#kindapesimistic

His nature is said to be omnipotent and logical; he cannot violate this.  So he is either bound by his nature or by logic.  It's an unconvincing response--especially since logic is independent of his nature as it is part of our nature and even the nature of animals.  If "all things are possible" with god, he should be able to do utterly illogical things (i.e. bend the laws of physics).  However, there are only stories of such violations of logical and natural order; there have been no direct observations of such events.  A rod is a rod and a snake is a snake.  A rod is not a snake and a snake is not a rod.  However, according to a myth in Exodus, god changed one into the other at will; these are clear violations of nature--violations that simply do not happen.  A transcendent god would be limitless, but such limitlessness isn't palpable.  This is what an atheist means when saying, there's no evidence for a god.

For the record, a discussion is a two way street.  However, we also clearly disagree; thus these discussions are more accurately called debates.  But sure let's discuss.  I feel obligated to say yes so that I don't insult your intelligence.  That's not sarcasm; that's a serious statement.  Just being blunt.

Tell that to your apologist brethren.  In any case, I have seen no act that violates logic; I've seen no phenomena that can't be explained naturally even if it was claimed to be a miracle.  I have not witnessed anything supernatural.  There's nothing distinct about the myths in the Bible; myths are ubiquitous in the ancient world and some of them even parallel one another.  All of your arguments are circular, juvenile and unimpressive.

Your logic is heavily flawed.  Clearly, you don't want a discussion.  Clearly, you don't want me to clarify any issues you may have or help you to further understand the arguments.  Clearly, you have no interest in honest discourse.  You already formed a conclusion prior to even messaging me.  The contradictions aren't fabricated.  Take the contradictions listed here and give me an adequate response; go to every apologetic site in your bookmarks and I guarantee you that you will not find an adequate response.  These are clear contradictions.  The only thing that's fabricated is the Gospels; they're full of embellishments and utter myths.  The accounts of Saul's death are contradictory and far from ridiculous; the same can be said of the accounts of Judas' death.  "They are all ridiculous."  Appeal to ridicule.  That's a fallacy; go learn about them because you commit them at a high frequency.

Another circular argument.  "God can do whatever he wants because I believe he can do whatever he wants" or "because the Bible says with god all things are possible."  He doesn't follow them?  Your apologist brethren will disagree because one objection to the Omnipotence Paradox is that god is bound by logic--meaning that he will not make a squared circle because that violates logic and thus, he will not make a stone too heavy for him to lift.  So does he bend the laws of physics or does he not?  If he does, wouldn't that be observable, quantifiable and reproducible?  If he has, why hasn't it been observed, quantified or reproduced?  Conclusion: because he has not bent the laws of physics and that's because he doesn't exist.

"A circle."  It's funny you should say that because that's precisely what your argument is.  "The Christian god is infinite because I believe he is infinite" or "the Christian god is infinite because the Bible says he's infinite."  He's also said to be perfect.  There's something strange in the notion that a perfect god guides an imperfect process--that has very often led to dead ends (99.9% of all species to ever exist are extinct).  Mutations are usually detrimental to an organism.  Atavisms, vestigial traits, dead genes and retroviruses are leftovers from the evolutionary process.  Then there are examples (in assuming design) that are clearly bad design (see here).  The Judeo-Christian god is one of the most falsifiable god concepts.  Again, I'm willing to have this discussion...that is, if you are.

Emphasis mine in the bold.  It isn't the defense of personal faith or a personal way of life.  Christianity isn't true and that's a discussion I'm willing to have; unfortunately, in my experience, Christians are unwilling to listen.  I'm right; Augustine was wrong.