Probably my favorite topic of all time. Remember, this is the 21st century, so please keep the debate respectful and civil. Also, be sure to support your claims with plenty of logic and evidence.

So, without further ado, let the debate commence!

Maybe.

I am too lazy to make my own post so instead I quote people and then don't say anything new.

This debate will eventually regress to a combination of these three things:
a) Tautologies
b) Personal Experience/Empiricism (I'm using empirical loosely here)
c) Axiomatic/Dogmatic debate

Before it's even worth debating the existence of God, you have to find common ground on the existence of the supernatural.

Yes. The evidence? The Bible. Don't like it? Don't think it's true?

Well, you'll just have to wait and find out......though I wish you wouldn't because it's an awful way to find out you were wrong (being in Hell, that is).......

Nice one, troll. GTFO.

In before everyone offends everyone else. We've tried this before; it never ends well.

IIRC, I helped start the last one, and yes, it didn't end well(or at all)...

Woot, the first opinionated reply . Well, the Bible isn't the best way to prove the existence of God; it's too full of logical holes. For example, we all know that according to the Bible, the earth was created in 7 days. However, we conventionally define a day by the rising/setting of the sun, which was created until like, the 3rd day or something.

There are plenty of other ways to argue for the existence of God, though. You could try looking into theology, perhaps

Aughh, sorry, I submitted the post before I read everyone else's posts. I guess this thread must come to an end, then?

Edit: Sorry for double posting! I'm such a noob...

Uhh, please don't double post.

It's been pretty conclusively proven to not be literally true; I don't think anyone really things that the Earth was created six thousand years ago. There's certainly some objectively historical truth to the conflict between the Israelites and the Egyptians, and it's likely that there was a historical teacher named Jesus. Beyond those and related reliable facts, I'm certainly willing to believe anything that there's good scientific proof for. At present, for example, the evidence that evolution caused us to evolve from single-celled organisms is pretty solid.

The bible is just a book written by humans. There are tons of religious texts out there that disagree with you - what makes the bible right and all the rest wrong? The bible isn't evidence of a god, no more than the Lord of the Rings is evidence of hobbits.



No, there is not a god. The evidence would be the lack thereof. The default assumption is that something does *not* exist, not that it does exist. Thus, until proven otherwise, god does not exist.

You should use the same criteria you use to evaluate the truth of anything else: is the worldview it conveys both internally and externally consistent.


Plenty of people throughout history would disagree with you, but if you start from the assumption that God doesn't exist, the data set you're willing to investigate will have been self-selected to be empty.

Then we agree - the bible isn't true. The bible contradicts itself every dozen pages or so, it is about as far from internally consistent as you can get. Likewise, it is unquestionably not externally consistent.

That said, I disagree with your assertion that truth requires external consistency.



Not at all. You are confusing people's claims with evidence. Evidence is objective, people's stories are not. Plenty of people will swear up and down that they have seen ghosts - have they? Of course not. Plenty of people believe witches exist (heck, it used to be a popular belief at that) - do they? Of course not.

Like I said, there is no *EVIDENCE* of a god. There are plenty of stories, sure, but that isn't evidence.

Anything is scientifically possible. There may very well be some omnipotent being, and this being completely surpasses our human understanding. (or, at least, our current scientific progress)

The question is: Is there any point in speculating? No. So far, there is no scientific evidence of any deity, and if this deity does exist, it chooses not to involve itself in our affairs for whatever reason; why, then, does anyone care? — Not withstanding the Pascal's Wager debate.

Here's your answer: Cultural indoctrination.

I do not believe that the stories in the Bible should be exempt from in depth historical and textual criticism, nor do I expect those portions of it which do not claim to be directly relaying God's words to be inerrant. In light of that, it has taken very little work on my part (other than careful critical reading of the texts) to develop a worldview that I have found to be both internally and externally consistent.


But given a set of stories/theories/worldviews, the only ones worth seriously considering are those which are consistent - i.e., we can know that belief system which is inconsistent is also untrue in some regards.


I think what you mean here is reproducible.


One of the difficulties of living in the age in which we do is that people with strong opinions about the supernatural are generally divided between being anti-rational and/or superstitious, or Enlightenment-driven naturalists. What has been lost is the camp of people who are willing to apply serious and rational criterion to evaluating supernatural claims. The superstitious types accept a wide range of claims without critical evaluation, and the Enlightenment types reject a wide range of claims without critical evaluation (assuming they are being made by the superstitious types). This is dramatically unlike the age during which the Bible was being composed. They both took seriously the importance of empiricism, and belief in the supernatural. If you don't believe the two are compatible, read the story of Job in Judges 6 (particularly verse 31 through the end), or the story of Elijah on Mt Carmel in 1 Kings 18:20-38. People like Pat Robertson ended up dead very quickly, because claiming to speak on God's behalf without the ability to provide supernatural evidence as backup was a serious offense.

So you have to edit the bible to make it consistent (well, more than it already has been, that is) - at which point you no longer have the bible. You can't claim the book is sacred/word of god and then throw half of it out to make it internally consistent.

Also, praytell what is your world view that you can claim is externally consistent? Because it sure as hell isn't.



Sure, and approximately zero religions throughout the history of the world qualify as true with that definition.



Yes, because that camp doesn't make any sense. You *CAN'T* apply serious and rational criterion to supernatural claims. The two are incompatible by definition.



Heh, no, they didn't. Hell, a hugely important requirement of the bible is faith. They took prophets at their word because they had "faith". Besides, I think you are forgetting that they *DID* kill Jesus for his claims. Even the gullible idiots back then didn't believe the crap he claimed.

No.

and that the bible claimed that some holy man stopped the sun, but the earth revolves around the sun, and I believe that stopping the earth from spinning around the sun would cause some serious damage XD

but, hey, I just think the bible is.. off... just the bible tho....

As for there being a God, perhaps there is, perhaps there isnt, whatever, I will just live my life as I was