You Presscue

That you believe in Pagan ideas injected into the Christian Bible for the sake of recruiting non-believers. You see, HELL does not appear in the original Greek and Latin texts i.e. the Bible. It was used to replace numerous other words from the original texts, none of which meant hell, hundreds of years after the fact. Hell has been part of pagan and non-Christian beliefs for thousands of years before even Judaism even existed, much less Christianity. Your living a lie baby!

Petitio Principii (begging the question).

* The conclusion of an argument is contained in one of the premises assumed.
* Assuming the truth of one's proposal as a premise for the conclusion one is trying to prove.

In your case, unless the person you are adressing is prepared to accept your assumptions:

1. That the bible is a reliable, accurate account of actual historical events.
2. Jesus, as described in the bible, was an actual historical figure.
3. Jesus actually rose from the dead (I think if you actually READ it, you'll find that the different accounts in the bible vary quite widely on some of the details on this matter http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone ).
4. There is a Hell.

Your post proves exactly nothing, contains no compelling arguments, and does nothing but prove that you don't understand the basic rules of logical argument.

If you're interested in learning more about how to argue properly and convincingly, here is a handy summary of what NOT to do:

http://education.gsu.edu/spehar/FOCUS/EdPsy/misc/Fallacies.htm

I found this hilarious to read. I never knew religious types had now stooped to the apparent "low level" of atheists and have begun to use theories. I mean come on, one of the closing arguments most religious people throw at me is that just about everything scientific is a theory and thusly it is "idiotic" to run our lives on a theory. So I'm hapy to see that you guys can also be just as "idiotic" ;].

That theory sounds so similar to the Antological argument that it's really making me giggle. A theory is a theory and in the mind of the person who has the theory it can be true as far as they are concerned. However this is the wonderful difference between The god fearing people of the world and the Atheists/Scientists of the world. Unlike you guys, if our theory is proven wrong, we don't lose our heads about it. If god came down to earth tomorrow and announced his existence, I would very happily accept that. However if somehow we managed to show that we actually have evolved from more primitive versions of ourselves (which we more or less have but because of the small descrepencies, we apparently haven't) I bet you any money that the religious people of the world would actually have no idea what to do with themselves.

Thanks for you time.

Isn't it a bit of a leap to say that the "one true unknowable fact" is your God?
(For the following, I have assumed that you are Christian because of your use of the word "God" with a capital G. If not substitute the name of whatever prophet you follow for "Jesus" The name of your holy book for "Bible", and the name of your particular faith for "Christians", my message should survive intact).

To accuse atheists of circular logic is to ignore the elephant in your room, common to all Christians:

"I know that Jesus loves me because the bible tells me so..."

The only evidence for the validity of christianity over other religions rests on the assumption of the divine inspiration, and therefore the authority and validity of the Bible, without that you have nothing to elevate your beliefs over any others.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you are postulating that your god exists, not some nebulous deist concept of a supreme being. The burden of proof, as ever, rests on the one making the assertion, NOT on the person saying that their assertion is wrong.

Preemptive: typo - so don't even bother.

Um, it's actually impossible to say something that will 'make you stupid', unless it somehow destroys part of your brain when you say it or inhibits your mental reasoning, therefore lowering your mental capacity, making you stupid. If you come up with such a thing, you would be very clever indeed, unless you were to say said thing, which would cause you to then become stupid.

Jesus, man, think a bit before you say stuff - on the Internets, of all places, where anyone can see what you've written - that'll make you seem (note usage of 'seem') stupid.

I think trying to comprehend omnipotence would be like trying to comprehend eternity. We know the meaning of the word, we can come up with examples (i.e. a million years++), but to actually ever truly understand? Impossible.

Aww. It's so cute when children learn big words.

Now please argue on a level that doesn't involve spouting verses. Haven't you learned by now that you can't debate with a non-believer by shoving a bunch of biblespeak down their throat and hoping it chokes them into agreeing with you?

Yes, He can speak the rock into existence, and also move it. That much seems to prove your point, nevermind the fact that none of us have seen this happen. But is He able to consciously create a rock so heavy that He genuinely cannot move it? We humans can create things so heavy that we can't lift them, but we're not claiming omnipotence here.

Yes, it's circular logic, however it points out a vital flaw in this concept of omnipotence. As responsible believers, we should address it and consider it, instead of plugging our ears and going "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. Let me distract you with something the old men in the desert wrote!"

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." - 1 Corinthians 1:25, the Infallible Holy Word of God.

So according to you God is both foolish and weak? just less so than man?

That resolves nothing. It creates another paradox. If he made the rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it, then why can he suddenly lift it? This isn't making something so heavy you can't lift it; the only way to accomplish this is to pretend you can't lift it. Pretendy funtimes aren't part of the equation.