God is Illogical

Occam's razorThis would be a good argument. If it didn't favor God. I can prove it. Open a science book, now open the Bible. Witch is more complex? Is all these math things with all this speculation and quantum. Way more complex! Just say God did it.Problem of evilIf God didn't allow evil then there wouldnt be good. For good and evil to exist we need a standard above that which is evil and good. If such a good didn't exist we would be in deph to hell. The fact is, the evil and the Good must exist to be one in the same.The yin and yang! In the universe everything is conserved! Meaning even the good is conserved. How can we have an a temporal existence with a force of the existence of our goodness as a sentiant bay without evil? OmnipotenceThe argument is self defeating. If God is Omnipotence he can both lift and not lift the stone. He God has unrealistic Omnipotence he can make it so its not contradictory yet let the contradiction exist without being contradictory!1. The Problem of InductionThe problem of induction is a bad bad thing for atheists. It kills there reasoning since atheists don't start with a conclusion but want to get to a conclusion by induction The original problem of induction can be simply put. It concerns the support or justification of inductive methods; methods that predict or infer, in Hume's words, that “instances of which we have had no experience resemble those of which we have had experience” (THN, 89). Such methods are clearly essential in scientific reasoning as well as in the conduct of our everyday affairs. The problem is how to support or justify them and it leads to a dilemma: the principle cannot be proved deductively, for it is contingent, and only necessary truths can be proved deductively. Nor can it be supported inductively—by arguing that it has always or usually been reliable in the past—for that would beg the question by assuming just what is to be proved. There must be a God, because our reasoning can't be dependant on induction alone. This means we can assume God with nothing else. 2. Argument from contingent motion of atoms by Science and Philosophy What is the binding force of the atom? You would probably Gluons. Gluons are a made-up dream. No one has ever seen or measured them... they don't exist! It's a desperate theory to explain away truth! We know that the electrons of the atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second... and that the nucleus of the atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons. Neutrons have no electrical charge and are therefore neutral --BUT-- Protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is: LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER! Since all the protons in the nucleus are positively charged, they should repel each other and scatter into space. If gluons aren't the answer... what is? The answer is Jesus. This is supported by the Aristotelian idea of motion. For Aristotle and Aquinas, motion did not mean spatial movement, it meant change. For the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides, change is nonexistent; for this entails that a state of affairs, such as my microwave oven blaring obnoxiously, must come from another state of affairs, my microwave oven’s silence. To Parmenides, this is impossible – the being of my microwave’s blaring comes from the non-being of my microwave’s silence, but ex nihilo, nihil fit, Parmenides says: out of non-being, no being can come. Aristotle responded to this argument with the distinction between potentiality and actuality – that is, the new state of affairs exists as a potential within the previous state of affairs, until it is actualized by that previous state. Now, we know that a potential cannot actualize itself, because it does not exist as a state of affairs yet. So only something actual can raise a potential to actuality. In the case of my microwave oven, the microwave oven must exist before it can raise its potential to trumpet cacophony. So what is actualized is actualized by an actual. However, we must stop somewhere – for only can we observe change if something is changing it; thus, an infinite regress of actuals is meaningless and would not be able to produce change. We come to Christ as a hierarchical system of motion (not a linear system of motion). Evident to our senses in motion—the movement from actuality to potentiality. Things are acted on. Whatever is moved is moved by something else. Potentiality is only moved by actuality. (An actual oak tree is what produces the potentitality of an acorn.) Unless there is a First Mover, there can be no motions. To take away the actual is to take away the potential. (Hence, which came first for Aristotle, the chicken or the egg?) (E.g., the reason a student has the potential to be awake is that he had (actual) toast for breakfast. Toast has the potential to keep the student awake. But (actual) bread has the potential to become toast, and actual grain has the potential to become bread. Actual water, dirt, and air have the potential to become grain. To take away any of these actualities is ultimately to take away the potential for the student to be alert.) (Aquinas is not rejecting an indefinite or an infinite series as such, the idea is that a lower element depends on a higher element as in a hierarchy, not a temporal series.) Thus, a First Mover exists.