The bible - fact or fiction???

[AUTaxMan]

What evidence is there that there is a god? I get that one can't 100% prove that there isn't a god, but I'm not aware of any proof that he exists. Any "proof" that I have heard is not proof at all but rather people just saying it is so because that's what they have been told at church by some other person or what they read in the bible.

I'm saying it cannot be proven one way or the other, so neither assumption is more logical than the other.

[habsheaven]

I would love to hear these reasonable, logical explanations. I want to know upon which facts they are based and upon which assumptions they are based.

How LOGICAL is what you posted about the matter? There are countless studies on racial diversion. Just google it.

I don't like being called an idiot, which is what you are essentially doing. You begin with the assumption that there is no God. I assume that there is. There is ample evidence to support both positions. I am more convinced by the evidence supporting my position, and you are by yours. Your assumption is no more logical than mine.

I contend that there is NO EVIDENCE to support either position. If you have EVIDENCE, what is it?

Because my assumption is a logical one, it is also logical for me to rely on what the Bible says as historical truth until I am provided evidence disproving my assumption or my conclusions based on my assumption.

See my comment above. Nothing logical about your assumption.

You have the audacity to act like we are the close-minded ones. We will at least entertain scientific theories and challenge their flaws. You won't even consider the possibility that God exists unless you see 100% definitive proof of His existence, yet you will make arguments and draw conclusions based on layers and layers of unproven assumptions. It takes LESS faith for me to believe what I believe than it would for me NOT to believe it and totally rely on science.

Yes, it is clear that you will do that. The close-mindedness comes from your inability to entertain and challenge the stories in the Bible. How can you deny that? You have already stated it is God's words so it MUST be the TRUTH.

After all my comments in this thread I would have thought you had a better understanding of my position. Please read my last response to sanfran22. My position cannot be much clearer than that.

I am willing to entertain any argument and review any evidence you have to disprove my assumption that God exists, but I am not duty bound to be convinced by that evidence merely because others tell me I should be.

Again, I will repeat! I have NO POSITION on whether your God exists or my God exists. My opposition is to RELIGION as a whole.

[duane1969]

Sometimes Christians argue that if the Bible is archaeologically accurate, it must be theologically accurate. In other words, "The Bible says this city and this person existed, and we know from history and archaeology that that kingdom and that person actually did exist, so then it must also be right when it says there is a god and Jesus is his son." This is the very definition of a non-sequitur. It's like if I told you I went to McDonalds for lunch and then I was kidnapped by aliens, and I show you my McDonalds receipt, and claim that proves I was kidnapped by aliens.

That is not what I was saying. Someone said that the Bible is entirely or completely fake and that is fundamentally incorrect. Real people, places and occurences make it impossible to call the Bible a complete work of fiction.

[habsheaven]

That is not what I was saying. Someone said that the Bible is entirely or completely fake and that is fundamentally incorrect. Real people, places and occurences make it impossible to call the Bible a complete work of fiction.

For the record, I do not think anyone that called the Bible fiction contends that it is all fiction.

[AUTaxMan]

If there is no evidence to support either assumption, aren't they then equally valid or equally invalid?

[habsheaven]

If there is no evidence to support either assumption, aren't they then equally valid or equally invalid?

They are both equally INVALID. Assumptions should not be made without any evidence to support them.

In my 44 years on this planet I haven't assumed either position. You have!

[duane1969]

They are both equally INVALID. Assumptions should not be made without any evidence to support them.

So when you tell me that you can not fly I should not assume anything and require you to prove it to me???

Sorry, I couldn't resist :)

[AUTaxMan]

They are both equally INVALID. Assumptions should not be made without any evidence to support them.

In my 44 years on this planet I haven't assumed either position. You have!

Are not historical accounts of actual events evidence? Aren't there 150 years of scientific study evidencing that man evolved and was not created? Is not carbon/radioactive dating evidence of the age of the earth and its living things?

What does "evidence" mean to you?

[habsheaven]

So when you tell me that you can not fly I should not assume anything and require you to prove it to me???

Sorry, I couldn't resist :)

Nevermind. misread it. lol

[habsheaven]

Are not historical accounts of actual events evidence? Aren't there 150 years of scientific study evidencing that man evolved and was not created? Is not carbon/radioactive dating evidence of the age of the earth and its living things?

What does "evidence" mean to you?

What does any of those things have to do with the existence of a God or Creator?