Existence of god

Before we start I think I have to remind you that writing something in capital letters doesn't make it true. Also I want to remind you, that finding some excuse for why god would do it in a way, which is contradicting the expected, isn't an argument (you can do it for everything, which would make god unfalsifiable and therefore by definition not true). Additionally to say that it is biblical illiteracy, which result in disbelieve is just blatantly false. If you read the bible, as I have myself, with an open mind, I am sure that it is the most compelling argument against the religious believe (I must say in defence of the bible, that I am not a fan of fiction). You open it and just read genesis 1 and it is a enumeration of the most hilariously unscientific and just blatantly false claims you could possible imagine. While the bibles claims are scientifically false, you don't have to wait for long before it becomes absolutely appalling in any moral terms, as in Gen 19 Lot gives his daughters free to be raped. But god gets to justice and just destroys all of Sodom and Gomorrah. We just have to go one by one through the bible to have a perfect description of the most evil being imaginable: god. Now we can just say that it is only the old testament, but I happen to disagree. The center of the New Testament is the thought of god to torture, humiliate and kill his son, for no crime, to be able to forgive mankind its sins. Now what could possibly be bad about this? If god is all powerful and loving he can do what he wants and e.g.: just forgive mankind, but not with god. god has the special need of human sacrifice to make it fair. Now one could say that Jesus was always such a peaceful character and while this is mostly true, it isn't all of it, as we see in Matthew 10:34: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Now I think it should be obvious, why I don't think that the bible is a positive thing leading me to god. But all of this wouldn't matter, if there was a proof that there was such a god. He would be still morally about the worst possible being, but if he exist that has no influence anymore, because not to belief it if it was even well attested would be stupid. Now seemingly you haven't understood any of the points I made. Directly at the start you say "absence of evidence is evidence of absence... an absurd statement". I would like to know why you think so. I give you a quick example Bertrand Russell used: I state that there is a teapot, which is somewhere in the universe with unlimited power, but is to small to be observed by any of our measurement devices. We have no evidence of it what so ever aside from me claiming it (absence of evidence) and wanting you to worship it. Now I say in respect of your intellect, that you wouldn't believe me and would say that this tea pod doesn't exist and you wouldn't therefore start to worship it (you would take it as evidence of absence). Now please explain to me how it is, that if you put said believe in a two thousand year old book and again have no evidence for it, you would now say it does exist. Then to come to the point of omnipotence. I am not stating, that I am surprised that there isn't such a stone on the earth to entertain humans, but am aiming at the implications. Now let me explain to you what it means: The question is whether god could (not does) create a stone, which is so heavy that he can't lift it. If you say yes, god isn't omnipotent, because he can't lift the stone. If you say no god isn't omnipotent, because he can't create it. Therefore the thought of a omnipotent god is illogical and he can't be omnipotent. I would like to know how you reconcile this (not by some allusion to why god wouldn't do so). Now that the biblical god isn't respecting the rights of humans, I have to agree with you. You even provided us with examples on just how bad your supposed god is. Now I also as you can see above agree with you that the god of scripture is "fully prepared to cast you into the bowels of Hell", but I can't agree with you on the proposition, that in your fantasy people will go to hell for being "Lazy, Prideful or Stupid", but rather, because of gods incompetence to provide us (all of us not just one primitive tribe) with evidence that convinces the brain, that he gave us according to you. You go on to point out that the bible shows how malicious and vindictive god is and how unjust he is concerning some stupid rule of his, but I am surprised to see that you say he keeps us from sin as he doesn't want to punish us. I don't really get how you come to that conclusion after quoting god killing two people for taking "wrong fire". He seems to be absolutely thrilled by killing people. You go on pointing out what a bully your imagined god is, where I am again absolutely on your side. But all of this is absolutely beside the point of the debate, which I remind you is the existence of god. If I belief that the bible is the word of god you don't have to explain to me, that atheism as well as many things no one can influence, such as gender or sexual orientation, are sin. I would know that according to the bible they should be stoned to death (together with quiet a lot of other people). Now we come to the important part where I am again going to quote you: "These ARE SCRIPTURES OF GOD! I didn't make them up." Now I know you believ ethat the bible is the infallible word of god, but here we actually touch on something that is important to the debated question. You claim that the bible, a book, which is around 2000 to 2800 years old, is the infallible word of god and is inspired by the divine. While I touched shortly on that in the first round you seemingly need it explained further. In Addition to the extreme age of these books, they are written by illiterate and barbaric palestines. In the case of the new testament, it is also written about 40 years after the death of Jesus (if he even existed (I refer you to Richard Carrier a historian who sincerely doubts it)), by people who where neither eye-witnesses nor had any good eye-witness accounts. On top of that we don't even have original texts, but rather copies of copies of copies from another good time later (they aren't reliable, which is why the eye-witness account of a witness in court is even a day afterwards handled with care (this can be explained by neurology)). Then we have the accounts in the bible which absolutely contradict each other (I wont elaborate but give just a list): https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu... Now we have the question what actually is part of the gospel, as it was changed over the time. This doesn't align with the thought that it is infallible at all. Than there is the problem, that all that is written in the bible is absolutely not fitting the expectations of a divine book. Let me explain that. If someone would think objectively, what you would expect of a book, which is written by a perfect being to instruct humans in order to help them, you wouldn't expect any of the things that actually are in the gospel. You would expect progressive moral values (for he is morally perfect according to religion), for example slavery is wrong.Tthis can't be found anywhere within the bible, as it just gives you instructions on how to treat them (Deu 15,1"23, ...). It should have something interesting scientific in it (because science brought humans a good live), e.g.: the germ theory of disease and that we should wash our hands before dinner. We would expect one version and not different people claiming to posses the perfect word of god (e.g.: bible, koran, ...). Instead of all of this, we have an ancient book which describes about the least moral things, according to illiterate tribes in Palestine, written 40 years after their occurrence and has aside from obvious false statements also a lot of contradictions in it. Now I know you can just say that you don't believe, but it is pretty much clear as soon as you read the bible and listen to modern historians and not just your pastor. Therefore as the bible has no historic value and it is obvious that it was written by man to fit their tribal rules (which mostly weren't that good or just), we can't use it as a source of fact and you can't just quote it as though it were fact. Now we can come a little to your description, that if I would come to god through Jesus and the atonement of sin I will be saved. The sin you are describing can either be from the action of the Jews in the old testament, which would make us born in sin and commanded to be well, or it could be in some action. Those action such as homosexuality, which I am sure you regard as a sin, aren't chosen (as well as all the others, if we take into account that there is no free will observed). No one chooses to be gay (aside from god making you gay according to you) and no one can change it. The other side would say, that we have sin, because Abraham had sin, of whom we are historically pretty sure that he didn't exist (as well as moses and the egyptian exile). Therefore is the concept of sin not fitting for our experienced world. Now you describe freedom as being with god for ever, but I can't see in the slightest how a divine north korea you have to stay and be happy in, has anything to do with freedom of any kind. Therefore I conclude that you haven't made any arguments, but just stated that if you believe in the bible it is obvious. I have shown that believe in the bible isn't in anyway a route to truth and therefore there is no argument for god. You say that belief in god will come from the sincerity towards him or how you devote yourself to him and it would result in revelation, but I can asserts as many other that this isn't true. Also I don't know why I should call something god, if it needs to be worshiped to be good (your god sounds more like a three year old child to me).