Firstly you're assuming the bible is true. Secondy, you're giving him the "Eternal" attribute through lack of information, not any actual "evidence", and the claim relies on the bible's accuracy. Thirdly, if something was eternal it would have to exist, so you did say god exists. The bible is far from the only book that mentions god, it's just the only one you think is true.
The difference is that in order for the bible to be a trusted source, its basic claim that the bible was influenced by god must be correct. I'm not saying that all books must be proved to have been influenced by X, only the bible, since much of what is inside hinges on that fact being true. If we can't confirm that god influenced the bible, that means we also can't confirm that anything said about god is correct- if he didn't influence it, it could just as easily mean that a bunch of people just started making up stories. Darwin, on the other hand, doesn't need to show proof of how he was convinced, the point is not that he know it, it's that somebody knew it, and now it is in a book so everybody can. The author doesn't matter when it comes to the Origin of the Species; it has enough evidence to back all of its claims up. Nope, I'm pretty sure that Caesar existed and that god does not. First of all, we have evidence of Caesar's existence, which is more than we can say from god. Second, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying that a roman dictator called Julius Caesar existed isn't all to extraordinary, so the evidence that we have is enough. The existence of God is an very extraordinary thing, however. You are claiming that we have an omnipotent, all-powerful creator who exists outside of time and space, watches over us at all time, and judges whether we go to heaven or hell. Now this claim will need powerful evidence to support it. Evidence that we do not have.
My last post clearly says "on the basis that the Bible is true" The Darwin thing was an example, not a literal statement. I can back up everything about the Bible. I can't back up what we don't know, and neither can you.
Care to explain what "evidence" we have? No, you aren't backing yourself up, all you're saying is Caesar existed because of evidence when there's no "true" evidence that Caesar existed in your terms.
So why is God's "textbook" more credible? If he doesn't need proof, then we can neither say he exists or doesn't exist with any amount of certainty. Come on. You can't come in here and say (example), "Well, my imaginary friend needs no proof, for I know he exists." Great, no point in debating.
Here you go. If you want to put it that way, then yes, the bible is evidence of God. Still, a single book claiming to have been influenced by god is not nearly enough to make it reasonably certain that god existed. We can assume that Caesar, before we even look at evidence, is much more likely to have existed (since he is less extraordinary), and has much more evidence. While you could say that all of that was faked, the chances of it being real are much, much higher, to the point of it being almost impossible to have faked it.
I think my entire argument flew right over your head... I never said Jesus didn't exist- he certainly did. I'm also extremely confident that much of what we know about his life is completely true (and that he was a very good illusionist). You seem to be missing the point, however. If somebody walked up to you and said "My name is John" you would be inclined to believe them. Not because you have seen their birth certificate and drivers license, but because there is nothing extraordinary about his claim. The chances of him telling you the truth are much higher than those of him lying for some strange reason. Now, what if somebody walked up to you, wearing a green sweater, and said "I am wearing a blue sweater"- you would not be inclined to believe them. It is entirely possible that some odd event has occurred in the world (or within your own head) causing you to see his sweater as being green. Now, however, the chances of him lying are much, much greater, because his claims are much, much more extraordinary. See the difference?
lol I find it funny that you gave me a link to Wikipedia... You do know that random people can post there, right? Maybe I should just quote from my other post: And yea, I don't think a lie managed to fly right over trillions of Christians, Jews, or Muslims (just to name a few). I don't see how someone would fake the fact that hundreds of people who saw Jesus' crucifixion markings believed, or how doubting Thomas put his finger through Jesus' hand. How exactly do you fake that? How exactly do you fake a man who died on a cross and who was guarded by two men and a heavy stone that nobody could move without raising suspicion, and who rose from the dead in three days? How do you fake somebody who ascends out into the sky? Really, how do you get all these people to believe it? Because it's impossible to fake it. You simply can't fake it. We don't even know what's beyond our small lives. Everything must have had a beginning, so why is it atoms and molecules have been around forever, but God hasn't (as you see it)?
It wasn't faked. The bible was edited heavily before it was eventually released. A story with flying guy's and resurrection will be more popular than one were plain old Jesus gets killed and doesn't come back I explained how atoms were formed: Atoms have a beginning. God needs one too.
Everything that exists exists as matter and/ or energy. I contend that your "god" does not exist! (Gasp!) If I claimed to have a "magic" pistol that granted .45 caliber "wishes" if I shot it at you, would you believe me without any physical evidence?
So you mean people telling stories of God could be lying? Humanity is the only source of God's existance.
And what do you mean that humanity "has become" unreliable? Were we any more reliable at one point or another?
Life After People I was watching the history channel last night and caught the series called Life After People: YouTube - [HST] Life After People - Part 9 Of 9 I was wondering what implications this type of future would have on Christianity. If Christianity believes that the earth was created specifically and purposefully for human kind. Can Christians even accept a possible future where humans are extinct and the earth continues to exist along with other forms of life? When or if humanity dies off would the universe continue on, or would god put an end to the universe seeing as there is no point to it existing in the absence of human beings? I think this is a good segue to talk about another Christian subject I've been thinking about: The Rapture. Is this the only way humanity can end, and can the universe exist without us?
Rapture So, to a Christian, this is a pretty likely scenario they've come up with on the History Channel. The beginning of the program does not spend any time talking about how humans vanished. They didn't say if it was a mass plague, or a nuclear war. They just start the show on the premise that every human on the planet suddenly vanishes. Then they explore what would happen to the earth after we were gone. Just to clarify....We will be taken from the planet on Judgement day and the earth and the rest of the universe will continue on without us?
Talk to God here iGod | Artificial Intelligence Chat I had a nice convo with him about Taco bell I never believed in hm till i IM'd him :] lol I dont think of God being a being but our existance what ever caused it to begin may be called god by some but i dont believe in him.