but is not evidence a form of clues or substance that points an individual to its source?
It depends on your starting premise. If you think 'the Christian God is real' then the evidence and clues you find will lead to that. If you think 'Allah is real' then the evidence points to that. If, however, you start with any
version of god (including no god at all) as a possibility
as opposed to a preconceived fact and you follow a scientific path to determine for yourself what is true or not true, and you let your beliefs be guided by what we can reasonably prove, then the entire notion of deities becomes rather comical.
Planets and the solar system amaze me
I'm not sure why that points to the idea that a supernatural sky man poofed it into existence one day. What does your amazement have to do with how the planets and the solar system got there?
the intricacies of the human body and the number of systems that make up the body amaze me
Again, what does your amazement have to do with your belief about who put it there?
and then to meditate on verses that say we are made in His likeness and Image.
Words in a book. Show me a picture of God and I will believe you. Otherwise, don't try to pass this off as true. It's no more true than if I were to say that we are made in Zeus' image. Do you believe we are made in Zeus' image? If not, how would you prove that we are not? Better yet, what would you expect me to provide you with in order to prove that we are? Then turn that on your own beliefs.
Funny. where did the world get the idea of unicorns in the first place? I wondered about this and sure enough the Bible makes mention of unicorns Job39:9-(KJV).
The bible was not the first source of the unicorn. A simple wiki search shows the following... Unicorns are not found in Greek mythology, but rather in accounts of natural history, for Greek writers of natural history were convinced of the reality of the unicorn, which they located in India, a distant and fabulous realm for them.The earliest description is from Ctesias who described them as wild asses, fleet of foot, having a horn a cubit and a half in length and colored white, red and black.
Ctesias of Cnidus (/?ti???s/; Ancient Greek: ???????) was a Greek physician and historian from Cnidus in Caria. Ctesias, who lived in the 5th century BC, was physician to Artaxerxes Mnemon, whom he accompanied in 401 BC on his expedition against his brother Cyrus the Younger.
And I get it many would say that's evidence that the Bible is not real, but can I submit that we as man (society) we have a knack, to kill, its easy to hate, and we are destructive.
It is a piece of evidence that leads to the notion that when it comes to the truth, the bible is lacking in at least one place. And if that is the case, it brings the entire book into suspect territory. Does it not? Do you not agree with that? If they can be absolutely wrong about one thing, they can be wrong about a good many things... including a man walking on water, living inside a fish for days, and resurrecting from the dead.
Where do you find fault with that logical pathway?
Not all of us hate, DT. Not all of us find it easy to kill. I find your observation to be in sharp contrast to just about every single person I know. Human tendency is to be good to each other. Things like religion, politics, nationalism and the like are what get in the way of that.
Could we not have killed something that existed and then made it seem like a fantasy all along to discredit it existence to begin with? To distinguish I think you simply seek with an expectation to find. God says that man is without excuse and left evidence throughout the world, but we dismiss a lot and count them as fairy tales.
You mean the same way you dismiss the fairy tales that you don't currently believe in?
The world exists; but just because it exists, you can't claim that as evidence that God put it there. You can't do that. The bible could simply be wrong here. It's not reasonable to simply assert something like that with nothing more backing it than 'the bible says so'. Why can't someone come up and say that man is without excuse and that Zeus left evidence throughout the world? When you can distinguish between the two using more than your preconceived beliefs, let me know.
true, and if he doesn't exist there would be no reason for me to seek Him or try to disprove Him, or want evidence from Him? When you consider the planets, animals, your son you can honestly say it all was by chance?
Chance no. Natural causes without the intervention of a deity... yes. Absolutely yes.
Give me a single way to distinguish your God from one that is fake in any provable sense. Please. I beg you to do that. If you can't, then please understand that it really could all be in your head, and the entire history of your religion could be fake (just like every other religion that has ever existed).
A book that even parallels most history books (Look into the Babylonia area) a book that other religions tell of the same stories and a world mocks by making fantasies about.
A book who's authors we don't know. For which we have no original copies. For which we don't even have copies of copies of copies of the originals. A book which contains obvious falsehoods, contradictions, and absurdities. A book which makes claims which are not only unproven, but that violate all the natural laws.
Tell me what history books back up the stories in the bible, DT. Not the people and the places, but the important things like the resurrection, the miracles, etc. I'd like to see those.
Belief can only come from careful examination
That's absolutely wrong. Totally wrong. Couldn't be more wrong. Belief CAN come from careful examination, but ONLY from careful examination? That's just epically wrong.
and society believes words in other books we were force to read factual and some not so factual books throughout school.
I'm not sure which direction you're going here. Are you thinking of history books, story books or science books? I'm going to assume you mean story / history books. There are good and bad reasons to believe that things we read in those types of books are true. Can you make a short list of the things that might cause you to accept something you've read as true versus false? What criteria would you need to see in order to accept that something is true? Take a few minutes and think about it. If you walked into a library and saw 5 books on the table, and the librarian told you one of them is true and the others are not, what criteria would you use to figure out which was which?
Proof of accuracy? The Bible has made mention of things our history books told us was discovered later: such as the world being round Isaiah 40:22, blood needed for life Leviticus 17:11, the ocean has springs Job 38:16, the water cycle Ecclesiastes 1:7, matter and particles Romans 1:20 - all of which have been discover by man much later
Isaiah 40:22 The earth isn't a circle. It's a sphere. And he can't sit 'above' the circle of the earth, because in outer space, the concept of 'up' doesn't really exist. Unless you think the people standing at the south pole should fall off the planet.
Leviticus 17:11 You mean to tell me that people didn't think blood was important before that? I'd like to see proof of that. It seems self-evident that blood is pretty important.
Ecclesiastes 1:7 It is a simple observation to make that rivers flow into the sea. But I don't see any mention of evaporation or condensation.
Romans 1:20 Where the hell do you see 'matter and particles' in this verse? Have you read it?
Job 38:16 Explain what you mean when you say that the ocean has springs... I don't want to jump to the conclusion that you're saying the hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean are 'springs' before you admit that what's you're talking about.
If that book is not trustworthy, then those words are useless. What evidence can you present that the words are trustworthy? Things the Bible said were true that man discovered over time, see previous paragraph
You're just wrong, DT. The phrases you posted are serious reaches. They aren't even close to what someone with omniscience would be capable of communicating to us. An omniscient being could describe evaporation, condensation and the water cycle in great detail. The little blurbs you've cited are NOT ENOUGH. They just aren't.
Yea, everyone will realize differently, for one thief it took him being nailed on a cross next to Jesus, for a woman being caught in adultery it took not being stoned, for a tax collector it took eating with Jesus, for you your son, for me my wife - all examples of love
John 8:2-11 was not part of the original bible, DT. Jesus never did that. It is not found in any of the oldest manuscripts we have. The entire event was added much later.
Love doesn't prove God. Love is an evolved emotion that ensures we provide care and assistance to those that we are close to so that they may pass our genes further along the line. It's an emotion. Just like all the other emotions. Renaming it God isn't necessary.