I mean that they didn't 'pass the test'.

1.  Only proves that after the texts were codified no further changes were made. 
2.  Proves nothing.  You might as well say that The Iliad is undeniable evidence for the Greek gods being real. 
3.  Only shows a common source.  If it was fabricated, then split into 3 or 4 factions who each had their own variation of the story, that would also explain it. 
4.  Proves nothing.  The prophecies were made long before, which means the fulfillments could easily have been "edited in".  Even if most of the stories about Jesus are true, I could see someone adding in a missing prophecy fulfillment. 

5.  Not IN ANY WAY acceptable as evidence for the italicized claim.  You can't simultaneously claim you have evidence no reasonable person would refuse, and claim that the evidence is a personal emotional conviction. 

That is not particularly true though. Before Newton, the closest person to come close to discovering calculus, I think, was Aristotle, since finding the volume of a sphere uses limits, which is the basis of calculus. Now he was killed by some idiot Romans, and it took the world over a 1000 years to produce someone who could "prove" calculus. You could say that it was very much not possible for us to prove the existance until another brilliant person was born (unlike Einstein, who's discoveries would have been made whether it was by him or not, solely due to where math was at the time). If god can never really be proven or disproven, then whoever bvelieves that is simply an idiot, plain and simple.

I do agree though that a calculus church would have been cool. I guess you can argue theories are like small denominations of some church, which are yet to be proven (or disproven).

I'm seeing a lot of faulty arguments here...Mostly just one really big one repeated ad nauseum: just because the bible has some correct statements, includes some real people, and references some real events doesn't mean that it is an accurate historical document, especially not when you consider how stories were told and retold back in the day (which is why it's so hard to get an accurate historical document from back then.)

See the movie "big Fish". In that movie an old man is telling a series of stories to his grandson about his youth, telling about the "two sisters that were joined at the hip" and the "giant." As the grandfather tells these stories, the child imagines the sisters as siamese twins and the giant as a 12 foot tall man, but at the end when the grandfather dies, he meets all these people at his funeral and found that many of the descriptors of them were metaphorical or exagerrated for the sake of storytelling.

The bible, most likely, is similar to this. Some real people, real events, real attributes, but exagerrated claims. I think the overwhelming amount of impossibilities (Some figures living 600-800 years, the great flood, etc) and contradictions should attest to this.

At best, the bible is a series of stories based on real people, but meant not as authentic history, but moral tales reflecting those times.

I mean, does anyone think the world rests on the back of a giant tortoise? really?

Points 1-3:  But really, what are these pieces of "evidence" supporting?  The manuscripts haven't changed much since the 3rd century ... so what?  What makes these points, which you seem to agree are pretty weak evidence (at least in the case of Point 2), become strong evidence, undeniable in fact, when considered together?  I think you are really handwaving this part of it and it just doesn't fly. 

Point 4:  OK. 

Point 5:  Since you did not respond, does that mean you understand and accept my point? 

I, or anyone else cannot prove to you that God exists, or that he doesn't. Only you can find out for yourself, if you take the time to look, or not.

The cohesion of the gospels tells is pretty irrelevant, considering they were written by people who knew eachtother, and were fanatics. They're also not historical documents, and they're full of mythological elements. They really prove nothing.

LOL, this is suppose to prove what. I can give you evidence that the American Civil War happened, but that doesn't mean that Scarlet O'Hara and Rhett Butler actually existed.

Look it's simple.

You want us to prove the existence of god?
Alright then it's our right to ask you to prove it's non existence, equivalent exchange.

You cant? Well see we cant either.

Why?

Simply because to us a god is not human (unlike many beliefs)
God is the force, the thing, the power that made this matter universe, in which we are all made of different matter/materials.

And yet this is what your asking:

You are asking us to us science, which is THE KNOWLEDGE OF MATTER in order to prove the existence of whatever CREATED ALL OF THIS MATTER.
It's simply impossible. The God, The maker, The force we believe in is NOT made of matter since it CREATED it, it came BEFORE this matter, therefore we cannot possibly try and explain his existence by using knowledge that is ENTERILLY based on matter.

In more spiritual terms, it's impossible to prove the "existence" of god, because he is theoritically the CREATOR of existence as we know it. He came BEFORE existence itself.

To understand this simple concept, you have to stop thinking of god as a human, as zeus, as a old man with a long white beard.


Another important point I want to bring is that, Just because you cant prove the existence of something, Does not mean it does not exist.

A simple example :

Ernest Rutherford.

He proved the existence of the neutrons somewhere in the 1900's (I think in 1920? And I think it was chadwick who did the actual experiment but I forgot)
But thing BEFORE that

There was NO way to prove the existence of such thing, in fact, not many tought about it's possible existence before.
Other scientists probably tried to prove it's existence and failed (I know that the neutron goes all the way back to the socrate era)

It took humans nearly 2000 years in order to prove it's existence.

So think :

During all the time where it was not possible to prove it's existence, It was probably common sense to believe it simply did not exist right?
Does that mean the neutron simply never existed before 1920?
No, the neutron was always there, it's just that Humans never proved it was.
Therefore, for about 2 000 years, humans were living in their own little dream that there was no neutron.
But it was there, even tho it was impossible to prove it.

The same goes with god. Im not saying that someday, we will have the instruments to measure him because As I said, it's impossible to use matter to prove the existence of something that came before matter, which is therefore constitued of something different than matter.
All Im saying is that saying that something (I don't say someone because once again, God is not human) does not exist simply because no one is able to prove it's existence is just plain stupid. 

Another example is, Can a computer program (Which is human made, therefore one branch lower than us) prove the existence of humans?
No it cant.
Same goes for humans who are made by god, therefore can't prove him/disprove him.

So please atheists, stop coming with this lame excuse that we have to prove the existence of god, because your own science already showed it's flaws.

And Isn't Science's job to prove theories? So why don't YOU trie and prove that god doesn't exist since this is your theorie?



P.S You believe in god, wether you want it or not.
It's simple, you believe that the universe was made randomly? That is was all a matter of luck?

Well there you have God.
Luck is a force that affect the outcome of something right?
The same "luck" who made the universe is also the same luck I have to hope for when I pay a lottery ticket right? I mean, there isn't many "lucks" in the world, it's all one common force that can affect the outcome of different situation?
If it can affect the outcome of something, therefore it's a force.
Well there you have God.
It is the external force that made everything what it is right now.
The luck who made the universe
That little "hmph" the universe needed to materialize
The force that affected what we live in right now.

God is as simple as that.

Stop changing subject

Proving that the bible is irrelevant doesnt prove that god dosnt exist.
The bible is just a manmade book.
God is a concept.

Let's keep this debate aroudn the concept of god.