An all-knowing, all-powerful God does not exist

Again, I don't see how my views are illogical. I have given explanation as to why they are logical. However, what you're doing is simply disagree without actually supporting your claims in any way. What part of your side is backed-up by scientific evidence? I have refuted your arguments, and what you respond by saying that my claims simply don't prove the existence of God. You just make assumptions. I would say my side is supported by evidence. The cause of the Big Bang cannot be space-less, immaterial, and timeless. Everything had a beginning. Chance is not a force. Evolution doesn't explain reason because we merely react. Our thoughts are the product of previous natural laws we have no control over, so why should any of our thoughts be true if they're determined by mindless processes. And science. You need a mind to make science because science doesn't say anything, scientists do. Mind is an immaterial thing in the immaterial realm. Believing in the immaterial realm makes you a theist. I will now provide evidence for the God of the Bible. Are miracles possible? If we look back at the cosmological argument, we now know that the first verse of the Bible (In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (immaterial realm) and earth(matter)) is at least possible. If this verse is true, ALL the other verses in the Bible are at least possible. Since God is the creator of the universe, he has authority over it. He can do anything. Same thing goes with bringing people from the dead. He made life, he can do anything He wants with it. Well, evidence shows the first verse is true. There was a beginning, and the cause cannot be spaceless, immaterial, and timeless. Early Testimony Many New Testament documents are written prior to 70 A.D. We have eye witness accounts. Specific and sharp details that could only be written by eye witness accounts. In the Book of Acts there is about 84 eye witness testimonies from chapter 13 to chapter 28. Gospel of John has about 59 of these as well. These eye witness testimonies are highly accurate historically and in detail. Denying the New Testament is reliable by looking at the eye witness accounts is like saying the Titanic never sunk. How do we know that the Titanic sank? None of us saw it sink. The oldest person to have seen it sink is no longer alive. Well, we have eye witness testimonies that have deep detail about the event, we have archaeological evidence this happened, and we have the Titanic at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. Or is like saying George Washington never existed. Yet we have eye witness testimonies and historical records. Embarrassing Testimony Embarrassing testimonies would not be made up. For example, all disciples run away from Jesus, who they thought they trusted, now of the crucifixion. And while they were running away, the women took their place, being braver and facing danger. You don't lie to make yourself look bad. Sure, maybe we've done it a few moments under specific conditions, but never enough to write a whole book about your mistakes and who you really are. Both in the New and Old Testament are filled with the most sinful persons. For example, King David. He is supposed to be a figure we all look up to. He is a man after God. But what does he do? He lies, he commits adultery, he commits rape, he murders one of his soldiers because of fear that his evil deeds are seen. He"s supposed to be a good figure. God tells the sins, brokenness, mistakes, flaws, and darkest of deeds of every character in the Bible. This shows you this is not invented. True Testimony Looking at all the historical eye witness testimonies, we know that all the apostles and followers of Jesus are tortured and killed in the most horrific ways. And they could have all avoided their death by simply denying that Jesus didn't raise from the death. Or at least, they could've prolonged their lives. If Christianity isn't true and it's just a joke, or a lie, why would they risk everything they have? Including their lives? In fact, let me give you a quick summary of the evidence that shows how these events happened, to some of the apostles. Matthew - Killed by stabbing as ordered by King Hircanus. Mark - Burned during Roman Emperor Trajan's reign. Peter - Crucified upside-down by the gardens Nero on the Vatican Hill circa 64 A.D. Andrew - crucified on an "X" shaped cross by Aegeas, governor of the Edessenes, around 80 A.D. Non-Biblical Testimony There are many non-biblical testimonies about the Bible and Jesus that further prove the reliability of the Bible and the evidence. To give you a few examples: We have Flavius Jesephus. He was a Jewish historian born around 38 A.D. He also served the Roman commander who was Vespasian in Jerusalem until the destruction of the city came. He wrote "Antiquities of the Jews". This mentions data and historical testimonies that prove Bible verses. This is what he wrote: "At this time there was a wise man who called Jesus. And his conduct was good, as he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive..." Prophetic Testimony Prophecies of Jesus were written in the Old Testament that were before 700 years in advance. These prophecies further support the truth of the Bible because it stays congruent and claims something that will absolutely happen. The Old Testament is filled with prophecies because these would support the truth of the Bible. Jesus knew this. That's why he performed miracles. Jesus knew that anyone could claim to be the Son of God, and he used miracles and prophecies to prove that he was really the Messiah, since he had authority over evil, disease, natural disasters, evil. He then claims that my arguments lack confirmation for something that should be explained. That's not true. I just gave evidence for each of my points. We know these things from what we do know, not what we don't know. BertrandsTeapot, you keep claiming my points lack logic. How do they lack logic? I've asked this question before already. You just say it's illogical without giving an explanation. I didn't take arguments as my own. In fact, just like in a research paper, we compile information and add our thoughts to make it more original and avoid plagiarism. You just gave quotes from Frank Turek that are not found here. This means, I have changed some things to make it more original. Shadows prove sunshine isn't complete. It has some of my words there too. Overgrown germs isn't Turek's. Anyone can say that. It's evolution too. You continue to say that my points don't prove anything. Yet, I don't understand why not. After refuting your points, you haven't provided anything else other than "I don't understand" or "I don't think so". However, I have defended my points. You say many would disagree with me. How does that invalidate my claims? In fact, the most important advances in science were by people who said everyone was wrong. Einstein for example, when he challenged Newton's model by getting rid of Newtonian Physics. So just because everyone says otherwise, it means it's true. We must look at evidence. If objective truth is determined by how many people say something is true, then let's supposed Hitler had won World War 2 and had brainwashed everyone into believing killing gays and Jews was right. Would it still be right? No, because there's a moral value that is outside of humanity regardless of human opinion. Humans don't make objective standards because they don't have enough authority to do so. God, however, is the authority and doesn't look up to a different standard. If there's laws, there has to be a lawgiver. No science can make laws, you need a mind for that. Now we talk about the Bible. I will talk about as many points as I can. I see no evidence against Genesis. Most misunderstandings come from not understanding the book. Chapter's shift from genre from time to time. Understanding which parts of Genesis are more poetic and more literal is important to understand the order and how it all blends in together. Chapter 1 and 2 are parts of a bigger story, and can't be understood by themselves. It's just a quick overview. Just like many history books give overviews before talking about the full story or material. Genesis 1 is about God's purpose for His creation and not about science or/and time. You misunderstand because you need to understand how to read Genesis. You ask another great question. "Why did God have to rest on the seventh day?" You're absolutely right when you say He doesn't need rest. Then, why? John Walton, in his book The Lost World of Adam and Eve, in page 68 said this: "...we can discern that resting retains to the security and stability found in equilibrium of an ordered system. When God rests, He is taking residence in the ordered system that He has brought about in the previous six days." You make an excellent point. "None have returned or been resurrected." If people were being resurrected all this time, would it be a miracle? If it was common, would it really be special? We know Jesus rose from the dead because the New and Old Testament are true and reliable. Not only that, but God created everything that exists, so He can do anything he wants in it. Forces don't have minds and don't choose. Only minds choose. God chose to create, that's why he's personal. If there's nothing, how will something exist? He has to make it. Something must start the light bulb anyways. The sun had a beginning. It didn't just come up from nowhere. I don't any space left, but most of your arguments is you questioning mine. I answered the most important ones here, I believe. You say my evidence can be misunderstood and flawed? All you have to do is research it yourself.