If God is omnipotent then he is capable of doing anything, including beinding logical rules that he himself allegedly created in the first place. If he can't do that, it means that there's something higher than him, that even he must submit to. The problem isn't coming from me, it's coming from the fact that the quality of omnipotence itself is illogical and impossible.

The rascals!

To me it takes a butt load more faith to believe that there was a huge ball of gas that came from nothing, then exploded and eventually created very complex beings, not to mention the laws of nature. I think its much more easy to believe in a God. To say otherwise is actually denying oneself of sensible thought and is crazy.

Can someone knock over a can of trash in a sealed room and wait a million years for that pile of junk to create rats!? NO! One has to look at the laws of nature. We are a society with laws. Man can make laws. So if there are laws of nature a being higher than ourselves had to have made those laws! You can saw, "well I don't know where we came from but I doubt it was from a god or higher being." What!? Ok so how did we get here? Was there some alien life form that created us? Are we just a generated computer program like the matrix? Well even if thats so a computer program in DESIGNED BY SOMEONE! A computer program doesn't just happen with a dude sitting with a bag of potato chips and starring at a computer screen while the computer is turned off! A guy has to actually use a computer language that was designed by someone else to create that computer program.

Vlad321:  you say that its more likely that nothing exists. Have you stopped just to think about where we came from and where the laws of nature came from? something does not come from nothing. The laws of nature are evidence that there was a designer and a maker. You say you are a man of science and don't believe anything unless it is observed. Your observation is humans, the earth, the vast huge universe, the laws of nature that are set in place, and so many other factors. If someone says they don't believe in anything then all they do is deny their existence and have no hope and no feeling significance in life.

I am sorry if I sound rude. If I have offended I am sorry. Its just that I honestly do care. I don't want to sound like I am forcing anyone to believe this. I am simply and strongly stating the facts of my arguments, if I didnt then I wouldnt really care about others. These are just my thoughts. Any comments?

Welcome to VGC, good first post.

Thanks for the welcome. Im a gamer and had been coming to this site for a while to get updates. I thought I would finally make the plunge and join. Its funny my first post is in a "theist vs athiest vs who knows why Im here" topic.

There's actually proof that those things happened. There's no proof that any deity exists. Obviously the big bang theory is an imcomplete explanation, as there are many questions left unasnwered. But the truth is that we have no way of finding those things out yet (or ever). However what you believe in is nothing but myths invented by people who have limited understanding of the world (much more than we do now). Your entire post illustrates that you yourself are making faulty analogies based on what you know (a computer program is made by someone, therefore someone had to make the world). You also misunderstand the term "LAW of nature".

Saphi snake, I am no doctor, physicist, molecular engineer, or any other professions that would make anyone think I am qualified to debate complex theories or belief systems. I admit Im a normal guy with an associates degree. So if certain things I say sound as though I misunderstand something then let that be what it is. The entire argument of observing something to believe it is that you yourself have to be there, or see PHYSICAL evidence of such an event taking place. Were you there to see the beginning of our universe? was anyone? I dont know your views on the big bang theory. I gather that you believe its part of the explanation since you do not believe in a higher being. If you can observe that a hammer is made by man then how can you not observe the earth, universe, and people and not gather that it was made by a higher being (God). There are a set of rules that are always present upon our earth. The law of gravity is one of them. Where did the law of gravity come from? did it just evolve out of certain mathematically combinations and possibilities? The law of gravity is present. It is evident that gravity was designed and created. It takes a force and knowledge to create something. So show me the proof that shows where that first particle of the building blocks of life began. Do you have a link or a book to read that was written by someone? If you believe things by observation then show me by observation of how exactly everything began.

I observe that there is gravity. I observe that there are humans and animals alive with complex organs that naturally work together. I observe that there is a vast universe and in that universe there are laws. In the same way I look at a hammer and can see the evidence that it was made by man. (or a machine, but that machine was made by man no doubt.).

I already discussed this with you. Stating the overwhlemingly probable outcome should NOT be insulting. If it is insulting then it is not my problem, but the other person's and they should look into changing beliefs to something with which they are more comfortable with. Just because someone is considered holy, doesn't mean jack shit, besides who decides who is holy? If I decide that Obama is holy, should I be pissed every time he gets spit on? Maybe I will decide that everything produced from my local pizza shop is holy. Furthermore, the overwhelmingly probable outcome states that the person in question is very much not holy, therefore stripping her of her status as holy. Truth is not an insult. I've said it many times and I'll say it again.

God didn't create logical rules. They are a product of his rational nature. Being eternal and rational, the logical rules derive from God's essential characteristics, and these rules have existed for eternity. The rules do not exist outside God, and God did not create them. The rules exists consonant with God because his characteristic of rationality embodies logical rules (we wouldn't consider someone rational who did not acknowledge logical rules), and God is supremely rational.

WIth regard to your final sentence, the problem is coming from the fact that you are redefining the word. If you take any word, you can come up with many different definitions for that word, and they will not agree with eachother. For example, this is the problem at the root of your debate with Delio about homosexuality. Both of you are using different definitions of natural but treating them like they are the same. When theologians use the word omnipotence, they utilize it within a specific context. Changing the context of the definition and then arguing the word is non-sense doesn't prove anything because it is ignoring the fact that words are context-sensitive. Point being, your definition of omnipotence is one of the definitions, but it has been abandoned by theologians and atheists because it results in logical absurdities. Whenever you hear the word omnipotence used in a religious discussion (at least a proffessional one), I guarantee you they will be using the word in the way I defined it.

The claim that you have to observe something to believe it is a very strict requirement for knowledge. Some scientists might say it in the heat of the moment, but they would not maintain this once you start questioning them. To take the big bang as an example, no scientists would really argue that we directly observed the big bang. The allure of the theory comes from the fact that: 1.) The mathematics agree with it happening- the big bang can be derived from Einstein's general relativity. 2.) Current observations agree with the big-bang theory (expansion of the universe and universal background radiation).