Saying Jesus was God because, being God, he performed miracles is begging the question. Believing the scriptures are from God because they say they are from God is not reasoning. That's like saying 'God exists because God says so'. Besides, how do you know if those supposed 'miracles' were miracles? Can you prove the existence of a miracle? The fact that you can't explain something rationally or logically doesn't mean there is a supernatural cause for it, as science has shown us from time to time, and continues to show us to this day. There could be a million other explanations for these deeds, which might have never even happened- How did you even know those events said in the bible took place? Where is the veracity of the bible proven? Can you show me it's nothing more than a fairy tale?

Prove God logically? Lol. You are saying that you observe nature and conclude that, since things are in motion, there must have been a 'prime mover' or whatever you might call it. That assumption is not necessarily true. How do you prove that there was a prime mover? You're playing the fill-in-the-gap-God game here. You don't know what started it all, you don't even know if there was a start. Maybe there was no prime mover. Do you discard that possibility backing up that decision properly?

For the sake of argument, suppose you were in fact right. Suppose there is a prime mover. Call it 'God' if you will. Why is it the Christian God? Certainly there is a -HUGE- gap between a 'first cause' and the (paradoxical to say the least, in my opinion) Christian God.

Yes you did. In the post from Sun, 2007-01-14 16:28 you said "it is logically necessary to posit God". Mine is a circular argument only because space-time is curved (as was revealed to us by the aliens), so any linear argument will eventually arrive back at itself.

If motion is circular (like your argument), an outwardly expanding universe (nature, as you call it) will eventually arrive at its point of origin and repeat the process, requiring no external mover.

Aliens 1, God 0

But if god intervenes on occasion, suspending the natural laws to give results different from what they predict (such as a human body sinking through the surface of the water, a handful of bread and fish multiplying into 12 baskets worth), the natural laws are insufficient means for determining god's existence - therefore god cannot be understood by natural reason.

Aliens 2 God 0

Since god is immaterial, it would not only be sufficient for him to provide the initial sperm which fertilized the Holy Egg, but would have to commandeer each step of cell replication during the Sacred Embryonic Development. This task is much easier if you are material , such as aliens are. If you can't understand this through natural reason, try using faith. There are multiple accounts of alien abductions and forced impregnations, which are at least as credible as claims of finding the Blessed Virgin in a blueberry muffin.

Let's go to the judges on this one before scoring the point.

"Robot" is just a mistranslation of the scriptures, just like mistranslating "young woman" as "virgin". Once again, if God pressed the pause button on nature's laws so that jesus could skim the waves, nature's laws cannot be used to prove the existence god.

Aliens 3, God 0

If resurrection involves the creation of new matter, then jesus was an absolute fraud when he summoned lazarus from the grave. Everyone was amazed because they thought they were looking at the original Lazarus 1.0, when in fact it was in fact the new release. Whatever happened to Lazarus anyway? Did he die again (in which case, what was the point of bringing him back), or just keep on living (in which case, he must still be hanging around, and could be used as an eyewitness)?

If jesus did not ascend all the way through the atmosphere, he must still be here, flying around, an observable phenomenon. An alien would survive the change in pressure, because aliens are not closed systems - as is the human body, which jesus is said to have inhabited.

Aliens 4, God -1

I'll give you a pass on transubstantiation (for now). You are bringing up Aristotle's substance and accidence. All well and good, except that didn't show up until the Renaissance. The church must have had other reasons for holding onto that tenet for the 1,000 years that they couldn't read Greek.

Do you not see the logic loop you've become trapped in here? You believe in them because they are credible. They are credible because you believe in them.  

I haven't seen anything. All the miracles people usually refer to are anything but miracles. The same things have occurred without god being creditted, and are usually cooincidental. All the extra special miracles are assumed to have happened because someone wrote them down. But I never saw that happen, so I have to take the word of others that it did in order to believe it. I cannot do this.

No, you can thank the missionary work for that. No other religion has put so much effort into spreading around the world. And yet they still haven't covered the whole thing.

The thing about miracles is that they are almost always accepted at face value without any questions at all. It's very similar to witch doctor-type guys in poor areas of the world that use technology and slight of hand to fool their victims into believing their techniques work. Even though there's really nothing happening at all.

If I'm supposed to believe that I'm suffering for a crime committed by some guy 6000 years ago, it's not going to happen. All that does is put further questioning on the supposed goodness of god. There isn't a single valid reason to blame a species for the acts of a single representative of it. Whether or not that person even existed, which I know is impossible. I wouldn't try a child for the crimes of his grandfather. If god does, than god is inferior to me. If he is inferior, than he is not worthy of my worship. He should be worshipping me.  

An assertion based on the biblical testimony of our species inherrant sin. But the question can be quickly turned around as well. There is no proof that the people who wrote the bible were not evil. None that I've encountered at any rate.

So says you. I say that you are the one using a sense of knowledge that doesn't apply. So we continue to go in circles.

Same for me, though in reverse.

I can logically deduce that one is not necessary. And that if one were, then everything would need a reason. Including god. The only way out of that is if god has no intellect and is merely an object without reasoning. You can't logically say that god doesn't need a reason yet claim the universe does.

To redefine your term for my use, the prime mover is existance itself.

You have done so for yourself, but not for me.

I'll let the alien stuff be defended by the presenter.

How are you getting this? I believe in them because they are credible. Not the other way around.

There are miracles and there are miracles. It could be called a miracle if by ordinary Providence some person survived a disease. It is a true miracle if a sinner converts. But these are, of course, not verifiable in an ordinary sense, and not technically extraordinary. Then there are miracles, properly speaking. These are truly extraordinary events which contradict all known ordinary course of events and which point to God alone as their author. Christ's miracles in the Gospels are one type of this (and I think their historical credibility makes these miracles credible). I would likewise point to miracles that exist today in Lanciano (a host and wine literally became flesh and blood in 1400 AD, oir so, and still remains today without corruption), as well as numerous other miracles that are in continual display in Catholic Churches (such as the incorruptible Saint Vincent de Paul or Saint Bernadette), apart from any miracle a particular saint may perform for his/her canonization or during their lives. These phenomena are unexplainable naturally speaking.

I believe in jesus aliens because they are credible. Both ways around. And back again.

There are gods and there are gods. And neither exist.

The story of George Washington and the cherry tree is more credible than the gospels, and even that is generally accepted as apocryphal. I personally prefer a president who chops down cherry trees to an alien who withers fig trees.

An even greater miracle is how the mother ship beamed carbon traces down onto the Shroud of Turin to make it appear as a medieval forgery, when it was in fact the actual shroud used on jesus' body.

Yep. A sword or a gun helps. Cortez and Pizarro knew that (are they saints yet?)

The speed with which Islam, the Protestant Reformation, Mormonism and Scientology spread are not admissible as miracles, I suppose.

So original sin is a sin of nature, but man is not inherently evil. Not by any stretch. All things God created are good. Except Satan. And us.

I guess there is no ready evidence on whether the residents of Toledo, Spain were evil during the Inquisition.  But look at them dying cruel deaths for not supporting the Church's beliefs.

Aliens 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884

God    0 

Yours in Galaxian 

Contradiction. If Satan was created good, then he wouldn't have been rebellious against God. Or did God make a mistake? If God had genuinely created him good, then he would have remained good and unrebelious.

Again, God created him KNOWING what Satan would do. He knew everything he would do, and still he created it. Why? He knew Satan would never be saved, but he still went ahead and created him. Is there a reason for that? If he knew he would be damned to hell, why did he create him in the first place?

Maybe I mistook you somewhere. If so, then you haven't proven why they are credible in the first place.

I don't.

1400 AC is a bit before my time, and you'll have to explain that a bit more. It didn't make sense. And saints are outside my expertise. I'd have to believe they were godly before I would care anything about them. Got anything recent? And that has testimony other than from the church?

Well obviously people aren't going to go around the world spreading word of a god if they don't think it exists and wants them to. But just because christianity effectively monopolized viral tactics doesn't mean they got everything right. And quite frankly, even 100 years back in time changes everything when viewing the church's definition of a miracle. Go back 2000 years and you could very easily claim that lightning was a miracle. Noone could prove otherwise. I take this whole miracle thing with a grain of salt. A percieved face in a grilled cheese sandwich isn't what I call a miracle, though many christians seem to think it is. Acceptance of many of the miracles I've heard of depend entirely on your pre-disposition and perception of the events.

It is not ridiculous. It is fact. People call it a miracle when they can see jesus in a cloud. Good for you if you're above that. Not everyone is. Now if you want to go into just biblical/sainthood miracles, I'm going to have to back away since I don't know enough on the subject to debate it.

You are using terms and/or phrases that are subjective, and I need you to define them in context before proceeding. "Created in grace" "lost it" "sin of nature" "personal sin".

Of course the scriptures say that. If they said anything else you wouldn't be here arguing for them. Which is exactly my point. To trust the scriptures implicitly would be to trust those who wrote them. Since I can't even speak to those people, trusting them is out of the question. 

Or so it is written. I think god screwed up royally if he's out there. He never accounted for people like me. Ah well. I'll get over it. 

Without a dictionary handy, I define knowledge as the result of accumulation of facts and experience during a lifetime.  

If I understood this correctly, I don't believe it is. I think it is illogical to believe that one complexity needs a cause when a higher complexity does not. If a complexity needs a designer, then every equal or greater complexity also needs a designer. Now perhaps this can be reconciled dimensionally. Perhaps your god is the god of our 4 dimensional spacetime. And maybe there's a more complex god that watches over 5 dimensional spacetime. Etc. But thats just assumption.

Motion is only relevant if you prove there was no motion. You are probably considering that an object at rest tends to stay at rest. But an object in motion tends to stay in motion as well. All of which doesn't really matter. This motion stuff doesn't pertain even if you are right about a god. The mere existance of matter and energy forces movement. The simple act of creation would not cause motion, and yet motion would be a symptom of the cause.

Well I'm pretty sure I took out your prime mover. As for your uncaused cause, it must be proven that there was cause to prove there was uncaused cause. I hope I said that right. I probably didn't.

Ah, but if existance itself is god, and god is existance, then we are god. God is us. Therefore the terms of heaven and hell are null and void, as death would simply return us to us.

1. If god doesn't make decisions then the universe just sort of happened.
   
2. If the universe just sort of happened then God isn't it's creator.
   
3. God doesn't exist because God didn't do anything.

good. we are in agreement. (although i have heard statements to the contrary from the quantum physics camp, but i am not versed in that, so i will not invoke it).

so how do we go from this rational, real statement to a wild, imaginary world where an interdimensional, ethereal being causes motion? 

and now you've contradicted yourself.  what leads you to believe that a Prime Mover must exist? 

Nopes. If the universe is self-contained, it can expand and contract continuously without need of an external agent. I can say it doesn't require an external agent just like you can say god doesn't require a cause.

But the fact remains that if a story less than 300 years old about an indisputably historical figure and a highly credible event (chopping down a tree) can be doubtful, a 2,000 year old story involving fantastical claims about a figure whose historicity is not as obvious, warrants all the more doubt. It's more believable because the apostles supposedly suffered for their beliefs? Perhaps that's because they thought the big guy was returning in their own lifetimes. They were wrong. Are your accounts of the apostle's suffering for their beliefs coming from any source other than the gospels? They are dated to around 70 A.D., about 40 years after the Alien Savio(u)r's death. Do you imagine any word of mouth story given 40 years to mutate can still be regarded as historically reliable? Then you point out early christians and seculars "attesting to christianity", which is different than attesting to jesus. Sort of like early Patriots and Royalists attesting to democracy, instead of George Washington. Many secular accounts included claims of christians engaging in blood rituals. I have to imagine you filtered those attestations.

Let's do this very slowly. No, still too fast. Much, much slower:

God cannot do evil +

I can do evil +

I can do something God cannot do

God is not omnipotent.

Nice way to skirt the issue, that being Galileo's recanting of an actual truth to save his life (as opposed to the Apostle's reputed dying for a myth). But let's follow through: If the earth were the center of the universe, what do you imagine the sun would be revolving around? So by endorsing heliocentricity, Galileo was denying (whether implicitly or explicitly) that the earth was the center of universe.  And the Church told him to shut it.  

All shall become clear when the Mother Ship returns.

Yours in a tub of jello... 

Your analogy does not apply. First of all, if the monitor was 'perfected', it wouldn't be able to malfunction. If it's able to manfunction, then it's not perfected in the first place. Also, for your analogy to apply, you must be the creator of all things, omnipotent and omniscient. When you created the monitor, you knew exactly what was gonna happen, and you could change it. The fact that you didn't change it, means it's your will that things result in the way they resulted. The exact same thing with Adam and Eve; if God had a problem with their fate, he could have changed it at the moment of creation. The fact that he didn't means one of the two: 1) He is not omnipotent. 2) He did not want to change things- otherwise he would have, as he is omnipotent.

Untrue. If you could talk to anyone in hell (if it existed) I'm sure they would say they didn't choose it. You are mistaking 'choice' with 'fate' or 'consequence'. The person chooses a certain way of living. The fact that because of that, they ended up in Hell, means that there is SOMEONE who lay down the rule 'Do this, go to hell.'. Who is the judge with the hammer here? God is the one that decides 'You got to hell, you go to heaven', or can you deny that? Can I die and say 'I go to heaven!'? No. God is the one that says so. Therefore he decides your fate. Even if it's a question of your own choice. He makes the final judgement. This is OBVIOUSLY paradoxical with the fact that 'God wants people to be happy'. If he thinks people are going to be happy in hell, he's an idiot. Furthermore, if he truly wanted people to be happy, he wouldn't have created a way for people to suffer eternally.

I'm sorry, how do you know 'In his view God tolerated sin blablabla'? Don't claim to know what God viewed when you have used the cop-out 'I can't claim to know what he thinks'.

I don't see the greater good here. Do the math: the majority of the world is very probably going to hell- according to the bible. It even says that there will not be many in heaven. Oh, and can you tell me what happens to the people before Jesus, or the people who have no knowledge of Christianity? Oh, and do you think, that because of our honest opinions that would 'turn us away from God', we are influenced/manipulated/possessed/whatever by Satan?

God did not create mankind to be damned? Not exactly. But he is ok with damnation and eternal suffering for some, because, as I have demonstrated time and time and time and time again; the fact that he has not changed things when he could've (at the moment of creation) and the fact that he foresaw everything that was going to happen, means he's ok with it. Otherwise, you can reach one of the two conclusions specified above.

*"Nor were the entire race foreknown to be damned". What? God knows everything.

Again, people don't choose to go to hell. They choose their lives, God says 'You got to hell' because people don't say 'Ok let's go to hell'. That would be seriously retarded. Do you honestly believe someone will choose eternal damnation?

So "God allows people to be damned.". That's idiotic and evil. And that's so others can love him? So he needs people burning for others to be kissing his ass? That sounds very, very wrong. Being God, couldn't he have made it otherwise? He could've done it a million ways, but the fact that he created things the way they are, means once again, he is perfectly ok with people burning for all eternity. You can not deny that fact. Please stop saying that I overlook things, this is the main idea.

God does not give gifts to mankind. There is no evidence for this other than what the Bible says, which obviously has no veracity as a book. Even if God did give gifts, they would be quite shitty, otherwise we wouldn't be screwed up the way we are. You can not honestly believe humanity has a 'gift of sufficient grace'.

Irrelevant. I'm not asking for 'every perfection'. The fact is that a perfect being created all flawed beings, which doesn't make sense, unless he gets kicks out of it.

Also, even if 'no thing would be created and only God would exist' leads to a problem. What's wrong with God existing by himself? If he needed to created us, then he's not perfect. Wanting to create us implies either a necessity or lack of something. Does a perfect being need things, does he lack things? No. Then why did he create us? He was perfect. Supposedly still is. 

Again. All in God's will.

You still haven't answered these:

1- Why did God create Satan knowing his future?

2- Why does God create a future atheist / unbeliever knowing his future?

3- Can you deny he is ok with it, taking into account he is omnipotent and omniscient?

On a more personal note, please preview your messages before posting, you are making a mess with quotes. Thanks.

Logically, an omniscient omnipotent being can create a flawed creature, but only if he actually intended the creature to be flawed.

Every choice we make can only be based on our basic urges, our current emotional state, our reaction to what we perceive, in the context of our past experience, our memory, current understandings, our current desires, and our assessment of how best to achieve those current goals. These all seem to be things which we don't actually choose in themselves, although many will be at least partly the result of previous choices.

If we 'chose' some course of action that we have been told by Someone not to pursue, that can only because we perceive that it will make us happier in some way, or else it's just that our basic urges have overcome our conscious judgment. In the first case, if we have have made an incorrect assessment, then our judgment is flawed, in the second case our basic make-up is flawed in that our basic urges are too strong and ultimately harmful. Either way, our poor choice is due to our flawed 'design'. The mere fact that our perceptions and capacities to analyse the ultimate consequences of our actions are finite, limited, means that it is virtually inevitable that we will make mistakes.

If Hell is something that no creature would consciously chose, then any choice that lead to that would be an error of judgment, reflecting those finite and limited faculties. If we have some overwhelming primal emotional drive which leads to such errors of judgment, that is hardly something we chose, it is a flaw in our basic make-up.

No matter how you cut it, such 'bad' actions can only be due to built-in flaws. So 'God' has to take ultimate responsibility.

Such things in an enlightened compassionate society are recognised as psychological problems, and we would attempt to offer such people therapy, advice, guidance, or if necessary restrain them, rather than letting them live out their lives damaging themselves and others.

Once the damage has been done, it would be purely a pointless act of vengeance to subject them to some massive 'punishment' after it's all over, when it is far too late, especially for people who may have been their victims.

So the traditional picture of God painted here is the supreme example of INJUSTICE. Note that there is no reason why a Creator of the universe need be a paragon of Justice or Goodness in any way, apart from the argument of 'Might makes Right'. We have no logical argument whatsoever that such a Creator would have to have our ultimate 'best' interests at heart. Why couln't such an entity just enjoy fucking us around? The history of natural disasters and disease would certainly be entirely consistent with such a view.

I don't accept that miracles as acts of god happen until I have seen evidence supporting the concept. And scripture does not fit with what I know naturally.

A nice thought. Care to pay for the trip? I can't afford to take that much time off work, let alone fly to Italy. Not sure why god needs me to pay the Italians to see evidence of him.

I'd have to see said testimonies.

Actually, we have perfectly perserved bodies from 3000 years ago. So 300 isn't a big step at all. Kill the bacteria, protect the corpse from predation and hydration, and you have a corpse that will last forever. I do however find it telling that the oldest body is only 300. There were many practices developed within that time frame for preservation of a body. If it was gods work, there should be much older bodies in the same shape.

Much like scientology, which I'm sure you would agree is a ludicrous theology. It hasn't been around for even 70 years, yet it already has 50,000+ members. I'd say that the spread of christianity had more to do with christians moving around than anything else.

The definition itself hasn't changed, but it's application most certainly has. It's very definition proves that beyond argument.
"an event in the external world brought about by the immediate agency or the simple volition of God, operating without the use of means capable of being discerned by the senses, and designed to authenticate the divine commission of a religious teacher and the truth of his message (John 2:18; Matt. 12:38)"

While our sight and hearing in and of themselves hasn't changed at all, the technologies we use to enhance them provide more than a thousand times more depth than was available even 100 years ago. A billion times more depth if looking at the time of the bible. The vast majority of miracles are simply natural phenomena that cannot be explained by the people of the day. By definition.

I've never seen bread become flesh, and never seen the dead rise(except in movies). I also would point out that neither of those claims is nearly as powerful as a force that lights the sky and screams over hundreds of kilometres. A force that even a brief contact with turns to ash and flame and death. Nor does it compare with a sky full of colours, swirling around with sheets of energy plainly visible. In some cases you can even hear it. Both lightning and aurora borealis can seem rather mundane once you understand the physics behind them. But before you know that, they are the voices and images of gods.

I never claimed you claimed it was. But other christians did. Which is all I need for conclusive evidence that people pick stupid things as their proofs of god.

I could. You could also pick up a book on paleontology and biology and learn about evolution. But you probably won't, because you don't believe in it.
Again, I didn't say you said seeing jesus' face in a cloud was a miracle. But it's all many christians need,which is adequate to explain how people could come to believe it when told by an outsider.

Right then. So why am I suffering because someone else broke a rule? Has nothing to do with me. If we're going to be held accountable for the actions of another, then we should have inborn knowledge of this. We do not. So I refuse to accept the claim that I deserve to suffer because of someone else. The concept is immoral.

I'm the one questioning the scriptures credibility. This doesn't help it's case.

Alas, I cannot. As mentioned previously, I can't afford to take a trip to Italy. And having to do so in the first place cements my knowledge of it all as a lie. An all powerful being doesn't need me to work beyond my means to prove itself. It can do so right here right now.

I said facts AND experience. Not just experience. I would also point out that any alternate definition you come up with is subject to an equal claim by myself. Google "Define:knowledge" and you'll come up with a huge range of possibilities. At which point the whole section of conversation turns into linguistic games. The english languages flexibility turns on us. Heh.

Only if it wasn't moving once. Your unmoved mover is only a logical conclusion to the discovery that all matter was once inert. Accomplish this and succeed. Fail and your mover is merely an idea. Not reality. And it's all a laymans argument anyway, based on a lack of knowledge of the structures of matter. Matter can't exist without energy. Matter cannot move without energy. Energy is the mover.

That would require some instruction on the basic makeup of matter and energy. I am not the greatest source for that instruction. And to be honest, it's not going to be an easy road. But it will be an enlightening one. Who knows, maybe you'll be able to use that knowledge to find more solid explanations of god?

Not quite. Energy is motion. It is also heat. And light. Perhaps other things we have yet to explain fully as well.

Well, if you toss a ball that happens to land on a stick, which bounces in the air and kills a mosquito, can you claim credit for killing the mosquito? I suppose you could, but it would be debatable. This is hardly the greatest analogy, but it should suffice. I wish I could explain the properties of matter and energy to you better, but I'm not a walking science text. And I don't really have time to become one.

Bingo, with my modification.

If you say the universe, you are mistaken. There are explanations other than a first beginning. We don't know, so debating it is merely intellectual exercise. It is not evidence.

That is contradictory. That is saying god is, but god isn't. Which is it?

I'm going to leave the rest to those quoted. Since this alone took quite awhile.

Yours in humanity and science,
Vastet.

That makes no sense at all. This is the irrationality religion has.

Perfect perfection? That's so nonsensical it's funny. There is either perfection, or imperfection. "Is that being perfect?" The answers are yes or no. Not "sorta". You can argue "Well, in a sense he is perfect because he is good in x way". That's not perfection, it's excellence, or goodness in general. Perfect: it's either yes or no.

To function means it has functionality, only that, not perfection. Imperfect things function. And they are imperfect.

Does perfection mean completeness? You can't have something "perfectly perfect" if it means "complete".

Does perfection mean "as good as it could be"? You can't have something "perfectly perfect" if it means "as good as possible".

Two beings can be perfect, one being a rock and one being an angel. What's the problem with that? Just like a simple rock can be black and a gigantic skycraper can be black too. Oh wait, I take that back, before you start saying "Except color is not perfection".

"They were not monitors". Really? That's so enlightening. If you really feel that way, then refrain from using the comparison in the first place.

The preachers have really gotten into you, brother. Still saying "free will free will free will free will" like a robot. That's nice.

Except God did determine their fate. I'm not going to repeat my argument again. I've done it many times, and you still haven't proven it wrong. To me, God remains an evil bitch.

The argument has ended at this point. When you refuse to accept that Hell is not a choice, but a consequence of a choice, it doesn't get any stupider than this. You are what people call "stubborn." I could show you 2+2=4, but if you are not willing to accept it, then there's nothing I can do for you. You simply don't want to be mistaken. Unfortunately for you, the fact that you want that so badly doesn't mean you are right.

Again, Hell is not a choice, it's a consequence. But there's no point really, you're probably just going to yell "Free will" again.

God does not make a final judgement in contrariety to your will? Yes, he does.

Let's do this slowly:

Suppose you have a very grave case of a sinner, who rejected God all his life. He dies, and therefore is judged. He says "But I don't want to go to Hell!". That means, that if it was according to him, he wouldn't go to Hell. Correct? He clearly says he does NOT want to. It clearly is his will that he does NOT go to Hell. You surely can't deny that.

When God judges and says "You are going to hell", then he is making a final judgement against the sinner's will.

Argument debunked.

Let's see:

P1) God wills that all men be happy

P2) Not all men are happy

P3) Not all men will be happy (since for sure someone is going to hell)

C1) God wills something that is not.

If not all men are happy, and that's God's will, then clearly there is a problem. Or are you going to say that men in hell are happy?

Either God is not omnimax, or he doesn't exist. Yay.

Contradiction: if God didn't want to send us to hell, then why does he? Please don't say people chose hell. Nobody chooses hell. It's a consequence, not a choice.

If God didn't create Hell, then he is not the creator of all things. (and he is the creator of EVERYTHING)

Looks like you've got a problem there.

Let's see:

P1) God created the entire human race to enjoy eternal happiness.

P2) The entire human race does not and will not enjoy eternal happiness.

C1) God has failed.

Again. Either it's not who you think he is, or he doesn't exist.

So if the majority of people go to hell, it's not against his will? That is incoherent with your previous statements. You said God does not want people to go to hell (Which is of course untrue). Inconsistent.

Another logical conclusion:

P1) God wants to have man saved

P2) Not all men are saved

C1) God wants something that's not happening/going to happen.

I don't need to spell it out again, right?

And where do those axioms come from? From God. Therefore, if he defines those axioms, my argument still stands.

I don't need to point out God also created "free will and a mind".

He wishes only some of them to go to Heaven. If he wanted more people to go to Heaven, "his will would be done". Therefore, God wants only some people to go to Heaven. Not all loving, or not all-powerful

First, many many people are kissing God's ass, metaphorically speaking. Do you honestly believe all people "choose" (beliefs are not choices anyway) Chrstianity because of the idea of God?

There are many, many people that "choose" Chrstianity not because of God, but because of Satan and Hell. They are so scared (and this is why religion works) that in a way, worship your God in a failed attempt to apply Pascal's Wager.

Hell is a necessary possibility because God wanted it to. Everything is, because God wanted it to. If he had wanted otherwise, he is all powerful and could've changed what he didn't like. That's why an omnimax being like Sky Daddy is always perfectly happy and perfectly responsible for everything that happens.

Again, axioms are defined by God. He created free will, hell, he created EVERYTHING.

Oh really? The Scriptures are not trustworthy?

The Bible is ANYTHING but trustworthy. An science proves so: there are no speaking snakes, the flood never happened, people are not created from fairy dusts and ribs, etc. The Scriptures claim to know things that have been proven wrong, therefore they are not trustowrthy. To choose to obey only some parts of it is cherry-picking.

"God never had any reason why he needed to create us."

"His only reason in creathing things..."

Contradiction. Pick one. And if it's a need, then God is not perfect for what I have pointed out in my previous post.

Let me get this straight. People go to hell forever because God needs people burning forever in order for other people to be happy? That's not ever loving, nor just.

And, very logical of course: God loved Satan, so he created him knowing he would be damned forever. It's truly love, really. I'm impressed.

Then he is not the creator of all things. He created people who grew to be atheists. That means he created a future atheist.

Meaning, you can't deny it. Again. Refer to the points above. Plus, God could've made things differently. We both know he could. And I hope you're not brainswashed enough to think that there is no way, as I would hope that you still preserve your imagination- I think you can think of a better way, with no eternal punishment involved.

So God tolerates that he creates people who in the end suffer forever... I can't believe people love Sky Daddy.

I only have time to answer one point at the moment:

Motion is a form of change. Even if we assume that things were in a state of interia "in motion" that does not mean that they interacted or changed according to relativity. Change and motion, even relative motion, requires a mover of some sort. Otherwise, no change would be possible at all.

No you are explicitly wrong here. Only change in state of inertial motion (including zero velocity relative to an observer in an inertial (non-accelerating) frame of reference) requires an external cause, NOT motion itself. The idea that some outside 'influence' was required to keep an object moving was disproved centuries ago. The idea that such a force was required was a natural conclusion from the observation that ordinary objects required effort to keep them going to overcome the effects of friction and other things such as uneven ground.

Inertial motion, ie uniform motion in a straight line requires no interaction with outside forces or other objects. The next most 'passive' motion is two objects in stable orbit arond their mutual center of gravity. There is little 'action' occurring here in any meaningful way - in a pure vacuum, with perfectly rigid objects, such motion can in principle continue indefinitely. But such idealised states can only be observed to any usefully close approximation in space.

There is 'change' in the Universe, of course, but simply no logical requirement that, whatever drives that change, it need be anything other than a blind, simple, physical interaction between matter and energy. The idea that some form of 'will' is required is utterly unjustified and terribly primitive, just like the primitive ritual of blood sacrifice to appease an angry god, that is the ultimate origin of the crucifixion story, whatever gloss later writers have attempted to lay over its crude origins, borrowed from even older myths.

Clinging to these ancient concepts has held back the progress of human thought, the 'enlightenment', for millenia.