A Finite God and Omnipotence

[Divine Insight]

Can it be said that a finite God could be omnipotent?

I've heard many arguments that an omnipotent God is logically impossible because there could be no such thing as a God who could make an object so heavy that even he couldn't lift it.

But that assumes that God is infinite in what it can do.

What if a God is finite in what it can do? Could it still be said to be omnipotent?

I think it could be said to be omnipotent within this context.

Let's say that all possible things that can be done are indeed finite. That might be hard to imagine, but for the sake of argument let's assume this to be true.

If this is the case, and a God can do every possible thing in that finite set of possibilities, then wouldn't it be fair to say that this God is "omnipotent" in this context?

After all, if God can do everything that is possible to do then God could be said to be omnipotent in that situation. The fact that we can describe things that are impossible (like making an object too heavy to lift) wouldn't apply if that specific possibility simply doesn't exist within the finite set of possibilities.

In other words, the saying "With God all things are possible", could simply mean that, with God, everything that is contained within the set of possibilities are possible. If something is not in this finite set, then it's simply not within the realm of possibility.

In fact, if we look at this from a human point of view we can see why it would make sense to say that with God all things are possible.

Imagine that all possible things are finite in scope. However, within that finite set, humans on their own, can only do a small subset of those possibilities. Not only now, before forever. They will always be restricted to a small subset of what's possible no matter how technologically advanced they become.

But if God can do everything that's possible (albeit a finite number of things) then it still makes sense to say that "With God all things are possible". Because in this context it simply means that if anything is possible then God can do it. And if it's not possible to do then it's just not in the set of possibilities at all.

In other words, there is nothing within the set of possibilities that God can't do.

Therefore, in this context it makes sense to say that this God is "omnipotent" because God can do anything that's possible to do. And if something is impossible (like God making an object too heavy that even he can't lift it) then that's just not in the set of things that are possible in reality.

It seems to me that it would make sense to say that this God is "omnipotent" in this given context. This God can do everything that's possible to do. That's pretty omnipotent right there.

[usassociatesllc@hotmail.c]

I see we need to walk through your statements.

Terrence Tumpey from Influenza Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia commented on viruses - "They therefore cannot naturally reproduce outside a host cell", in several articles he explains, Although cold viruses have been shown to survive on surfaces for several days, their ability to cause an infection reduces rapidly and they don't often survive longer than 24 hours.

Notice the word, "cannot".

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"viruses evolve very rapidly and with extraordinary effectiveness. Which is why they are so extraordinarily dangerous"

He is not considering the parameters they are limited to.

Viruses have never evolved outside of life they need a host to live.


Divine Insight wrote:
"The scientific theory of evolution is actually a very rational explanation for how the observed phenomenon of evolution actually occurs."

If they have observed it then they can explain it.

Conrad Hoskin could not explain why organisms did not interbreed

Mark Isaak pointed out that the fossil record used by evolutionist shows no change over time.

John Wilkins in his book, Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean? Talks about Darwin's ideas and assertions of fact have been falsified as evolutionary science.

Amir Aharoni in his book, Nature Genetics wrote how evolution proved itself wrong through evolutionary mechanisms. One such as exaptation, the adaptation of organs for entirely new functions. These studies were kept quiet, with little acknowledgement.

John Wilkins elaborates that the information used to support evolution has been falsified in their findings. Like using evidence to prove one thing when it clearly points to another. He asserted that evolutionists give partial information that leans toward their viewpoint, and cover over what viewpoint the information is actually supporting.

Divine Insight wrote:
The proof of that is in the many species that died off because they weren't designed well enough to deal with their changing environment. Also keep in mind that if a designer God is behind the environment then why does this God keep changing he environment?

Can you really argue two conflicting ideas? On one side you say animals evolve, yet you say because animals cannot deal with the changing environment, it is poor design. Your argument here supports a designer. The fact that some animals die because of the change in environment proves they were designed. Who changed the environment, was it really God? Or was it man with pollution? Exponentially increasing the 'green house effect' causing the polar caps to melt. It is so bad countries are now initializing green initiatives to help restore what man has destroyed. Or was it man hunting animals to extinction. Housing and caging animals, placing them in environments that hinders their development.

Divine Insight wrote:
In fact, our most intelligent and best educated scientists tend to be atheists.

Elaine Ecklund study revealed 32% worldwide are atheist. Just more vocal.


Divine Insight wrote:
There are thousands of professional academics that see no merit in the Bible.
And even the Abrahamic theists who try to argue that the Bible has some sort of merit can't even convince each other.

Yet there are billions of professional academics who do see the merit in the Bible, the majority of the world. Of course numbers do not necessarily make right, but the thousands of professional academics do not make it wrong. These thousands who see no merit in the Bible, could it be to the fact that evolution is taught academically as opposed to creation.

Your information on Abrahamic theists is clear, but please do not confuse disagreement with lack of merit.
[/u]

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 19 by Divine Insight]

"Do we really need to actually experience a proposed invisible and imaginary realm when we can easily see that the superstitions it's based upon are clearly false? "

How do you manage to see that?

With respect to the Bible how could you not see it? Many of the stories in the Old Testament are necessarily false, from the fall from grace, to the story of the Canaanites, the story of the great flood, etc. All those stories necessarily must be false as written.

When you move to the New Testament of Christianity that fallacies become even more apparent.

A very simple example are the obviously lies attributed to Jesus. According to the New Testament rumors Jesus preached that anyone who believes on him would be able to do greater works then even he did. He also promised them that he would do whatever they ask of him in his name. Yet there are no examples of anyone who can do greater works than Jesus was rumored to have done. Nor is there any evidence that anyone is having their prayers answered. In fact, the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Even within Christian Churches the people who claim to believe in Jesus constantly ask each other to pray for them. Well duh? If their own prayers were being answered they wouldn't need to ask other people to pray for them. Clearly these religious groups are nothing more than social clubs where things like "prayer requests" are just a way of telling other people what problems a person is having.

The fallacy of the religion is overwhelmingly evident. It cannot be denied. There is no magical invisible Jesus who keeps the promises he supposedly made according to these false rumors.

[Divine Insight]

Can you really argue two conflicting ideas? On one side you say animals evolve, yet you say because animals cannot deal with the changing environment, it is poor design.

How is that a conflicting argument? If animals evolve due to natural processes then the fact that many species would fail as the environment changes makes perfect sense. There would be no "design" involved.

On the other hand, and "hypothesis" that animals were designed makes no sense when they die off due to changes in the environment.

Your argument here supports a designer. The fact that some animals die because of the change in environment proves they were designed.

No it doesn't. If there were a designer the designer himself would need to change the environment killing the animals he had just designed. That makes no sense.

Who changed the environment, was it really God? Or was it man with pollution? Exponentially increasing the 'green house effect' causing the polar caps to melt. It is so bad countries are now initializing green initiatives to help restore what man has destroyed. Or was it man hunting animals to extinction. Housing and caging animals, placing them in environments that hinders their development.

Thousands of animals had become extinct long before humans ever appeared on the planet. Your suggestion here reveals that you aren't even aware of what is actually known about the history of our planet.

So if there is a designer God he is either a very poor designer, or he doesn't care much for the things he does design since he keeps changing things to where things he had previously designed die off.

Yet there are billions of professional academics who do see the merit in the Bible, the majority of the world. Of course numbers do not necessarily make right, but the thousands of professional academics do not make it wrong. These thousands who see no merit in the Bible, could it be to the fact that evolution is taught academically as opposed to creation.

I think it has anything to do with the scientific observation of evolution. Most theists allow that their God could have been behind evolution. Even the Catholic Church embraces evolution.

The reason that many non-theists dismiss the Bible is because the stories within the Bible are themselves self-contradictory to the character traits the Biblical God is supposed to have. Not to mention that nothing predicted in the Bible has ever come true.

Your information on Abrahamic theists is clear, but please do not confuse disagreement with lack of merit.

If 1000 people read a story and they come away with 1000 different understandings and 1000 different apologies for why their understanding don't literally match the original texts, you can be certain that there is nothing to the original texts.

Yet this is precisely what we see when we look at the Bible.

~~~~~~

Allow me to give you some perspective from my background.

I was originally raised as a Christian. I totally accepted God and Jesus. I asked Jesus to come into my life, just as this religion requires. I was a "Born Again Christian". A very strong believer. However, at the time my belief was indeed superficial just as is true for the vast majority of all Christians. I only knew what I had been taught, I hadn't studied the Bible on my own at that time. All I knew was what I had been taught in Bible Study Classes at our church. But those classes ignore and downplay any problems and respond to unanswerable questions with "We just need to have faith that God has an answer".

Taking my questions directly to the pastor quickly revealed that even that pastors had different answers and would even politely disagree with each other right in front of my eyes. This particular denomination was Protestant Free Methodists.

We also had guest pastor come in who would sometimes preach extreme fire and brimstone that our preacher would later confess that even he doesn't view the teachings of Christ in that way. So I could see that the disagreement on what the Bible has to say was even quite profound within our little Protestant denomination. As I grew older I quickly realized that other Protestant Denominations had radically different views from what my church had taught.

Some of my friends were Catholic and I even went to their churches, and I could see that they had even more radically different views.

I decided to study the Bible "God's Word" so that I could see who was right and who was wrong. But when I studied the Bible the only understanding that was vividly apparent was the understanding of why everyone is so confused. The Bible itself is radically self-contradictory and can't possibly be true verbatim as written.

I didn't even stop there. I decided to take a close look at the original Judaism and see if it made any sense. Perhaps it was just Christianity that was wrong? But no, I quickly recognized that even Judaism alone is already an irreparable catastrophe. The Old Testament alone is extremely self-contradictory and utterly insane, not to mention highly immoral to boot. It can't possibly be true.

I even looked at Islam very briefly but I could see that there was no point in studying it in depth because it basically relies very heavily on the foundation of Judaism or "Old Testament" and it just plagiarizes that foundation and tries to twist the ending it into something that dismisses the Christian Jesus as being the only begotten demigod son of God.

So yes, in these religions disagreement between those who study these texts does indeed reveal that the text themselves have no merit.

The texts cannot be true verbatim as written. Everyone agrees with this. Therefore any religions that claim to be based on these texts are empty and have no merit.

All these religions are doing is basically ignoring what the texts actually say and then pretending that they can make arguments that the texts actually mean things entirely different from what they actually say.

And apparently this has become a world-wide hobby among religious zealots.

~~~~~~~~~~~

By the way, my eyes were opened when I realized that even Judaism is an irreparable catastrophe.

The only way to "save" the Bible is to ignore what it actually says and pretend that it actually meant entirely different things. And that seems to be the goal of apologists.

However, when I realized that the Bible is an irreparable catastrophe a question suddenly popped into my mind, "Why would anyone even want to try to repair this broken region?"

And that was the question that set me free from this religion entirely.

The answer is simple, "No one should want this religion to be true".

Especially a Christian. Christians should be the happiest people on earth to discover that Christianity is false.

Why?

Well, what is Christianity saying? It says that we have all fallen from grace. We are all in the doghouse with our creator. We have all rejected God and all that is good. We all supposedly lust after evil.

Why would anyone want to believe that any of this is true as a matter of pure faith?

But it only gets worse. Not only does it accuse us of having fallen from grace, turning away from God, and constantly lusting after evil, but it even claim that there is nothing we could even do to change this on our own anyway.

In other words this religion actually rapes us of any free will or responsibility to even be good on our own. It claims that we NEED God in order to be good.

So much for the idea that free will is worth anything.

But in Christianity it gets far worse. Not only do we need to accept all these horrible accusations against us, but we also need to believe that our creator had to have his only begotten innocent Son brutally beaten and crucified to pay for our desire to lust after evil. Only now that God's Son has taken our spanking for us can we be saved by "Grace" even though we are STILL guilty as hell.

Any person who would be disappointed to discover that this entire religion is false has got to be misunderstanding something.

If Christianity were shown to be false Christianity should rejoice louder than they have ever rejoiced before.

It's not a religion that anyone should want to believe in as a matter of faith.

Are you kidding me? To believe in Christianity requires that you necessarily must believe that you are the most disgusting person possible. You would need to believe that you have rejected God, that you reject all that is good, and that you lust after evil. And far more importantly you would need to believe that you are the reason that your creator had to have his innocent Son brutally crucified to pay for you lust to be evil.

Anyone who actually wants that to be true has got to have some serious problems if you ask me.

And if Christianity is true, then humans are the most disgusting creatures of all.

If Christianity is true, then it's the saddest and sickest thing I know.

If Christianity is true then life is nothing but an episode of Freddy's Nightmares.

Christianity is a nightmare if it's true.

And our "Creator God" would be anything but trustworthy for having created this nightmare. He would necessarily need to be one very sadistic demon to be sure.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

It's up to the Christian you are conversing with to define which version of omnipotent he meant. Either being able to absolutely anything including making a rock so heavy that God couldn't lift, or just limited to anything that is logically possible. Either version is acceptable to me, what is important is consistency. Once they have made it clear which version of omnipotence they prefer, they must not switch to the other on the fly. They also must not hold any other beliefs that is contradictory to the chosen definition of omnipotent.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

"And our "Creator God" would be anything but trustworthy for having created this nightmare. He would necessarily need to be one very sadistic demon to be sure."

What can I say, what can anyone say!
This definition of 'God' can only lead to darkness.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

"And our "Creator God" would be anything but trustworthy for having created this nightmare. He would necessarily need to be one very sadistic demon to be sure."

What can I say, what can anyone say!
This definition of 'God' can only lead to a place where God is not.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

It's up to the Christian you are conversing with to define which version of omnipotent he meant. Either being able to absolutely anything including making a rock so heavy that God couldn't lift, or just limited to anything that is logically possible. Either version is acceptable to me, what is important is consistency. Once they have made it clear which version of omnipotence they prefer, they must not switch to the other on the fly. They also must not hold any other beliefs that is contradictory to the chosen definition of omnipotent.

To make rock heavy...?
Yes let's have a God who would come down and play these
nonsensical games with us..
Getting some idea of the Infinite and Eternal Being we call God would be useful.

[usassociatesllc@hotmail.c]

Thank you for telling me this. I am sorry you experienced that.
Lets walk through your situation a little.

According to Hebrews 11:1 - Faith is based on evidence, the by-product is belief.
Without evidence there is no basis for belief.

It sounds to me the Pastors of Protestant Free Methodists gave different answers because they did not know the answer. Their belief was not based on evidence. They had no faith. If you study every religion you will see that most of the members have various answers to similar questions. No evidence, no faith.

The issues is choice and motive.

We did not choose this life, our parents Adam and Eve choose this.
They chose to govern themselves opposed to God.

We were not given a choice, we inherited their choice.
In order to give us a choice, God's son volunteered to die for our sins, knowing God could restore him back to life.

We do not need God to be good.
We need God to govern us, to guide us.

Take for instance selfishness, hate, crime, lying, cheating, etc, these are the traits of a world not governed by God.
Think about the qualities the Bible teaches, love, joy, peace, kindness, etc. these are the traits offered by God.
Your choice is yours now.

In fact, freeing yourself from religion, should have made you the happiest person alive. You should be so happy, that you shouldn't be talking on this site. With no God, there is no accountability, in fact I don't even know why you are still on this site. Unless there is something in your mind and heart that you know is not right. Maybe you have not found true happiness.

In a world without God, you should not feel any guilt, go out and kill, slay, steal, lie, and sleep with anyone you want.
In a world where everyone does what they want, you will hurt others. Or others will hurt you.
Man is learning, that the freer people are, the more rules they need.
Absolute freedom doesn't lead to true happiness.
We need governing we need guidance.

Where did man get the idea that stealing was wrong?
Where did man get the idea that killing was wrong?

Your question about fire and brimstone is correct, God does not torcher people.
He is a God of love, and someone loving would never torcher anyone.

You are not disgusting if you sin, it is just sin leads to death.
If you choose sin, it is ok. Jesus put it this way, choose the temporary enjoyment now or everlasting happiness in the future.
The choice is yours.

I know you had a bad experience with religion.
Jehovah's Witnesses are completely different. They are the only religion that will not go to war. They base their answers on evidence. They are unified worldwide.
The love is not like any other.

[Divine Insight]

According to Hebrews 11:1 - Faith is based on evidence, the by-product is belief.
Without evidence there is no basis for belief.

Agreed. And there is no evidence at all for any of the supernatural claims made by the Bible. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence against those claims.

It sounds to me the Pastors of Protestant Free Methodists gave different answers because they did not know the answer. Their belief was not based on evidence. They had no faith. If you study every religion you will see that most of the members have various answers to similar questions. No evidence, no faith.

I have never yet met any Christian clergy, theologian, apologist, or evangelist who could provide any evidence that the supernatural claims and accusations that Christianity makes have any merit at all.

The issues is choice and motive.

We did not choose this life, our parents Adam and Eve choose this.
They chose to govern themselves opposed to God.

There is no evidence that any God exists, much less one that supposedly governs over anyone.

We were not given a choice, we inherited their choice.
In order to give us a choice, God's son volunteered to die for our sins, knowing God could restore him back to life.

If he knew that God could restore him back to life then he made no sacrifice at all. Moreover, why would it even be necessary for him to be brutally crucified by humans so that humans could be forgiven their supposedly bad behavior? How do the end up earning forgiveness by crucifying God's Son? That thesis right there makes absolutely no sense.

We do not need God to be good.
We need God to govern us, to guide us.

We don't need a God at all. And as far as God being "good" that's a claim of Christianity. Therefore the God of Christianity cannot do anything that is not good according to that claim.

Take for instance selfishness, hate, crime, lying, cheating, etc, these are the traits of a world not governed by God.

No, these are not traits of the world, these are traits and behaviors of some people who happen to live in the world. It's certainly not true of everyone.

Think about the qualities the Bible teaches, love, joy, peace, kindness, etc. these are the traits offered by God.
Your choice is yours now.

There is no need for any God to offer these choices. You have these choices before you whether a God exists or not.

In fact, freeing yourself from religion, should have made you the happiest person alive. You should be so happy, that you shouldn't be talking on this site.

What does happiness have to do with whether or not a person talks on this site?

I actually enjoy debating against Christianity very much because it's extremely easy to expose its fallacies. And besides, by pointing out the absurdities and self-contractions of this immoral cult I'm contributing to the betterment of humanity as a whole. And I like to contribute to the betterment of humanity and the world in general.

With no God, there is no accountability.

What? You decide for yourself whether you care to be accountable as a person. You can be accountable to other people, and you can even be accountable to life itself. Do you need someone to be threatening to hurt you if you aren't accountable? That's the only reason you would need to have a God for accountability, only if you need to be forced into being accountable due to threats of what might happen to you if you aren't.

I don't need to be threatened to be accountable. Therefore I need no God to be accountable.

, in fact I don't even know why you are still on this site. Unless there is something in your mind and heart that you know is not right. Maybe you have not found true happiness.

Guessing about a person's personal motivation and/or their state of happiness on this site is considered off-topic to debates. It can also be considered to be uncivil, so just as a heads-up you might not want to insinuate or guess about other people's motives of state of happiness.

In a world without God, you should not feel any guilt, go out and kill, slay, steal, lie, and sleep with anyone you want.

Feel guilty?

Forget about feeling guilty after the fact. The more important question is to ask why you would want to do these things?

Are you telling me that if you discovered that your religion is false and there is no God that you would run out and start killing people, stealing anything you could get your hands on, lying to everyone, and start having meaningless sex just for the orgasmic gratification?

Think about this for a moment. There are many atheists in this world who are very loving, trustworthy, and monogamous individuals. Apparently they don't need a God to prevent them from doing the things you claim you would do if there is no God.

Also, if there was a God who do you think God would be more pleased with? A Christian who only restrains themselves from doing horrible things because they would feel guilty and potentially be punished by God, or an atheist who does all the good things simply because it's what the atheist chooses to do on their own?

It would seem to me that a God would necessarily need to think very highly of the atheist, and not very highly at all of the Christian who is merely restraining themselves from doing what they would do if there was no God.

In short, if a person needs a God in order to be good, then they clearly aren't a good person at all.

In a world where everyone does what they want, you will hurt others. Or others will hurt you.

Sorry there are thousands of atheists who are a counter-example to your claim here. Therefore your claim is necessarily false.

Man is learning, that the freer people are, the more rules they need.
Absolute freedom doesn't lead to true happiness.
We need governing we need guidance.

All humans are not nice. This is true. And this is why we need secular social laws. But for you to try to extrapolate that onto everyone is a falsehood. And this is also what Christianity tries to do. It tries to make criminals out of everyone.

Where did man get the idea that stealing was wrong?

The same place he got the idea that he owned things. After all, stealing doesn't even begin to make any sense until we first claim to own things. It was when men starting to become possessive about the objects in their life that they started claiming that other people are "stealing" those objects from them.

Where did man get the idea that killing was wrong?

No doubt when he became upset because people were killing the people he loves. And also when people were trying to kill him.

We make it illegal to kill people without good reason to prevent them from killing us without good reason. The laws against murder are entirely self-centered laws actually. It's not because we care so much about strangers. We just don't want our loved ones to be killed just because someone feels like killing them. And so we make it illegal to kill without good reason.

We most certainly don't need a God in order to demand that in a civilized society people don't just randomly kill other people for not good reason.

Do you think it would be ok to go around killing people if there is no God? Would you like it if people came and killed your loves for no good reason?

If you need a God in order to restrain yourself from just going around killing people for no good reason then I certainly hope that you remain very religious until the day you die.

Fortunately everyone is not like that. There are thousands of atheists who have never killed anyone, not even for valid reasons.

Your question about fire and brimstone is correct, God does not torcher people.
He is a God of love, and someone loving would never torcher anyone.

That's not the Christian view. According to Jesus unrighteous people will indeed go the way of "everlasting punishment". Jesus is the one who preached the concept of an eternal hell fire.

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Mark.9

[43] And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[45] And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[47] And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

If you don't believe in the hell fire, then you can't very well claim to believe in Jesus.

You are not disgusting if you sin, it is just sin leads to death.
If you choose sin, it is ok. Jesus put it this way, choose the temporary enjoyment now or everlasting happiness in the future.
The choice is yours.

But we have no reason to believe anything that has been attributed to Jesus. Jesus also said that if you believe on him you will be able to do greater works then he had done. Can you? If you can't then either Jesus lied, or you can't possibly believe on him. Otherwise you should be able to do greater works then he is said to have done, including healing people, and even raising people from the dead. You could probably make your own wine from pure water too, but that would be a minor trick in comparison with the other works.

I know you had a bad experience with religion.
Jehovah's Witnesses are completely different. They are the only religion that will not go to war. They base their answers on evidence. They are unified worldwide.
The love is not like any other.

I spoken with many Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, they have some to my cottage in the summer time and I have had lengthy conversations with them. They are actually quite confused, and some of them are clearly still searching. I had one Jehovah's Witness who came here and during our conversation he asked me what I believed. I explained to him that Buddhism seems that most valid spiritual picture of reality. I explained the concepts of Buddhism to him and before he left he was asking me for titles of books where he could learn more about Buddhism.

I never even claimed that I believe that Buddhism is true. I merely explained that of all the popular religions of the world it's the most likely to be true.

The Bible doesn't have a snowball's change in hell of being true, to use a Biblical metaphor. We can know with absolute certainty that the Bible is false. There's no need to even have any doubts remaining.

If Jesus was real, and you truly believe in him, then you should be able to heal the sick and even raise people from the dead. Can you do that? If not, then Jesus can't be true. It's really that simple.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 28 by Divine Insight]

"I actually enjoy debating against Christianity very much because it's extremely easy to expose its fallacies. And besides, by pointing out the absurdities and self-contractions of this immoral cult I'm contributing to the betterment of humanity as a whole. And I like to contribute to the betterment of humanity and the world in general. "

So please tell us: what do you have to offer in place of Christianity?