Saying that, because you can't "disprove" the Bible, that means it must be true, and by extension God exists is just illogical. And wrong. And can be summarized with this:
I actually said God can neither be proven or disproven, it is a matter of faith, for we live by faith and not sight. Mind reading before posting? @Eons: The Bible does reveal some of His plans. 2nd Thessalonians states no prophecy foretold by mankind should be bothered with.
I tried that "reading", and I read earlier that you said: "Have you not gotten the point? God makes the Bible, if God makes a new one and says to follow it, its quite obvious that the new one is the one you should follow, specifically when he says its time to move on from the old one!" And then I read your above post. Suddenly, God can neither be proven or disproven... yet "God makes the bible". Hm...
Leviticus was a book of laws the Jews made, quickly followed by Judges, because they no longer wanted to listen to God. Paul dealt with questions about the covenants in several letters. Did he consider himself a minister of the old covenant or of the new? 2 Cor. 3:6. How did he contrast the new covenant with the old covenant that was written on stone? Verses 3, 7. What did the old covenant bring, and what does the new covenant bring? Verses 6-9. Comment: The stone tablets under discussion here are the tablets Moses carried when his face shown in glory. The tablets contained "the words of the old covenant, the Ten Commandments" (Exodus 34:28). This is the ministry that brought death and condemnation. The law, written in stone, required death for transgression. It did not give righteousness or salvation (Galatians 2:21). But the new covenant brings the Holy Spirit and life and righteousness. The old covenant could not cleanse the conscience, but the new covenant is written on the heart. It changes our hearts in a way that an external law cannot. The old covenant was temporary. It was glorious in its time, but its glory has faded because a greater glory is now here. What does God making the Bible have to do with him being proven or disproven? Because neither is plausible at this point, we can only have faith. If you actually read a few sentences down on that exact post, I said "we live by faith and not by sight."
How is that statement ignorant? (saying 'God is not 100% guaranteed to not exist.') No, I would say that the chances of a eukaryote forming are still greater than the chances of an extremely intelligent, all-knowing, being forming spontaneously. Plus, many believe that self-organization could have greatly improved the chances of life forming. I wasn't saying that the old testament could be more recent. I'm simply saying that you have no proof that either was directly influenced by god.
"Now, you could say Christianity itself is an opinion, but that would be incorrect context." How is this out of context? "If you're a Christian, you can't just believe and pick and choose what parts of the Bible you want." Yes you can, considering so many do. "Now if you're going to the means of telling me that what God told us to do is merely an opinion OF MY OWN, you're wrong." What "god" is telling "us" could be be many others opinions as well? I do believe I need further explanation on what you mean regarding this. When did I say this, The first reference you made I was speaking of my own belief and what I believed you were doing wrong in your previous post regarding Judaism and such. The second reference was stating someone Else's point of view and not my own. "Also, when you say cornucopia, you may want to reword that sentence. Cornucopia, as far as I and other trusted dictionaries know, is a horn, probably referring to zeus. If you're attempting to say that many believe in the many religions of the planet, then you are totally correct." I do not believe I need to reword it. Cornucopia definition | Dictionary.com . I can explain if you don't understand what I mean by using this word in the context I used it in. "and that neither party is right or wrong." Perhaps this is what I was trying to communicate. I obviously did not communicate it as well as I thought I did. I apologize. Debates are nothing more than a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints. View points are opinions. @ Eons "there is no fact of science that says God doesn't exist. you just conclude for other scientific facts that he doesn't exist. Therefore you are arguing a matter of opinion." Who says I don't believe in a God? Did I outright say that I do not believe in God "and watch your wording in the bold part." Dear sir, I did not bold this. Amoeba did, too emphasize a point he was making. "You may think there are less people who only believe in parts of the bible, but that is just because they are less vocal than the ones who believe in all of it." I do believe I was just listing off some beliefs, not saying how many people believed them. @Zergling "How is that statement ignorant? (saying 'God is not 100% guaranteed to not exist.')" Ignorant on the fact that many believe there is no chance God can exist.
How do you not see the ignorance? Because if he did come, your 100% would be false, and you would be proven ignorant. It is ignorant to not even hint at somethings existence. If I am 100% sure evolution is false, that would be ignorant, because that's all I will ever think, I would never open my mind to see that evolution is true, if it was. On your structuring for "we have no proof that God wrote the Bible" implies we weren't there to know it, so therefore, it was false. However, do you need to experience something to believe it is true? Not at all. Maybe its just me, but you're sort of contradicting your own beliefs. Because we weren't there for the writing of the Bible its false, then if we weren't there for the big bang, it obviously never created.
He wrote the originals that Moses smashed on the ground. Moses then went back and rewrote them himself.
Are you kidding me? Christians didn't stone stephen. If you try to say Saul approved of it, he wasn't converted until Acts 9. He WAS a christian killer, after all. Many minor arguments go in a large argument, if you haven't yet noticed.
Oh, you are both misreading the statement. Look closely. It was ambiguously written, sorry. The difference is that we have evidence for the big bang (an expanding universe, for example), not just other people telling us that it is true.
I'm not saying that you did take it out of context, but if you did, it would be. If I have a book with ten chapters, I cannot just read 5 and say I read the whole book. Same goes with the Bible. You cannot say you agree with one part and then call yourself a Christian, because that's not a Christian, unless you wanted to make your own version of the Bible, go ahead. We can take what God said to us, or interpret it to whatever we need. If God tells us something, it cannot be our opinion, unless He tells us our opinion (which would be stupid, as if we already don't know what we think)
God is not matter, neither does he posses a shape or form. He is a spirit that lives inside all of us. He is something that helps us get through everyday life. He is an idol, someone to envy, and desire to be like. He is an idea that every human wants to hold onto, and cherish. Yet when you try to incorporate him into the world of matter, and try to prove his existence. You are using his "name" to gain popularity. Somewhat like all the prophets did. If you truly believe in God, there is no other way to show it, then just to keep him as your own little savior.
Thats why, being a christian, it is very hard to use evidence to prove that God exists, because as you said, God isn't matter he is a spirit that lives in our heart. You can not convert someone to Christianity by giving them evidence of him existing, they simply must believe in him in their hearts, and if they don't well...they don't.
I'm just going to throw a rough metaphor/example out... Think of the Covenant in Halo. They had an entire religion that they were convinced was truth. They killed people because of that "truth." They were prepared to wipe out the galaxy because they thought that was how to reach God. There was no god. There was no higher power. There was nothing except centuries of interpretation, misconception, and lies. Its the same thing with Christianity, or any other religion. Minus the wipe-out-the-universe part.
Evidence that the universe expands. If you don't get scrolled to the right part of the page, go to 'Hubble's law and the expansion of space'
What is with the, "I am right you are wrong" attitude that is flowing throughout this thread. Nobody in this thread is correct. There is no evidence proving that God exists, I know that. It is something that is in your heart that you believe in. Evolution has not been proven to be 100% correct. This is a debate thread, I am sick of people constantly repeating that God doesn't exist. You have no proof of that. Express your opinion and quit trying to make everyone believe that your opinion is a fact.
You are right up until you last three sentences. We do not use His name to gain popularity. Neither did the prophets. To your next statement, even satan believes in God, however, if we believe that Jesus dies for us is a different story, the one satan doesn't believe in. If the prophets and the pastors and the evangelists kept Jesus to themselves, you would probably not be a Christian, and neither would I. Did Jesus keep himself to himself? Noo. Obviously someone didn't keep Jesus to himself and that's how you're a Christian. Even the book of Matthew states "Go out into all the world and make disciples of men". I guess you're agreeing with the thing you disagree with? Flawed logic.
You're right; nobody is going to win here. We will debate the point endlessly, because we are all convinced we are right. If we didn't think we were right, we would not hold the belief or opinion in question. To use one of Scott Adam's ideas: This argument will not be solved by reason or logic. No argument can be solved by reason or logic. It will only be solved by the who cares most method. Whoever cares most about a particular topic will win. But why? you're still asking. Why do you debate fruitlessly, endlessly, with no resolution in sight? It's really quite simple. I debate... FOR THE LULZ