Well first of all the biggest mistake before you even start debating is the ASSUMPTION that we humans know how everything works and science this bullshit that. We don't know everything so therefore we cant explain about things we don't know about. Science is ever expanding and it seems the more we learn the more our previous theories are contradicted I.E. earth is flat 600 years ago and now we know otherwise. I love how people EXPECT us to have all the answers on things but yet when we dont its chalked up as mythology or legend, because the human race couldn't possibly not know everything we have "science" that is ever changing and contradicting. They had science behind their theory that the earth was flat too, and in a thousand years we will do the same with what they are claiming now like the universe having a speed limit because I fucking math equation says so lol well they might not have ALL the elements needed to make that equation, there might (IS) be another force we haven't discovered yet.

Except you blindly believe any theory the science community comes up with without knowing about it yourself they claim they have done equations and shit but did you break them down to come up with your own conclusion? no you didnt but still believe it, science is ever changing not fact and the more things we discover in the universe the more we will find out how wrong we are now just like 500 years ago science claimed everything revolved around the earth...they were wrong but didnt know it at the time.

What in the HELL are you even talking about? 

Talking about revolutions, math and equations and shit. What does that have to do with ANYTHING?

Are you sure you're in the right thread?

Sorry dude. Got distracted with Metroid Prime on Dolphin. I'll have to get back to this. Yeah, that guy ^ is not right in the head haha.

I think you're missing the point he's making.  I don't think he necessarily believes in ice giants or frost giants.  However, if he did, he is saying that doing so would be no more rediculous than believing in a god who has no physical explanation/isn't known to to be made from perceptible materials and does not follow laws of science we believe we understand.

You responded by saying ice giants seemed sillier because they were made of inanimate objects, and he compared that to Adam who was made from dirt, because the same religion's god this thread is arguing over is said to have created man from earth.  There is an irony here, because a foreign, outdated or just opposing religion can be viewd as unrealistic...even if the premise for which it is construed as silly (in this case a giant made of ice, which aren't really ice giants are, compared to a man made of dirt) is virtually the same in the religion from where the god you see as more normal originates.

The overall theme is that what one person has faith in/sees as normal (the idea of a Christian-Judeo God to you, though it may sound like a comic book or fairy tale to someone from another part of the world with a different religious background), another may be see it as silly and vice versa.  Neither party necessarily is right or wrong, because the only thing that changes is perspective.

Not meaning to intrude, but your conversation interested me.

1. This really only effects the Christian God(like you mention). Me being a Christian I will accept this as coherent.

2. Number two wouldn't be affected by any perfectly loving God. It isn't neccassry that a perfectly loving God, to be consistent has to be with a relationship with any humans just like with animals. But because I'm a Christian this has to be true for the Christian God because it is said he is always willing to be in a relationship with all humans. So, I accept this as coherent with the argument against the Christian God.

3. Non-resistantly isn't a word from any dictionary I read. So, I will use non-resistant instead. Nonresistant: Not resistant . So, I assume the argument is that there shouldn't be anyone that unaware that weren't influenced? Correct me if I am wrong because the double negative is making the sentence confusing a bit(referring to "non-resistantly unaware".)

From Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind.

""The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

From a young age, humans tend to have the idea that there's something 'bigger' out there. This 'perfectly loving' God also wants to be loved by his creation, so he expects those who are willing to seek Him out based on this innate sense that there must be something more. Those who are 'non-resistantly unaware' are not proof that God does not exist, they are simply apathetic, or not searching Him out, this is the key flaw of your argument. It assumes only two possible states, actively resisting and being aware, while ignoring apathy.

On a side note (for others who've said this), God does not 'burn people in Hell forever', this idea is not backed up by the original language of the Bible and is based on mis-translations combined with Greek mythology. http://hell-is-a-myth.webs.com/hellisamyth.htm

The argument falls apart at point three.  God is open to relationship with each human person.  "Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you." (Matthew 7:7) Accordingly, any human person seeking the Truth shall find God; this implies more than 'non-resistance'.

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)  We see here the necessity that we should come to repentance. 

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)  God has already revealed Himself to mankind.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them." (Romans 1:18-19)  Indeed, God shows all men the Truth.

Conclusion: If we seek the Truth, we shall find God, a God who has revealed Himself to mankind and so shall reveal Himself to you.  In fact, God shows all men the Truth.  In understanding who God is, then, we are tasked with Repentance.  Being 'non-resistant' is no excuse, because even to you "what may be known of God is manifest".