Bewildered1

Doesn't your "omnipotent God" (if "It" exists) have the final freewill choice regarding EVERYTHING that occurs in the entire universe?

Who has the final call, according to what you believe?

After all, how can beings of limited power and intellect be logically responsible for misunderstanding the "Word" of your supposedly "Omnipotent and Omniscient" version of "God?"

In other words, can your "God" (if "It" exists) be FORCED to sit by helplessly and watch an event/situation occur with NO CHOICE regarding the result?

The one in the video that the lead singer is obviously singing about?

I've read several posts by supposed ex-Atheists/Agnostics who have converted to Christianity, but they NEVER give logical reasons for doing so. Can ANY ex-Atheists/Agnostics actually form a logical argument for why the Christian version of "God" can even POSSIBLY exist? I believe that some kind of a Supreme Being can logically exist, but the Christian version of "God" is logically impossible. Can you prove that the existence of the Christian version of "God" is logically possible?

As an Agnostic, I understand that the Atheist position is tenable. IE: it is logically possible that there is no Supreme Being.

I also understand that the Theist position is tenable. IE it is logically possible that there is some kind of Supreme Being (or Beings) out there.

But the Christian version of "God" is completely disprovable, based on the logical contradictions in His character and description in the Bible.

Do Christians need to take a course in logic in order to understand how to read and evaluate a book?

Feel free to email me if you'd like me to disprove the Christian "God" for you. It's really simple. I'm open for any calm and polite exchange of ideas.

All human fetuses have a tail for approximately 1 month inside the womb. It eventually disintegrates, as it does in gorillas, chimps, orangutans, and other tailless mammals. But the DNA is still there. How can this be, if evolution is wrong and we were created as tailless human beings by God?

Whales and dolphins have hind legs during their development in the womb. That DNA remains in their bodies. Why?

Chicken DNA has been decoded to the point where scientists can actually activate the genes in their eggs to grow a full set of baby, alligator-like teeth in the embryos. Why do they have the DNA for a full set of teeth if they were created as toothless chickens by God?

Think about it: Approximately 70% of the world's population is non-Christian. The remaining 30% claiming to be Christian will not all go to heaven right? So we are looking at somewhere between a 75% - 90% damnation rate, depending. Is this love? Is this the act of a good father? No human father who allowed that high of a percentage of his children to die would be considered a good father, in ANY human culture. Especially if that father has free will. So is the Christian version of god a good father by any human standard?

Christians, let's just say that you COULD be wrong, just for a minute. Who would be your #2 pick for Creator of the Universe?

The Bible describes it's version of God as all-powerful (among other things). This means that the Christian God can do anything He chooses to do, at anytime. An all-powerful God would always have the power to save his children. He would also always have the free will to choose whether to use His power to save His children, or not. God chooses to allow His children to go to hell. The free will choice (and responsibility) is God's, not man's, because God ultimately chooses man's fate. God is not forced to damn His own children, but He does it anyway. That makes the God described in the Christian Bible responsible for the damnation of his own children. Isn't this a huge logical contradiction in Christian doctrine? If you disagree, then prove it wrong.

Yes, this is a religious question.

I mean, wouldn't you be willing to sacrifice your son or daughter for mankind's sins, especially if you could resurrect them at any time? That's no sacrifice at all. You haven't sacrificed anything that you couldn't get back at any time.

deaths in the following circumstance:

1) The father has free will.

2) The father is choosing to stand poolside in the back yard of the house that he chose to build. He is choosing to watch his 10 children (that he chose to father) choosing to drown in his swimming pool that he chose to build. He knows that he had chosen to warn his children earlier, many times - to choose to not swim so soon after choosing to eat. "My poor children!" he chooses to say, "Because my children have free will also, I must freely choose to allow them to freely choose to drown! It's their fault for freely choosing to disobey me! I am not responsible."

The father eventually chooses to save 3 out of 10 of his children. "The others freely chose to disobey me," he thinks, as he freely chooses to ignore the other 7 out of 10, allowing them to drown. "They freely chose to disobey me and I am not responsible for their choices."

The father is responsible for 7 out of 10 of his childrens deaths. True or false?