"Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test."
Then why bother with him? He... or it... has no more proof than any other religion's deities, so why should I choose it over, say, Shiva; when the two appear equally invalid?
Proof 3: Just because older religions might have been like Christianity does not mean that Christianity is also false like those other religions.
It does, however, increase the probability that Christianity is merely plagiarized from those older religions.
Also, have you ever considered that some of those other religions whose savior was born on dec 25th, so on and so forth could have been a result of pagans seeing Jesus Christ and interpreting him as a completely different religions savior, or perhaps scholars reading the old manuscripts of the bible came to the conclusion that the prophecies in the bible pointed towards things like a virgin birth, etc.
Have you considered that many of the religions that had a savior born on Dec 25th had that myth long before your supposed savior could have been born (a mere two millenia ago)?
Proof 4: Science only being able to proceed by not believing in God is false. In fact, the only scientific theories that contradict God are in fact theories, not proven and are riddled with flaws, assumptions and actual anti-proofs.
The big bang theory is in fact a theory and is not proven, if you are going to try and disprove God, do not try and do it with theories that have not been proven.
All you demonstrate here is that you do not understand what a scientific theory is, so I hope you will allow me to explain it a little.
A scientific theory requires quite a bit of proof before it can reach a theory- it must also have an underlying fact. A theory is best thought of as the explanation for how the fact works.
Gravity is both a theory and a fact, or more accurately, gravity has
both a theory and a fact. That masses attract one another is undeniable - thus gravity is a fact. However, there is still much we do not understand about how it works. The theory is the body of work and explanations we have built up over the years to explain the how. A theory can change as new information comes about, but as a general rule the theory always gets better at explaining the 'why' and the 'how' of the fact.
When we talk about the "Theory of Gravity" no one in their right mind would try to say "Gravity is only a theory", but they do when it comes to a much better supported theory: The Theory of Evolution. I don't say "better supported" because more people like it, but because it has more evidence and more explanatory power than the ToG
. Also, like the ToG, the ToE
has an underlying fact that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Over the course of many generations, it is an accepted fact that living organisms change in ever-increasing ways.
Evolution is a common choice, almost always coupled with the big bang theory.
First off, I would like to congratulate you on understanding that the Big Bang Theory and the ToE, while often linked, are not the same thing. It is rare to find a theist who can make the distinction (even after pointedly being informed of it).
As for the flaws it is riddled with, the big bang must have come from something, it is the only natural explanation, that there had to be something that caused it, it couldn't come from nothing, and if scientists say that a quark or whatever existed that caused the big bang, you would then have to explain where the quark came from. You would either have to come to the conclusion that matter always existed, which is naturally impossible or you would have to say that matter came from nothing, which is also naturally impossible.
You make two assertions here:
1. Matter having always existed is naturally impossible
2. Matter coming from nothing is naturally impossible
Can you prove both of these assertions?
You make a few others as well, like "The Big Bang must have a cause", but I'm more concerned with these two for now. As for "explaining where the quark came from", I can tell you that if we find everything came from a quark, explaining where the quark came from would in fact be the next objective. We have not getten there yet, so we'll hold off on postulating where it came from.
Next we come to the lack of transitional forms in the fossil records (as I am discussing in another thread), the amount of fossils in the record and the fact that almost 0 so called transitional form fossils exist makes the idea, that those transitional forms never existed, not only plausible but extremely likely.
I always find this argument entertaining - mainly because it is so horribly wrong as to be laughable.
Every single fossil found is a transitional fossil between the one that came before it and the one that came after it.
An excellent example comes from this picture (which I've used before, as I rather like it): (source
We have fossils (or bone structure for the later ones, like the Corvus) for each of these. You can google them yourself to find them, and I encourage you to do so
. The fossil of the Velociraptor is a transitional fossil between Sinosauropteryx and Unenlagia. Unenlagia is a transitional fossil between the Velociraptor and Caudipteryx. Caudipteryx is a transitional fossil between Unenlagia and Protarchaeopteryx... scientists need to come up with shorter names for dead things... but you should see my point by now. To say we have no transitional fossils is not just a bad misrepresentation, but practically insulting to all the work that has gone into uncovering these bits of the past.
Sorry, I came into the thread a bit late and saw most of the arguments were biblical in nature, but I wanted to address these and may have skipped over something. Apologies if I hit something that was already covered.