cannot explain or even come close to explaining in nature. If we have not figured out how our planet works, as well as the universe, in its entirety, how can we claim that science disproves God? Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. If there was actualy ground breaking scientific evidence that God does not exist this would be spread across the world like wildfire.
Trying to compare the existence of God to an invisible flying pig on Mars or an invisible pink unicorn is another big argument atheist like to use. Let's talk about this. So you're claiming that if God exist then there has to be such a thing as an invisible (insert description) animal. My first argument would be that the animal is not omnipotent it is bound by laws and therefore cannot violate those laws. If you want to claim that that animal could be omnipotent, then you would be saying that it is a god, in which case you would believe in a god if not God.

ooman:

Theory in scientific terms is different from theory in non-technical term. When something is backed by evidence, it becomes a scientific theory. God is not backed by evidence, so scientifically, it remains an hypothesis.

In non-technical terms, God is just a theory, he has not been proven true as you said. Still, people believe in this speculation without thought.

All you're doing here is using semantics. Theory is a theory is a theory. Scientific theory is just a theory that is closer to being proven a law, but it still is not a fact. Hypothesis is just the first step of a theory. So when relating to God, my hypothesis would be the universe was created by something, my theory is that God created the universe. My experiments or evidence to further prove and advance my theories would be miracles in medicine, this just takes my theory closer to law, but still is not a fact.

ooman:

That is your definition according to the Christian religion. Need I remind you that there are thousands religions out there?

Yes that is the Christian definition, but if you do your research all religions that deal with the belief of one God have similar definitions to God. Please forgive any errors I'm not an expert in the Quran and I believe that to fully understand it I would have to learn the language it was originally written in, but the Quran describes God as the one and only, absolute existence. This is very similar to the Christian religion, as well as all religions that believe in one God.

ooman:


This post is as self contradictory as it is self destructive.

How can you be absent from a place when you are present in all places?

Need I remind you of the definition of omnipresence?

You are confusing omnipresence with omnipotence. They are two completely different meanings.
Omnipresence - Being present everywhere at the same time
Omnipotence - Having full unlimited power and authority.
So being omnipotent means that you are not bound by any laws or regulations ever. So anything and everything is possible.

[size=18pt]3)DEBUNKING PASCAL'S WAGER[/size]
“God can’t be proved. But if God exists, the believer gains everything (goes to heaven) and the unbeliever loses everything (goes to hell). If God doesn’t exist, the believer loses nothing and the unbeliever gains nothing. There is therefore everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God.”
- Blaise Pascal

Simply put Pascal's Wager is wrong if you are a theist or atheist. Any "religion" and I use the term lightly will agree that believing in God because it's a safe bet will not get you into heaven. Pascal's Wager is not an argument that any true believer would use. So this can be discarded.

As for the rest of your post you greatly deviated from your original topic. Everything you have explained saying that believing in God causes nothing but strife, pain, and suffering. You are glad to mention that the people following orders in "the name of God" do so blindly and happily. But you fail to mention those people in charge who are pulling the strings. Throughout history MEN have used the Holy Bible to manipulate and control the masses to do THEIR will not God's. During the dark ages people were forbidden to read the Holy Bible for themselves and the Church would have Priest "interpret" God's word. The Catholic church is probably the most guilty organization in this action. But if you really do your research Catholicism does not fully follow Christianity or the Holy Bible.
This is true for all religions. There has always and will always be people who will take advantage and manipulate others using "religion" I myself do not believe in religion, I believe in God through faith. Religion was created by man. In the Holy Bible it mentions the words religion and religious only 7 times. And of those 7 mentions only one of them is used in a positive manner. James 1:27 "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." So I will agree with you that religion is not a good thing.

In conclusion nothing you stated in your argument can be used to disprove the existence of God. You are only stating your opinion as to why people should not believe in God.

Bonetoy:


You are confusing omnipresence with omnipotence. They are two completely different meanings.
Omnipresence - Being present everywhere at the same time
Omnipotence - Having full unlimited power And authority.
So being omnipotent means that you are not bound by any laws or regulations ever. So anything and everything is possible.

Its either he's present at everywhere, every time, and he's omniprescent or he's missing in some places and he's not omniprescent. Omnipotent or not.
Stop making irrational excuses for your irrational faith.

Bonetoy:

This is a huge argument used by many atheists and it is an invalid one. Lack of belief is the exact same thing as not believing. And if you continue to try to argue this case, then all you are saying is that; it’s not that you don’t believe in God, it’s that you refuse to acknowledge him. And if that’s the case then you must believe in God. The other option is that you're saying you don't care whether he exists or not, which would mean that you cannot make the claim that God does not exist.

I never stated that because more people believe in God it is a valid belief. I stated that it's not illogical. As far as your cosmetologist statement, they believed the universe was static because the stars did not change, this did not make it valid but it was logical at the time. And until God is proven not to exist it is still logical to believe that he exists.

Already hit the belief topic, And as far as your faith argument, all you did was validate my point.
Again science has not shown us God is not necessary to understand everything in nature. There are countless subjects and events that science cannot explain or even come close to explaining in nature. If we have not figured out how our planet works, as well as the universe, in its entirety, how can we claim that science disproves God? Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. If there was actualy ground breaking scientific evidence that God does not exist this would be spread across the world like wildfire.
Trying to compare the existence of God to an invisible flying pig on Mars or an invisible pink unicorn is another big argument atheist like to use. Let's talk about this. So you're claiming that if God exist then there has to be such a thing as an invisible (insert description) animal. My first argument would be that the animal is not omnipotent it is bound by laws and therefore cannot violate those laws. If you want to claim that that animal could be omnipotent, then you would be saying that it is a god, in which case you would believe in a god if not God.

All you're doing here is using semantics. Theory is a theory is a theory. Scientific theory is just a theory that is closer to being proven a law, but it still is not a fact. Hypothesis is just the first step of a theory. So when relating to God, my hypothesis would be the universe was created by something, my theory is that God created the universe. My experiments or evidence to further prove and advance my theories would be miracles in medicine, this just takes my theory closer to law, but still is not a fact.

Yes that is the Christian definition, but if you do your research all religions that deal with the belief of one God have similar definitions to God. Please forgive any errors I'm not an expert in the Quran and I believe that to fully understand it I would have to learn the language it was originally written in, but the Quran describes God as the one and only, absolute existence. This is very similar to the Christian religion, as well as all religions that believe in one God.

What exactly is your first point? Lack of belief does not equate belief in lack. So atheism is not a belief. So what exactly are you saying?

Secondly, I can also unreasonably conclude as you did that until fairies are proven, its logical to believe in them. Logic is not a concensus, so stop committing fallacies thinking its logical to believe something without evidence.
And its cosmologist, not cosmetologist, gush! And they had absolutely no evidence of a static universe. It was just a model, proposed in the 1500s by Giordano Bruno- a philosopher who was burned at the stake by the Catholic church for not believing in the same biblical rubbish you believe in right now. The same rubbish you believe is "logical". So do not mistake acceptance of a model as logic.

Thirdly, what is it about how the earth works that science hasn't figured out? And concerning the universe, that we do not know how it started is not an excuse to believe irrationally by faith in some improbable creator. Evolution already disproved creation. And it did spread like wild fire. That you people don't understand it is your headache.
And how do you know the flying pig is not omnipotent? And I do not have to believe in it, but its existence is on the same level as any god you propose. Disprove the flying pig, then you would have disproved whatever god you believe in.

Fourthly- A scientific theory is a well-substantiated
explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. A law is a statement of scientific truth.
You dont just go from hypothesis to theory without experimental and observational fact.
I would be alarmed at what you wrote but then, people of faith are not known to be reasonable neither are you known to seek evidence.
So you can turn your hypothesis to theory without evidence. After all, all you need to do is to have faith, so what do you need evidence for? And you dont go from hypothesis to theory to law. A theory is a broad explanation. A law is one of the statements of facts that makes a theory correct. Where did you get that wrong concept from?

Am sure the Muslims dont agree with your definition of god. That's why they started another religion in the first place.

ooman:


Its either he's present at everywhere, every time, and he's omniprescent or he's missing in some places and he's not omniprescent. Omnipotent or not.
Stop making irrational excuses for your irrational faith.

You obviously do not understand what Omnipotent is, I have already explained why you're argument is invalid. Try reading it again.
And not once have I insulted atheist in any of my posts. Not once have I tried to persuade any one to believe in God. All I am doing is answering questions and correcting mistakes in flawed ideas and statements. If you can not handle an intellectual conversation on the forums I would recommend that you go somewhere else. You're only going to get more upset as time goes on.

None of you arguments are based on any facts or evidence. Its evident that your writing purely out of emotion. Until you give me something other than hate I will not respond to any more of your messages.

Bonetoy:

You obviously do not understand what Omnipotent is, I have already explained why you're argument is invalid. Try reading it again.
And not once have I insulted atheist in any of my posts. Not once have I tried to persuade any one to believe in God. All I am doing is answering questions and correcting mistakes in flawed ideas and statements. If you can not handle an intellectual conversation on the forums I would recommend that you go somewhere else. You're only going to get more upset as time goes on.

None of you arguments are based on any facts or evidence. Its evident that your writing purely out of emotion. Until you give me something other than hate I will not respond to any more of your messages.

Religious irrationality is not alarming to me anyone .. This won't be the first time. So run away.

[size=18pt]4. The Paradox of omniscience[/size]


We agree that a "married bachelor" can not exist because it is contradictory and self-refuting. An omniscient God is self-refuting and contradictory.

-Omniscience means knowing all things
If God knows everything, then he can not forget because the moment he forgets, he doesn't know everything. However, if God cant forget, he then doesnt know how to remember or recollect. If he can't recollect. then there is something he doesn't know- he doesnt know how it feels to recollect or remember something.

This is claiming just because God cannot forget then he does not know how it feels. This is flawed reasoning. If he knows all things then he knows all things. Just because you claim he cannot experience something doesn't mean that he does not know it.

Another flaw with your argument is that God is omnipotent, this means that he has no limits to his abilities. If he wants to forget something he can forget something, he can also recall it after forgetting it. You cannot place limits on an omnipotent being.

[Edit] The married bachelor metaphor falls in the same reasoning as placing God under the laws we are bound by.

[size=18pt]5) The Law Maker Argument against religious books[/size]

If we ask any lawyer today about law books, he or she will tell you that they mostly get obsolete after a year because amendments and new laws come into place. The reasons for these amendments are to keep up with advances in technology, to keep up with advances in human knowledge and to close loopholes.
Unfortunately, religion have holy books that have religious codes and are considered the laws of God. This is seen in religions like Christianity and Islam. This means that their holy books would have to be edited for modern times to be relevant. However, these religions claim that their holy books contain erternal truths (Chistianity) and that their holy book is complete (Islam). This creates a problem because we know for a fact that truth is based on evidence and knowledge which both change as time and society progress.

You are trying to make an assumption that the laws in the Holy Bible and Quran are invalid because society changes. Society may change but what is considered right and wrong within those societies do not change. Most people who don't believe in God will agree that at a minimum the Holy Bible is a guidebook at how to live a good life. It was wrong to murder thousands of years ago, it is wrong to murder today. It was wrong to steal thousands of years ago... and so on. So trying to say that that Holy books should change their rules is saying that we need to reevaluate what is morally right and wrong. You may try to argue against the laws in the old testament such as putting to death those who commit adultery. But the new testament overturns most of the laws stated in the old testament. All but the 10 commandments. There were only two commandments added in the new testament. Love thy God with all your heart, and Love thy neighbor as you love yourself. For most people these commandments are not disputed. Atheist and theist will agree that the commandments are just as valid today as they were thousands of years ago. (all but the ones dealing with God that is)

The problem is very simple; religious books like the Quran and Bible will continue to be outdated naturally, no matter how many times they are interpreted because laws by nature have to change with the advance of societies and technology or we will be looking at arnarchy from loopholes.

As stated above, no advancement in society will alter what is morally right and wrong.

If the words/laws of an eternal being can not be eternal, what is the point? Why not focus on laws that work?

This assumption is invalid for one reason. The laws created for man on this earth can not be eternal because man will not live forever. Eventually human beings will become extinct this is unavoidable. The laws, or commandments, in the Holy Bible do work even to this day.

6) A Problem of tragedy, evil and natural disasters


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicurus

The above scenarios are not the only options for an explanation of the relationship between God and man. Example, you claim that if he is able but willing or not willing that he is either malevolent, or evil should be eliminated. Just because God does not prevent bad things from happening to us does not mean that he is malevolent. You just assume that there is no reason for what is allowed to happen. You are asking why is he not willing, when a more precise question would be WHY does he allow it, which you ask below. So trying to use the above statements to disprove God is invalid. And now we move to those questions below.

A great question people ask when tragedy and natural disasters happen is where is God? Religious theists can not answer this question adequately as it provides a great problem with the theory of a "good and just" God.

-Why does God allow terrible things to happen to good people?
-Why does God allow innocent children to die of starvation in Africa?
-Why does God allow natural disasters like earthquakes to kill both sinners and innocent people indiscriminately?

You claim that theist “cannot” answer these questions adequately. The truth is that most atheists do not accept the answers that are given. They are dismissed as “illogical” or just nonsense.
Now, I am not asking you to believe in God. All I am asking is for you to understand the reasoning behind the answers I give to you. I get that you believe that if an all-powerful God existed then he should eliminate evil. But there is a reason for this.

There are four flawed religious answers to these questions

1) God gives man freewill. We shouldnt Judge God based on what man does with his freewill!
-A natural disaster has no freewill and there is nothing man can do with his freewill against an earthquake (except run/help survivors)
-An omniscient God can not give freewill. Such a God knows everything- what will happen and when it will happen- predetermination!

This world was originally designed to be perfect. (I know you don’t believe what the Holy Bible states but bear with me) The Garden of Eden was paradise, but the actions of man ended paradise on this Earth. You then think that a Good God should just forgive us and allow us to still live in paradise. My response to that is that it must be earned. Unless you are communist you believe that people should earn what they have. And to earn paradise all that is required is that you believe and trust in God. For Christians that is believing that God came to us as a man and died for our sins. So all we have to do is accept that salvation. So getting paradise back is not difficult. (Yes I know you do not believe this, but this is the explanation for why the world is the way it is) Back to the communist statement, if you are communist then… you don’t believe in God. True communism prevents the belief in any religion because it prevents people from fully submitting to the state. And history has proven that communism does not make this world a better place. Millions of people have been murdered by communist regimes and this was all done in the name of... man? This is evidence that God cannot be blamed for the bad events that take place in society. Men commit evil against men. (I will explain why this is allowed in the next question)
You then try to state that free will is an invalid excuse because nature does not have free will. As stated above nature is the way it is due to the actions of man. (why do people die in hurricanes, next question)
You then try to claim that freewill is an illusion because God knows what is going to happen. Just because God knows what is going to happen does not make freewill an illusion. We are all still free to choose whatever we want to do in this life. If our lives were predetermined then it wouldn’t matter what we did because it would turn out the way God planned anyway. They whole purpose of freewill is that God wants us to love him on our own. (I know you don’t believe in God but again please try to understand the reasoning)
Another counter to your statement is that you try to put a restriction on an omnipotent being. Remember the definition of an omnipotent being means that it has not limitations to what can and cannot be done. Laws do not apply to anything that is or would be omnipotent.

2) God is punishing the wicked (Gays destroy society false argument )
-Worse things even happen to those people who worship him and innocent children.
-An earthquake doesnt care if you are good or bad.
-Such a God can not be just. Why not Judge people individually rather than kill indiscriminately with floods and disaters?

You will never hear a true Christian blame or accuse gays of destroying society. We might believe that being gay is wrong but we should not hate anyone because of it. Our commandments tell us to love others as we love ourselves. This did not say “unless they are gay, or don’t believe what you believe”
The greatest way to sum up the world with evil and why it is the way it is to compare it to a test. In our society we give tests for everything. They are to check to see if people are worthy of a title or a position in our society. The lives we live today are just that. This is just a test to see if we are worthy to enter God’s kingdom. Since we are not omnipotent, what better way to get us to understand and appreciate paradise than by knowing and understanding suffering? It states in the bible that we will suffer, but it is not a bad thing. It would only be bad if there was no afterlife. Romans 5: 3-5 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. James 1: 2-4 Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. Again I know this means nothing to an atheist, but this is an explanation as to why things are the way they are. (Refer to my last statement)

3)God is doing in for a greater good! We are not omnipotent and so we can't judge
-Really? God couldnt find a better way of achieving the greater good than to let children drown in a tsunami
-Greater good for who? The societies ravaged by earthquakes? The dead victims?

As stated above, this life is temporary. Suffering for a brief moment in life is nothing compared to an eternity in paradise. Without that suffering we would never appreciate what is given to us after this world is gone. (Refer to my last statement)
If God does not exist you still run into a problem with your argument because suffering still exits, who do you blame then? Who do you accuse and persecute for the pain that still exist? Why is it still allowed? Without God there is no answer to any of your questions that you just asked.

4) God is not involved in these tragedies!
-Erm, he impotent or selfish not to help.

Ultimately what it comes down to is that you do not agree with the reasons on how God runs things. This is not proof that God does not exist. Not agreeing or not understanding why something is the way it is does not prove its does not exist.

The problem with the atheist and theist argument is neither really "knows" the full truth of the "matter" , problem (1) is the concept that atheists don't believe in "a" god , I think that is "false" , they "may" believe in "1" but "its" neither "1" from the bible , problem (2) is theists don't know "what" "it" actually is they just go with the flow , there for "it" boils down to a "book" where one side believes the story as "it" is commonly portraid and the other doesn't believe the story as "it" is commonly portraid ,they rather see "it" as something that the theists " don't " see or don't want to see or that the theists do see but don't want to admit "it" and rather "use" "it" to "their" advantage , "it" is the "common" practice of the "wealthy" so to go with the "flow" who wouldn't? Now the "wealthy" can only get their wealth from "one" place but yet again they wouldn't admit "it" for the "practice" of the "religion" is at hand and "churches" is not the "practice" but the "parables" of "mine" is for some "theists" don't know who "god" is and mostly have misinterpreted the "theory" of "god" for they do not "see" "his" face , oh but they will

negativecreep:
The problem with the atheist and theist argument is neither really "knows" the full truth of the "matter" , problem (1) is the concept that atheists don't believe in "a" god , I think that is "false" , they "may" believe in "1" but "its" neither "1" from the bible , problem (2) is theists don't know "what" "it" actually is they just go with the flow , there for "it" boils down to a "book" where one side believes the story as "it" is commonly portraid and the other doesn't believe the story as "it" is commonly portraid ,they rather see "it" as something that the theists " don't " see or don't want to see or that the theists do see but don't want to admit "it" and rather "use" "it" to "their" advantage , "it" is the "common" practice of the "wealthy" so to go with the "flow" who wouldn't? Now the "wealthy" can only get their wealth from "one" place but yet again they wouldn't admit "it" for the "practice" of the "religion" is at hand and "churches" is not the "practice" but the "parables" of "mine" is for some "theists" don't know who "god" is and mostly have misinterpreted the "theory" of "god" for they do not "see" "his" face , oh but they will

I agree, there is no evidence that proves or disproves the existence of God. My purpose is not to try and force people to believe what I believe, but to counter the arguments given in this post. Even though I hope that people would believe and find God, ultimately it is up to each individual to come to their own conclusion about the Argument.

I had to break this argument into several posts. It was too long for one.

cyrexx:
7)The Argument from Locality

The Argument from Locality runs as follows: Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period.


However, I argue that any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place. There are several good reasons to believe this, and if it holds, then any religion which did have only a single point of origin cannot possibly be true. In short: The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, points strongly to their being the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation.

First things first, definition of religion – Belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe. (Webster’s New World College Dictionary) Many try to claim that religion is just a set of organized beliefs, this is not true. It directly relates to the belief that a supreme being created the universe.
This argument makes the claim that all “religions” have different origins BECAUSE they start at different time periods and or in different locations. This reasoning is not correct for several reasons. Example, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity 3 of the largest “religions” in the world all start in different time periods and locations, but they all have the same origin. (Now I am not trying to tell you that you must believe in one of these 3. I am just giving facts.) Now there are multiple other belief structures that do have different origins, but many can be ruled out as true “religions” for the fact that they do not believe in God or a supreme all powerful being. For example, Buddhism completely different belief structure practiced by hundreds of millions, but ultimately it’s not a “religion”. Other “religions” would be classified under a different structure all together because they believe in more than one Supreme Being.
Cutting through the lecture, we will end at the point where atheist’s main focus is against the belief structure of one God. We can come to this conclusion because belief structures that do not believe in a supreme being do not affect atheist, and if atheists can disprove the existence of a single supreme being then the belief in multiple gods can be easily dismissed.

cyrexx:
The Argument from Locality is a valid argument against religion for the following reasons:


1. Any deity which desired to be believed in would reveal itself to everyone, not just to a specific person, culture, race or nation.
There can be no doubt that any religion that had it right would be universal. Modern science has taught us that all humans are the same on fundamental genetic and cognitive levels and that race is a social construct as much as it is a biological one. In light of these facts, it is not rational to insist that a god - plainly not a creature of biology, with no special ties or allegiance to any subgroup of humanity - would select any single specific people or ethnicity to be its chosen. (It can hardly be a coincidence that every religion which claims God has a chosen people was founded by those who claimed they were the chosen people.) It therefore follows that any god which founded a religion would probably provide its initial revelation to multiple peoples - preferably scattered throughout time and space, to ensure as wide a distribution of followers as possible - or, failing that, the initial revelation would be given to one group of people with instructions to spread it to others. But there are other points, detailed below, which tell against the second possibility; and while the first possibility would be virtually indisputable evidence of divine origin, it is a possibility which no known religion, present or past, embodies. It would be extraordinary for people from across the globe and throughout history who had no contact with each other to independently invent the exact same religion, without a god giving them all the same information through revelation. But again, this situation describes no religion in existence today or ever.

You make the claim that God desires to be believed in. First off you come off pretty self-righteous to be able to assume to know what a god would desire and how it should go about achieving that desire. If you read the Holy Bible you would realize that this claim is completely invalid. God does not want our belief, he wants our love. And the easiest way to explain this would be to reference the movie “Bruce Almighty” The main character asks God “How do you make someone love you without affecting free will?” God replies “Welcome to my world”. Next, just like with many other arguments as to why God does not exist, this claim falls under the same rule of “Just because you disagree with the way God runs things, does not mean he does not exist.
“There can be no doubt that any religion that had it right would be universal.” This sentence can be broken down many different ways. First you are just assuming that your statement is a fact in which case the claim of the statement is true. As I break down the statement all you are saying is that “There can be no doubt that all religions are wrong”, then I can further break it down to the statement that “There can be no doubt that God does not exist.” If I translate that statement into a theistic claim it would say this. “There can be no doubt that God exists.” This proves nothing for either side of the argument. Therefore the foundation of your first claim is not sturdy enough to build a strong argument against the existence of God, but I will continue.
“It therefore follows that any god which founded a religion would probably provide its initial revelation to multiple peoples - preferably scattered throughout time and space, to ensure as wide a distribution of followers as possible - or, failing that, the initial revelation would be given to one group of people with instructions to spread it to others” First things first, God did not create religion, man did. I will explain this later on. Next this statement describes the exact events that take place within the Holy Bible. Throughout the Old Testament God reveals himself to different people and peoples throughout the world at different times. In the New Testament he commands people to spread his word to the world. So your atheistic claim just validated the Holy Bible. But no, this does not prove God exists. (Please remember I am not trying to force any one to believe what I believe. I am just showing that there is no undeniable proof that God does not exist.)
“It would be extraordinary for people from across the globe and throughout history who had no contact with each other to independently invent the exact same religion, without a god giving them all the same information through revelation.” Your claim here makes the assumption that civilization does not have one single origin. You are assuming that people just popped up around the world and have never had any connection to each other. Both creationism and the theory of evolution agree that man started at the same origin point on earth and spread out over time. So if you go back far enough everyone is connected by that

cyrexx:
2. If there is a reward for believing, it is fundamentally unfair that some would receive more and more reliable evidence than others.An example may best elucidate this point. In Christianity, those who believe and worship God as he instructs are rewarded with a blissful eternity in Heaven. But not everyone has an equal chance to attain this reward. According to Christianity, some people, such as Jesus' apostles, were eyewitnesses to his life, his miracles, and his resurrection from the dead. Skeptics such as Doubting Thomas were able to assuage their doubts by examining Jesus' empty tomb and touching his resurrected body. But modern skeptics do not have access to this evidence. No one alive today witnessed any of Jesus' miracles, including the resurrection; even if they actually happened, the only evidence we now possess of them is a book, a copy of copies translated from an ancient language that contradicts itself in many places, that claims to contain the accounts of eyewitnesses. Even if Jesus' life happened exactly as the Bible describes it, the Bible itself is the only witness to that fact, and our historical knowledge is so murky and the evidence so scanty that some people have argued that Jesus never existed at all. But while people currently living must muddle through this tortuous mess if they are to arrive at the correct conclusion for salvation, that same conclusion was effortless for Jesus' contemporaries, those who were witnesses to his life and his ministry.

This cannot be considered fair. Why should God pick a small number of people and overwhelm them with so much first-hand evidence that their coming to the correct conclusion is virtually assured, while all the rest of us are forced to subsist on scraps of handed-down hearsay? Is salvation like winning the lottery - a matter of luck? How can God be a god of justice if he gives some people a much better chance than others?

The answer is: he cannot. If God's system of salvation is to be considered fair, then it must be a level playing field, giving everyone the same chance and the same evidence on which to base a decision. Plainly, in this case it is not. It does no good to say that the apostles who had first-hand evidence balanced this by paying in much greater persecution and hardship - many more recent Christians with nothing but hearsay to go on were subjected to persecutions at least as great for their faith. While I have used Christianity as an example, an analogous argument could be applied to any religion purportedly founded or sustained by specific miraculous events at a specific place and time.

Your biggest argument here states that it is not fair that some people get more evidence than others to believe. Something that is pretty much agreed upon in this world is the simple fact that life is not fair. Even the Holy Bible does not give concern to fairness in this life. Read Mathew 20 for more understanding on that. You then might argue that if God is not fair then he isn’t a good God. My response to that, which is also detailed in the Holy Bible, is that God is just. Deuteronomy 32:4 [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he. Just and fair are similar but different in one very important way. Being just deals with morality while fair is only concerned with equal treatment. I’ll give you an example, the public school system. While teaching children it would be fair that all children get the same work and assignments. But it would be just to modify the work for children with mental disabilities. It then becomes unfair for the other students who have to do the harder assignments.
“Even if Jesus' life happened exactly as the Bible describes it, the Bible itself is the only witness to that fact, and our historical knowledge is so murky and the evidence so scanty that some people have argued that Jesus never existed at all.” The existence of the Holy Bible is evidence itself for the existence of God. It has already been proven that the Holy Bible has survived for thousands of years unchanged with the exception of a few minor spelling and punctuation errors. (Research the Dead Sea Scrolls) For any book to survive for as long as the Holy Bible, and to have become as popular as it is today, shows that there is something special about it. Some try to claim that the Holy Bible is just stories taken from other “religions” or cultures. These are just claims from those who try to disprove the existence of God. The fact that other civilizations have stories similar to what is written in the Holy Bible is further evidence of its validity. Early civilizations entertained themselves by telling stories. They didn’t write down their stories and were only able to pass on tales orally. So it is understandable that tales of the same account would change from storyteller to storyteller. But as I stated above, the Holy Bible has not changed since its original creation. Here is more information on the Holy Bible and when it was written. http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/when-was-the-bible-written/ And for further proof, the Holy Bible is not the only evidence of the existence of Jesus. There are many Roman documents that give details of Jesus and his actions. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/
“Why should God pick a small number of people and overwhelm them with so much first-hand evidence that their coming to the correct conclusion is virtually assured, while all the rest of us are forced to subsist on scraps of handed-down hearsay? “ Let’s put it this way, if God were to reveal himself to the world, how many people would instantly switch from being liars, cheaters, and criminals to being “good”. In their hearts they would still be those liars, cheaters, and criminals. But because they know that God is watching they will put on a show to try and get into heaven. God does not reveal himself to us because he wants us to do what is right because it is the right thing to do. And as far as the evidence, there is enough to come to the conclusion that God might exist at a minimum. It all comes down to the choice we make as individuals to accept or deny God.
For the majority of the world there is enough evidence to conclude that God exists. Wanting more evidence is not a valid reason to say God does not exist.

cyrexx:
3. If there is a punishment for not believing, it is fundamentally unfair that some would receive less evidence than others, or no evidence at all. This is the flip side of the previous point, but is different in subtle yet important ways. If a religion claims to be the exclusive way to salvation and threatens Hell for those who do not believe in it, then what happens to those who never even heard of it due to distance in time or space? What chance do they have of escaping damnation?

I will tackle each section in this claim individually since there is a lot written.

cyrexx:
For example, if Christianity is the correct religion, then generation after generation - dozens of indigenous cultures, thousands of tribes, millions and millions of people - in North, Central and South America, in Europe, in Africa, in Asia, in Australia and Indonesia - all lived and died in total, tragic ignorance of the one true god, without ever being given a chance to know the love of Jesus or hear about the sacrifice he made. This holds true both for those people who lived before Jesus as well as those who lived during or after his time but before missionaries arrived there. They were never told about the Bible, never got to witness or benefit from any miracles, and never even had one single prophet raised up from among their number. Why did God neglect these people?
More importantly, what is the fate of those who never heard? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all?

God does not neglect these people according to the Holy Bible. First I want to give you a foundation for this explanation. God came to us as Jesus to give us an easy way to salvation. He wants us to spread his word to the world so as many people possible can get the chance to accept this sacrifice. Now for what the Holy Bible says about those that we cannot reach through preaching. In Romans 2:12-15 it talks about how everyone has God’s law written into their heart. You might not call it God’s law but you can agree that we all have a conscience that tells us what is morally right and wrong. Then it states “their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts ultimately accusing or defending them. In the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ,” So it states that men will be judged based on how they followed their conscience. Being judged is not the same thing as being condemned so those that never get to hear the word still have their chance to get into heaven. The only difference is they do not get the easy way into heaven, no this is not fair, but remember as stated above God is just not fair.

cyrexx:
The Bible, supposedly God's instruction book to humanity, nowhere addresses this crucial problem. Since the Bible is supposed to contain all relevant information regarding God's plan of salvation, it is exceedingly strange and hard to explain, at least for those who believe in it, that it does not answer such an obviously important question. The most relevant thing it says is its dictum that no man gets to Heaven without Jesus Christ, which implies that all those millions of people who lived and died without ever hearing of him were all damned through no fault of their own, but merely because they were born in the wrong place or at the wrong time. This is horrendously unfair - an infinite atrocity from a god one of whose main characteristics is supposed to be justice.

I answered for the first part of this paragraph in my above statement. One thing I wanted to touch on in this was your statement “no man gets to Heaven without Jesus Christ, which implies that all those millions of people who lived and died without ever hearing of him were all damned through no fault of their own” The actual text is “no man comes to the Father, but by me.” This does not mean that if you don’t know about Jesus then you are condemned. What this means is that no man is worthy to enter heaven because of our sin, but God paid the price for our sin by coming to us as Jesus; suffering then dying for our sin. So every one of us, past, present, and future are able to enter heaven, all that has to be done is either accept what God did for us (truly accept it in our hearts, not just saying the words), or if you do not hear about Jesus, be judged for your actions in this world.

cyrexx:
Lacking biblical guidance, some Christian apologists have attempted to solve this problem themselves. But the answers they have come up with are extremely weak, self-evidently flawed, and give rise to more questions than they answer. A typical example can be found in Jack Chick's book "The Soul-Winner's Handy Guide", which hedges on the matter by offering a variety of poor solutions. Firstly, it claims that all people are sinners and that God always judges righteously, though this does not in any way answer the problem; in fact, it is a refusal to face the problem. Secondly, it asserts of these people that "God's laws are already written in their hearts". If that is the case, then why was it necessary for God to give the laws to anyone? Why do Christian groups today go to all the effort of sending missionaries to other countries if they will only tell people what they already know? And even if people do have such innate knowledge, this does not change the fact that those who were born elsewhere and elsewhen still had much less evidence to go on than those who lived in a time and a place where God was regularly dispensing miracles. Surely the vague promptings of conscience cannot be as powerful an impetus toward salvation as an eyewitness experience to the power of God. Finally, Chick's book reluctantly offers, "Perhaps God, in his foreknowledge, had already known these people would not believe even if they were presented the gospel." This is ludicrous. Are we to believe that in all these cultures - millions of people who lived throughout thousands of years - there wasn't one single person who would have accepted the gospel if he had heard it? Humans are not so monolithic and never have been. And when Christian missionaries did arrive to conquer and colonize these cultures, they seemed to have little enough difficulty finding converts.

“Lacking biblical guidance” I just gave you direct passages and broke it down to the meaning. The guidance is there, it’s your choice to ignore it. You quoted small sections of the Holy Bible that prove your argument, by leaving out the rest of what the Holy Bible says you are twisting the truth in your favor. (Lying by omission) You then ask “Why do Christian groups today go to all the effort of sending missionaries to other countries if they will only tell people what they already know?” Now you are making the statement that everyone already knows about God and Jesus. Having a conscience (having the law in your heart) is not the same as knowing God. As a Christian it is our obligation to spread God’s word so that as many people as possible get the easy way into heaven. Is it fair that not everyone gets to hear about it? No, but as I stated earlier it’s not about fairness.
Your final statement would only be valid if our argument was true that there were people who were ignored by God. Which I have proven is not the case by what is written in the Holy Bible. Remember I’m not saying that you have to believe in God or Jesus. I am showing you that the Holy Bible does not contradict itself. And the answers to your questions are there.

cyrexx:
Besides, throughout the New Testament, God repeatedly reveals his message to people whom he must know will reject it. (See Matthew 10:5-6, for example, where Jesus tells his disciples to go and preach to the Jews, despite his lamentation in chapter 8 that most if not all of them are going to Hell.) And this does make sense. After all, if God had decided not to reveal his message to people whom he knows will not accept it, there would be no reason for him to reveal his message to anyone at all. He could just use his omniscient foreknowledge to pick out the people who would accept it if they heard it, save them, and condemn the rest. For Christians to say that God places a high emphasis on evangelism, then turn around and say that he doesn't bother spreading his word to everyone, is profoundly inconsistent, not to mention unjust.

Yes God reveals his message to those he knows will reject it. But he still gives them the choice to reject it. This does not mean that he should just skip everything and send people to hell and heaven because he knows what will happen. We are given the opportunity to live this life so that we can better appreciate eternity in heaven. And we are given free will because God wants us to love him because it’s what we want to do, not because he made us do it. So by skipping everything and just placing people in heaven and hell he is removing two things that are fundamentally necessary for our existence, free will and the experience of a mortal life. By no way is this inconsistent or unjust. All this sums up to is that you don’t agree with how God runs the world. This does not disprove the existence of God.

cyrexx:
Similar situations arise with many other religions. According to Judaism, God chose the Israelites as his people and gave his laws only to them. So what happens to everyone else? Do they have no chance? Is God a racist, condemning people to eternal exclusion from his kingdom based on the situation of their birth? Likewise Islam. Does the Qur'an, God's final revelation to humankind, anywhere explicitly tell us the fate of those who lived and died without ever hearing of monotheism? Since Allah states he does not forgive idolatry, are the pagans and polytheists of ancient times damned to infinite torment for circumstances beyond their control?

What you are getting into now is finding out which religion is the right choice. All three religions have the same origin. The main difference is that Islam only perceives Jesus as a prophet. And Judaism has widely mixed feelings about him. Considering that Jesus was a Jew and was trying to correct the corrupt religious leaders in the Jewish community, it can be believed that the Jewish leaders would not want to give up their power and position. This can explain why the Jewish faith does not acknowledge Jesus. And with Islam Jesus is claimed to just be a prophet. Within the Quran prophets do not lie, in which case when Jesus said that he was the son of God he would be telling the truth. I AM NOT TRYING TO FORCE ANYONE TO BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE. I am only explaining why I, and many others, believe in Jesus.
Just because religions contradict each other, that does not mean God does not exist. As I stated in an earlier post, the term religion is only used 7 times within the bible. And 6 out of 7 it is in a negative aspect. Religion is man’s creation not God’s.