God is Illogical

You ought to be careful, Anti-atheist, in your reasoning. Let's talk logically; the universe does not need a cause, but it does need rational theories into how things exist. These theories are (for the most part) provided, tested, and being steadily regarded as true. The theories that puzzle you so much make a lot of sense if you will only think logically about it. 2+2=4, and no matter how complex the reasoned sum, its course is infallible. Adding some bizarre stories to explain away the gaps of our knowledge without science or reason is like throwing curtains over a window and saying that everything outside is fabric. It may appear simpler, but it has no rational basis, and so, as I defined Occam's Razor earlier, Sure, so Lot's wife is a pillar of salt. A staff can become a snake. It's a crazy world. But when the Bible defies logic, that's when we call it illogical. Occam's razor favours the simple rational theory over the complex rational theory, and any rational theory over an irrational one. the Bible is an irrational stack of theories; A simple example of the Bible's irrationality would be Exodus 15:3: "The Lord is a man of war..." and yet Romans 15:33, "Now the God of peace be with you all..." Wait... How can anything be both wrathful and jealous and kind and loving? The divide of the Old and New Testament is littered with similar contradictions... but maybe the Lord just changed? Oh no, Malachi 3:6, "I the LORD do not change..." So perhaps we should just look at the New Testament? In which John 10:30 states "I [Jesus] and my Father are one..." But even in the same chapter, it is stated by Jesus in 14:28 "...for my Father is greater than I..." So, 'Father' = 'Jesus', and 'God' > 'Jesus'. A flagrant contradiction. Let's face it, the Bible may give us moral teachings here and there, but it is no scientific or logical book.Wow, that's a lot of wishy-washy reasoning there! So evil has to exist. I'm prepared to believe, as two sides of a coin, there must be dark for light, wrong for right, no for yes, etc. But even if we have evil, why must innocent babies across the world suffer horrific diseases? Why must poor families starve to death while others become overweight with food? Why is there no justice, freedom, equality? Surely if suffering 'had' to exist, God could make it happen to one person (e.g. Jesus?) and let the world live happily?We remain in trying times, in which organs fail, dictators rise and the people are without support. People grow old in painful ways and hurt each other - what kind of sadistic God would let these things happen, just because apparently 'evil has to exist'. And according to your reasoning, there must be evil for good, but not good for evil (If such a good didn't exist we would be in deph to hell.) There is no backing ultimately to your assertion, because whatever you say about evil having to exist, if there was a God that was all powerful and all loving, the innocent would not suffer for the nonsensical polar opposite. Your final sentence here intrigues me - please elaborate. If 'God is omnipotence', as you said, 'he can both lift and not lift the stone'. There are two reasons I want to pull my hair out upon reading this statement: Logic is infallible. You cannot have something that is true and false at the same time in the same respect. A law of logic states, "It is that the same attribute cannot, at the same time, belong and not belong, to the same subject and in the same respect..." You are effectively saying that it is logic that is wrong, 2+2 = 4 and 5 at the same time, which is an inane idea as logic is not to be questioned! Even if, let's just say, what the heck, feeling a little crazy, we do choose to question the very foundations of logic, it is pointless, because this argument is that God is illogical. In effect, you have just added to my case that God is not logical. Thank you for introducing Hume's old Induction fallacy into the case. Great Atheist, Hume. The argument, Anti-atheist, is useless, however. Our argument is with logic, not science or evidence. Logic is a priori, and thus needs no experimenting. 2+2=4 without having to test it. We don't need to induce our logical arguments; if the logic is sound, the case is closed.Anti-atheist, no one has ever seen a neutron, proton or electron with their naked eyes, and yet you yourself believe they exist...? We have evidence for the atomic particles just as we have evidence for gluons [1] but I think your argument also fails when you remember that the forces holding the nucleus together are the two nuclear forces that are some of the strongest known to man. There is no need for a dead preacher to hold parts of an atom when we have a tried and tested force.Your splayed out argument is poor, because for one thing, you take statements made hundreds of years ago by philosophers like Aristotle who himself believed flies have four legs and heavy objects will fall faster than light ones. Not everything needs a cause. The virtual particle [2] is a particle, we believe, that has no cause and yet has a temporary existence. This, I believe, is a small piece of evidence in the face of centuries of blind theories. This is enough to challenge your entire argument, which I believe is not based so much on logic as untested speculation.I await your next round with eager anticipation. Thank you.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...