God's incompetence - 2nd try

I may not be taking this argument to seriously, as I am an atheist, but I'm not sure if you are actually following my arguments.If I haven't understood your ideas after this response please correct me in the comments so that we don't waste debate cycles. That said, even as an atheist, you should still argue in keeping of a common understanding of the Bible.Adam and EveCHRISTIANITY'S goal isn't to be more powerful than God- that is obviousThat was your specific point!This portion of my argument was that early man had a natural tendency of jealousy, and a want to be equal to God. That's not even true - where does it ever say that? Jesus hadn't even existed at this time.You do realize the connection between Jesus & Adam and Eve don't you?FloodThat doesn't address my point here that God again misunderstood and mishandled a free-willed race of creatures.BabelYet, he is still willing to perform acts that disrupt all of Mankind's progress. Hence, again, his incompetence is shown. If you even read my initial argument, I pointed out the meaning of competence and what it means to be a god, you would know that he fits this criteria meaning he is in fact, competent enough to be a god. You forget that Christians also have the criteria that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and perfect. His actions show that he is actually none of those. He is definitely not all-knowing otherwise we wouldn't need 3 or 4 do-overs and multiple religions; he is clearly not all powerful because he needs to keep tweaking his universe to make things happen that he didn't plan for; and therefore not even perfect.1) He doesn't control free-will, he understands that he can't control thus he put down laws and rules to govern them. (Where it becomes their choice whether or not they follow.) He can't control it, and mankind continuously got more evil so he wiped it out to start again. God didn't freely grant them Free-Will, they were tricked into taking it, as they did things off instinct until they ate the fruit of Good and Evil from the tree of knowledge.And knowing this he should have mitigated those risks by appropriately desiging conditions where he didn't need to wipe out everyone and start again, and try again with multiple religions. He even sent in a sort of avatar of himself on Earth to take a direct hand in things. All this means that he clearly is not all-knowing, that he hadn't planned on these actions to begin with. So clearly, he's just making stuff up as he goes along. As for killing being a punishment, this is before Jesus died for man, they still had the sins on them thus they would not go to paradise, they may either go into oblivion (my name for nothingness) Purgatory (A waiting place) or Hell. In any case, it seems more of a punishment than anything so unless you can provide proof rather than your personal thoughts on death (I like the idea of oblivion) then I think my statement stands. This is a side topic so let's not address that here. Its too big to tackle. However, you see death, the fact remains he did indeed kill humans en-masse. 2) "There are many ways to control free-will." Is your statement about how God should have done it. What you are saying is 'God can find ways to control Free-Will.' The definition I provided for Free-Will is "the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or god."'There are many ways for God to control the ability to make choices that are not controlled by god.' I'm pretty sure there is a problem here, either your ideology is wrong, or you have a different idea of free will, but I gave it the definition for use in the argument, so it should be irrelevant, but I will allow you to defend it provided you explain your definition of it.If you are talking about force, forcing people to good doesn't make them good. My argument here is that people decided to change their beliefs to where it'd suit them, they form their own ideas of good. Different ideas are not a bad thing, God didn't make the Holy Books completely vague, he left room for people to interpretation and for people to create their own ideas of Good and evil.There are a range of actions to control creatures of free will and most of them do not involve killing and he kinda got there in the end since we haven't been wiped out for a while. So why did he not do this in the first place? My main point here is he took several tries in order to get his way.He doesn't cast miracles on those he likes, he will cast them when he wishes, almost randomly. That miracles part was the beginning of my statement, but it wasn't actually that important to it. The point I was attempting to get across was that a constant universe is not a feat of strength, and you seem to ignore this. When he casts them is irrelevant. My point is that he needs to break the rules of his own universe in order to do so. He cheats to get his way. That again shows incompetence.