If God doesnt exist then who wrote the bible ?

[DaRev]

Jay520 said:

DaRev said:

Jay520 said:

DaRev said:

1. Honestly, yes, there is no difference,...well almost none, because I, like many religious people, believe that it takes much more 'belief' or 'faith', what you guys seem to happily call UNKNOWS or POSSIBILITIES, to believe that there is no God and that this Universe is a result of some random event.

2. While science is able to prove things as it goes along century by century, during its journey of finding things out it MUST apply some form of unscientific belief, which is no different than a person reading the bible and believing in the events recorded therein.

3. So you trying to tell me that it's easier to belief in some inexplainable Dark Matter than it is to believe that Jesus lived? Answer this as well, How did the human race begin, was there a single person from which all people came from, or where there two original persons, or however you would like to explain it?

4. that about two thousand years ago a man named Jesus lived and did tthings, things so profound that made people believe he was God, even to the point that two thousand years later people still believe.

1: What? Science doesn't say why the universe exists. It says how it came to exist. You're asking a philosophical belief. Also, I never said there was no God.

2: No it doesn't. Science only claims things as true only when proven. If there's something which cannot currently be proven, then scientists just admit they don't have the answers at the moment, which is a lot better than pretending you have the answers by making assumptions.

3. What? I never said Jesus didn't live. Where are you getting this stuff? As for how the human race began, what does that have to do with anything?

4. That's your reasoning for believing in every single detail in the Bible? Because it includes  a man that made people believe he was a God? From that you conclude that everything in the Bible is true?

The biggest difference between science and religion is the fact that science basis its facts and theories based off of predictability. And as human knowledge grows, some theories are tossed out in favor of better theories. For that science is able to become more and more accurate of the world we live in. The facts in religion are assumed to be irrefutably true and can never be challenged or amended even when new knowledge comes along; all based solely on faith.

1) ….? OK, I’m not going to argue for argument sake. My advice to you is that God is not found in a science book.

2) Pal, science BELIEVES in unknowns and possibilities clearly, as if it didn’t, there wouldn’t be any reason to go out and prove anything since everything would already be known. Science must believe in UNKOWNS to drive it forward in its pursuit of understanding how things work or how they came to be. Therefore you must believe in an unknown, the Universe expanding, to eventually prove it as a true or not.

3) It has everything to do with what we are discussing, because the Bible says where the human race came from, unscientifically I might add, which ultimately is connected to whether what’s written therein is from man or from God, as man cannot write evidence of creation when he himself was created. In essence, my question is then, does Science have a better our more plausible explanation? All you science geeks seem to claim that it does, well, let’s hear it. Is a monkey your ancient grandmother, or did your ancestor crawl out of a cesspit, or were they wonderfully created in the image of God?  

4) Sorry, I forgot to delete that bit before I posted it. In any event, since you posted some questions, I would say that Jesus, so far as Christianity is concerned, is out Higgs Particle o_O  Anyways, if you’re able to discount Jesus, then the whole of Christianity falls apart. So forget all the 66 books all the teaching principles and all that, Jesus is from Genesis to Revelation, the beginning and the end of the Bible, if Jesus is not true then the Bible is not!

1) Where is God found?

2) That's ridiculous. You don't need to believe in something to investigate the validity of something. If I hear a strange, unknown, sound in my basement, I don't need to form a belief about what it may be before investigating the sound. I can investigate the sound without ever having any predispositions on what it may be. Science, unlike religion, acknowledges when it doesn't know something. When that happens, it works to investigating in order to obtain knowledge on the situation.

3) I'm no expert on evolution so I won't assume I to be educated enough to inform you as I may worsen your already ignorant views on science. So let's assume for arguments sake that we have no explanation on the origin of life. If that's true, then the following would be your argument?: Man has no explanation on the origin of life. The Bible has an explanation on the origin of life (God made two humans and they populated the entire earth). Therefore, The Bible's explanation is correct. Is that the reasoning you're using? If so, you're making a flawed argument.

The truth of an explanation is not based on the existence or inexistence of other explanations. If that were the case, then you would be conceding that the validity of the Bible correlates inversely with our knowledge of the world; which means the Bible is gradually becoming less and less accurate since we are gradually gaining more and more alternate explanations of the world. Eventually, the Bible will become completely false. Of course, if that's the argument you're trying to make.

Moreover, even if a being created life on Earth, that would do nothing to prove the Bible is accurate. All it would prove is that a being started life on Earth. Assuming that being was a God, the only thing would know about that God is the fact the it created life. We would know nothing about the limits of his power, the limits of his knowledge, intelligence, his compassion, his fairness, etc. Essentially we would know virtually nothing about his character, aside from the fact that for someone reason he created life. Yet Christianity claims to know every facet of God's character. Based on what? Assumptions, I would assume.

 

1)    1. The same place Dark Matter is found, apparently.

2)    2  Lol, yeah like if you hear something strange and your feeble brain doesn’t kick in automatically to try and reason what that thing might be lol, you just draw a blank? Lol What rubbish. So you hear a strange sound in your house at 3am while you’re asleep and your brain doesn’t consider the possibilities of what that sound is? Lol, no wonder you believe in Dark Matter because that seems to be clouding your brain. You should have Grey Matter in there dude not Dark Matter.

3)    3  Right,…so you have no answer for where humans came from, got it. But you believe in Dark Matter? The Bible’s explanation satisfies me, the same way that Dark Matter explanation satisfies you. I bet you don’t know everything there is to know about Dark Matter, but you still believe in it. Well apply that same thinking to the Bible.

 4)   4  I think the Bible migght agree with you, in that there will come a time when people disbelieve the existence of God so much, that he/Jesus then returns. So the key is to get rid of all the Christians o_O

5)    5 Dude, if we found who created life on earth nothing else about that entity would matter. Anyways, the bible doesn’t claim to know all there is about God, that’s why we apply Faith and believe in the Holy Spirit. Do you always assume so much about the Bible? It just cracks me up how people like you try to argue religion with a religious people and expect to make sense, after reading nothing on the subject - your ignorance is rife.