The Existence of God

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, this is a discussion in which the parameters force participants to accept a relativistic view of God. That’s not a very open discussion on the existence of the Absolute, is it?

No, this discussion is not concerned with the existence of God.

It’s centered on the fact that each person has an individual opinion on the topic of God’s existence, and should be respected.

It also is concerning the fact that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

If someone thinks they are God, should that perspective be respected too?

This is God. You must follow exactly as I say... if only I had given clear, explicit instructions on an indestructible medium so that there would be no doubt of my truth and existence

Christians believe that is called a Bible.

The point of the thread is you do not have to believe that, and that Christians can choose to believe that.

Why do you think your opinion is superior?

The Bible is none of those things. It is not clear, explicit and undoubtedly the word of God.

It is an amalgamation of stories that originated through oral tradition and were eventually written down. Those texts were then subject to individual styles, copy edit errors, and translations into various languages. Even which books compose the Bible as canon were selected by a voting process.

That does not meet even the most basic definition of being clear and explicit. That is fact, not opinion.

Voltaire is associated with a popular, but historically inaccurate, legend about the Council of Nicaea, claiming the council determined the biblical canon by placing books on an altar and keeping those that didn't fall.

This myth, originating from the 9th-century Synodicon Vetus, was popularized by Voltaire in his Philosophical Dictionary.

While Voltaire didn't invent the story, his work significantly contributed to its perpetuation. Modern scholarship clarifies that the Council of Nicaea focused on resolving the Arian controversy and did not determine the biblical canon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody knows if God exists, or doesn’t exist.

It’s a popular topic here. Everyone can have their own opinion about God.

The existence of God is a question of personal belief and faith, with strong arguments both for and against. There is no scientific or universally accepted proof that definitively proves or disproves God's existence.

The existence of God is a subject of debate in the philosophy of religion and theology.


Whether God exists is one of the most basic and important questions any person can consider. Most people have an opinion about what they believe about the existence of the Christian God or other gods.

People should have their own opinions about God or gods.

But nobody can claim definitively if God exists, or if God doesn’t exist.

That’s a personal belief or disbelief, not a statement of fact.

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

Science focuses on studying the natural world through observation and experimentation. God is outside the realm of the natural world.

Religious belief involves faith and supernatural forces, which are not within the scope of scientific inquiry.


Science relies on empirical evidence, testable hypotheses, and the scientific method to understand the universe. It cannot address questions about the supernatural or metaphysical.

So: if you believe in God, great.
If you don’t believe in God, great.

Your belief or disbelief is your opinion, and each person has their own valid opinion on this matter.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove or disprove God. If you are looking for scientific evidence that proves or disproves God, you won’t find it.

Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith.

Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God.

Be grateful we live in a country that allows us to believe or disbelieve whatever we wish. Many people are not so fortunate.

It's your second to last sentence that you got wrong. It is mostly believers trying to force non-believers into their viewpoint. If they let me alone, I'd leave them alone. The statement is correct in principle but not in practice.

100 percent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody knows if God exists, or doesn’t exist.

It’s a popular topic here. Everyone can have their own opinion about God.

The existence of God is a question of personal belief and faith, with strong arguments both for and against. There is no scientific or universally accepted proof that definitively proves or disproves God's existence.

The existence of God is a subject of debate in the philosophy of religion and theology.


Whether God exists is one of the most basic and important questions any person can consider. Most people have an opinion about what they believe about the existence of the Christian God or other gods.

People should have their own opinions about God or gods.

But nobody can claim definitively if God exists, or if God doesn’t exist.

That’s a personal belief or disbelief, not a statement of fact.

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

Science focuses on studying the natural world through observation and experimentation. God is outside the realm of the natural world.

Religious belief involves faith and supernatural forces, which are not within the scope of scientific inquiry.


Science relies on empirical evidence, testable hypotheses, and the scientific method to understand the universe. It cannot address questions about the supernatural or metaphysical.

So: if you believe in God, great.
If you don’t believe in God, great.

Your belief or disbelief is your opinion, and each person has their own valid opinion on this matter.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove or disprove God. If you are looking for scientific evidence that proves or disproves God, you won’t find it.

Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith.

Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God.

Be grateful we live in a country that allows us to believe or disbelieve whatever we wish. Many people are not so fortunate.

It's your second to last sentence that you got wrong. It is mostly believers trying to force non-believers into their viewpoint. If they let me alone, I'd leave them alone. The statement is correct in principle but not in practice.

100 percent

Pp won’t answer, will you? How have people not left you alone and tried to force you to believe what they believe?

Is someone forcing you to come to a religion forum, or are you choosing to come to a religion forum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, this is a discussion in which the parameters force participants to accept a relativistic view of God. That’s not a very open discussion on the existence of the Absolute, is it?

No, this discussion is not concerned with the existence of God.

It’s centered on the fact that each person has an individual opinion on the topic of God’s existence, and should be respected.

It also is concerning the fact that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

If someone thinks they are God, should that perspective be respected too?

This is God. You must follow exactly as I say... if only I had given clear, explicit instructions on an indestructible medium so that there would be no doubt of my truth and existence

Christians believe that is called a Bible.

The point of the thread is you do not have to believe that, and that Christians can choose to believe that.

Why do you think your opinion is superior?

The Bible is none of those things. It is not clear, explicit and undoubtedly the word of God.

It is an amalgamation of stories that originated through oral tradition and were eventually written down. Those texts were then subject to individual styles, copy edit errors, and translations into various languages. Even which books compose the Bible as canon were selected by a voting process.

That does not meet even the most basic definition of being clear and explicit. That is fact, not opinion.

While it is commonly believed that the Bible's canon was determined through a voting process, particularly at the Council of Nicaea, there is no historical basis for this idea.

Instead, the process of selecting the books that compose the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, was a more complex and gradual development.

Here's a breakdown of how the canon was formed:
Old Testament Canon:
Emergence of the Torah: The first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah or Pentateuch, were recognized as authoritative relatively early in Jewish history.
Gradual Acceptance of Texts: Successive books like historical records, prophetic writings, and wisdom literature were added over time based on their perceived spiritual authority and coherence with existing scriptures.
Pharisaic Canon: By the first century CE, the Pharisees held to a canon of twenty-two or twenty-four books, which eventually became the basis for the Rabbinic Jewish canon.
No Single Jewish Council: Ancient Jews did not have a council in the same way Christians did to decide the canon.

New Testament Canon:
Apostolic Origin: Writings were considered canonical if they were directly related to or under the supervision of the apostles, Jesus' closest followers.
Recognition by Churches: If churches widely accepted a book as authoritative, it was more likely to be considered for inclusion.
Apostolic Content: The content of the book had to align with the doctrine the apostles taught.
Response to Heresies: The emergence of heretical movements in the early church necessitated the definition of a clear set of authoritative writings.
Increased Reliance on Writings: As the apostles died, their oral teaching became less familiar, leading to increased reliance on their writings and those of their associates.
Formal Affirmation by Councils: Regional councils like the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD) affirmed the canon that was already generally accepted by the churches.
In summary, the formation of the biblical canon was not a single event determined by a vote, but rather a long process of divine inspiration, community recognition, and affirmation by church councils, especially regarding the New Testament.

And none of this refutes the notion that the development of the Bible was clearly a human process.

It is not an undoubted document written in adamantium with clear language that all people can understand written by God. You know, the same entity that's supposedly the creator of all, but he can't or didn't create this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody knows if God exists, or doesn’t exist.

It’s a popular topic here. Everyone can have their own opinion about God.

The existence of God is a question of personal belief and faith, with strong arguments both for and against. There is no scientific or universally accepted proof that definitively proves or disproves God's existence.

The existence of God is a subject of debate in the philosophy of religion and theology.


Whether God exists is one of the most basic and important questions any person can consider. Most people have an opinion about what they believe about the existence of the Christian God or other gods.

People should have their own opinions about God or gods.

But nobody can claim definitively if God exists, or if God doesn’t exist.

That’s a personal belief or disbelief, not a statement of fact.

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

Science focuses on studying the natural world through observation and experimentation. God is outside the realm of the natural world.

Religious belief involves faith and supernatural forces, which are not within the scope of scientific inquiry.


Science relies on empirical evidence, testable hypotheses, and the scientific method to understand the universe. It cannot address questions about the supernatural or metaphysical.

So: if you believe in God, great.
If you don’t believe in God, great.

Your belief or disbelief is your opinion, and each person has their own valid opinion on this matter.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove or disprove God. If you are looking for scientific evidence that proves or disproves God, you won’t find it.

Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith.

Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God.

Be grateful we live in a country that allows us to believe or disbelieve whatever we wish. Many people are not so fortunate.

It's your second to last sentence that you got wrong. It is mostly believers trying to force non-believers into their viewpoint. If they let me alone, I'd leave them alone. The statement is correct in principle but not in practice.

100 percent

Pp won’t answer, will you? How have people not left you alone and tried to force you to believe what they believe?

Is someone forcing you to come to a religion forum, or are you choosing to come to a religion forum?

This was answered. Their point were not rebutted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, this is a discussion in which the parameters force participants to accept a relativistic view of God. That’s not a very open discussion on the existence of the Absolute, is it?

No, this discussion is not concerned with the existence of God.

It’s centered on the fact that each person has an individual opinion on the topic of God’s existence, and should be respected.

It also is concerning the fact that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

If someone thinks they are God, should that perspective be respected too?

This is God. You must follow exactly as I say... if only I had given clear, explicit instructions on an indestructible medium so that there would be no doubt of my truth and existence

Christians believe that is called a Bible.

The point of the thread is you do not have to believe that, and that Christians can choose to believe that.

Why do you think your opinion is superior?

The Bible is none of those things. It is not clear, explicit and undoubtedly the word of God.

It is an amalgamation of stories that originated through oral tradition and were eventually written down. Those texts were then subject to individual styles, copy edit errors, and translations into various languages. Even which books compose the Bible as canon were selected by a voting process.

That does not meet even the most basic definition of being clear and explicit. That is fact, not opinion.

Where is this fact from? Link?

You need a link to understand, "does not meet even the most basic definition of being clear and explicit".

Umm, maybe go back to school and try harder this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, this is a discussion in which the parameters force participants to accept a relativistic view of God. That’s not a very open discussion on the existence of the Absolute, is it?

No, this discussion is not concerned with the existence of God.

It’s centered on the fact that each person has an individual opinion on the topic of God’s existence, and should be respected.

It also is concerning the fact that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

If someone thinks they are God, should that perspective be respected too?

This is God. You must follow exactly as I say... if only I had given clear, explicit instructions on an indestructible medium so that there would be no doubt of my truth and existence

Christians believe that is called a Bible.

The point of the thread is you do not have to believe that, and that Christians can choose to believe that.

Why do you think your opinion is superior?

The Bible is none of those things. It is not clear, explicit and undoubtedly the word of God.

It is an amalgamation of stories that originated through oral tradition and were eventually written down. Those texts were then subject to individual styles, copy edit errors, and translations into various languages. Even which books compose the Bible as canon were selected by a voting process.

That does not meet even the most basic definition of being clear and explicit. That is fact, not opinion.

While it is commonly believed that the Bible's canon was determined through a voting process, particularly at the Council of Nicaea, there is no historical basis for this idea.

Instead, the process of selecting the books that compose the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, was a more complex and gradual development.

Here's a breakdown of how the canon was formed:
Old Testament Canon:
Emergence of the Torah: The first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah or Pentateuch, were recognized as authoritative relatively early in Jewish history.
Gradual Acceptance of Texts: Successive books like historical records, prophetic writings, and wisdom literature were added over time based on their perceived spiritual authority and coherence with existing scriptures.
Pharisaic Canon: By the first century CE, the Pharisees held to a canon of twenty-two or twenty-four books, which eventually became the basis for the Rabbinic Jewish canon.
No Single Jewish Council: Ancient Jews did not have a council in the same way Christians did to decide the canon.

New Testament Canon:
Apostolic Origin: Writings were considered canonical if they were directly related to or under the supervision of the apostles, Jesus' closest followers.
Recognition by Churches: If churches widely accepted a book as authoritative, it was more likely to be considered for inclusion.
Apostolic Content: The content of the book had to align with the doctrine the apostles taught.
Response to Heresies: The emergence of heretical movements in the early church necessitated the definition of a clear set of authoritative writings.
Increased Reliance on Writings: As the apostles died, their oral teaching became less familiar, leading to increased reliance on their writings and those of their associates.
Formal Affirmation by Councils: Regional councils like the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD) affirmed the canon that was already generally accepted by the churches.
In summary, the formation of the biblical canon was not a single event determined by a vote, but rather a long process of divine inspiration, community recognition, and affirmation by church councils, especially regarding the New Testament.

And none of this refutes the notion that the development of the Bible was clearly a human process.

It is not an undoubted document written in adamantium with clear language that all people can understand written by God. You know, the same entity that's supposedly the creator of all, but he can't or didn't create this?

Adamantium is a fictional, nearly indestructible metal alloy, primarily known for its appearance in Marvel Comics.

Do you believe the Bible was written in a fictional metal from a Marvel comic book? Or something to that effect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://youtu.be/zHDZP_5QMpk?si=20wWFopBdwZFYFnQ


Sums it up

Does anyone know the name of this comedian?

His name is Pete Holmes. He has a youtube channel.

[Anonymous]

The intentionality and natural order with creation is a testament to the existence of an all knowing creator /intelligent design.

If the sun was a millimeter closer, life on earth would be impossible.

Rocks have all the minerals needed for human life: iron, copper, magnesium, calcium.
Without trees, we wouldn’t exist. They take the carbon dioxide that we exhale out of the air and return to us oxygen that we need for survival.

Trees have a vascular system that passes water and nutrients throughout all the cells in the tree, somewhat similar to our own circulatory system of blood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://youtu.be/zHDZP_5QMpk?si=20wWFopBdwZFYFnQ


Sums it up

Does anyone know the name of this comedian?

His name is Pete Holmes. He has a youtube channel.

above link nsfw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody knows if God exists, or doesn’t exist.

It’s a popular topic here. Everyone can have their own opinion about God.

The existence of God is a question of personal belief and faith, with strong arguments both for and against. There is no scientific or universally accepted proof that definitively proves or disproves God's existence.

The existence of God is a subject of debate in the philosophy of religion and theology.


Whether God exists is one of the most basic and important questions any person can consider. Most people have an opinion about what they believe about the existence of the Christian God or other gods.

People should have their own opinions about God or gods.

But nobody can claim definitively if God exists, or if God doesn’t exist.

That’s a personal belief or disbelief, not a statement of fact.

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

Science focuses on studying the natural world through observation and experimentation. God is outside the realm of the natural world.

Religious belief involves faith and supernatural forces, which are not within the scope of scientific inquiry.


Science relies on empirical evidence, testable hypotheses, and the scientific method to understand the universe. It cannot address questions about the supernatural or metaphysical.

So: if you believe in God, great.
If you don’t believe in God, great.

Your belief or disbelief is your opinion, and each person has their own valid opinion on this matter.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove or disprove God. If you are looking for scientific evidence that proves or disproves God, you won’t find it.

Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith.

Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God.

Be grateful we live in a country that allows us to believe or disbelieve whatever we wish. Many people are not so fortunate.

It's your second to last sentence that you got wrong. It is mostly believers trying to force non-believers into their viewpoint. If they let me alone, I'd leave them alone. The statement is correct in principle but not in practice.

How do people force themselves upon you in their quest to make you a believer?

You clearly don't pay attention to even the latest news. How about efforts to teach the bible in public schools, post the 10 commandments, or make decisions about women's health primarily on the outdated beliefs of old middle eastern guys to state a few.

In public schools, academic study of the Bible is permissible, but devotional activities are not. The Supreme Court has ruled that while studying the Bible as literature, exploring its historical and cultural impact, or examining its influence on other works is acceptable, mandatory prayer or religious instruction is unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that while academic lessons on the Bible are permissible, devotional readings in public schools violate the establishment clause in the First Amendment, which protects Americans’ free exercise of religious beliefs.

https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/should-the-bible-be-taught-in-public-schools/2024/07#:~:text=Could%20That%20Change?&text=The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20has,free%20exercise%20of%20religious%20beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, this is a discussion in which the parameters force participants to accept a relativistic view of God. That’s not a very open discussion on the existence of the Absolute, is it?

No, this discussion is not concerned with the existence of God.

It’s centered on the fact that each person has an individual opinion on the topic of God’s existence, and should be respected.

It also is concerning the fact that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

If someone thinks they are God, should that perspective be respected too?

This is God. You must follow exactly as I say... if only I had given clear, explicit instructions on an indestructible medium so that there would be no doubt of my truth and existence

Christians believe that is called a Bible.

The point of the thread is you do not have to believe that, and that Christians can choose to believe that.

Why do you think your opinion is superior?

The Bible is none of those things. It is not clear, explicit and undoubtedly the word of God.

It is an amalgamation of stories that originated through oral tradition and were eventually written down. Those texts were then subject to individual styles, copy edit errors, and translations into various languages. Even which books compose the Bible as canon were selected by a voting process.

That does not meet even the most basic definition of being clear and explicit. That is fact, not opinion.

While it is commonly believed that the Bible's canon was determined through a voting process, particularly at the Council of Nicaea, there is no historical basis for this idea.

Instead, the process of selecting the books that compose the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, was a more complex and gradual development.

Here's a breakdown of how the canon was formed:
Old Testament Canon:
Emergence of the Torah: The first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah or Pentateuch, were recognized as authoritative relatively early in Jewish history.
Gradual Acceptance of Texts: Successive books like historical records, prophetic writings, and wisdom literature were added over time based on their perceived spiritual authority and coherence with existing scriptures.
Pharisaic Canon: By the first century CE, the Pharisees held to a canon of twenty-two or twenty-four books, which eventually became the basis for the Rabbinic Jewish canon.
No Single Jewish Council: Ancient Jews did not have a council in the same way Christians did to decide the canon.

New Testament Canon:
Apostolic Origin: Writings were considered canonical if they were directly related to or under the supervision of the apostles, Jesus' closest followers.
Recognition by Churches: If churches widely accepted a book as authoritative, it was more likely to be considered for inclusion.
Apostolic Content: The content of the book had to align with the doctrine the apostles taught.
Response to Heresies: The emergence of heretical movements in the early church necessitated the definition of a clear set of authoritative writings.
Increased Reliance on Writings: As the apostles died, their oral teaching became less familiar, leading to increased reliance on their writings and those of their associates.
Formal Affirmation by Councils: Regional councils like the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD) affirmed the canon that was already generally accepted by the churches.
In summary, the formation of the biblical canon was not a single event determined by a vote, but rather a long process of divine inspiration, community recognition, and affirmation by church councils, especially regarding the New Testament.

And none of this refutes the notion that the development of the Bible was clearly a human process.

It is not an undoubted document written in adamantium with clear language that all people can understand written by God. You know, the same entity that's supposedly the creator of all, but he can't or didn't create this?

Adamantium is a fictional, nearly indestructible metal alloy, primarily known for its appearance in Marvel Comics.

Do you believe the Bible was written in a fictional metal from a Marvel comic book? Or something to that effect?

Poster knows that its fictional. Just like the Bible.

However, you are distracting from their premise. An entity capable of creating the universe could have created something - anything - that provided its rules for its creation to follow that was unambiguous and clear for ALL of humanity to follow.

Instead, we have the esoteric writings of various groups of people over various periods of time in various languages with various interpretations of what it all means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The intentionality and natural order with creation is a testament to the existence of an all knowing creator /intelligent design.

If the sun was a millimeter closer, life on earth would be impossible.

Rocks have all the minerals needed for human life: iron, copper, magnesium, calcium.
Without trees, we wouldn’t exist. They take the carbon dioxide that we exhale out of the air and return to us oxygen that we need for survival.

Trees have a vascular system that passes water and nutrients throughout all the cells in the tree, somewhat similar to our own circulatory system of blood.

Nice try with a 4th grade understanding of science. Now explain all the "imperfect" aspects of nature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, this is a discussion in which the parameters force participants to accept a relativistic view of God. That’s not a very open discussion on the existence of the Absolute, is it?

No, this discussion is not concerned with the existence of God.

It’s centered on the fact that each person has an individual opinion on the topic of God’s existence, and should be respected.

It also is concerning the fact that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

If someone thinks they are God, should that perspective be respected too?

This is God. You must follow exactly as I say... if only I had given clear, explicit instructions on an indestructible medium so that there would be no doubt of my truth and existence

Christians believe that is called a Bible.

The point of the thread is you do not have to believe that, and that Christians can choose to believe that.

Why do you think your opinion is superior?

The Bible is none of those things. It is not clear, explicit and undoubtedly the word of God.

It is an amalgamation of stories that originated through oral tradition and were eventually written down. Those texts were then subject to individual styles, copy edit errors, and translations into various languages. Even which books compose the Bible as canon were selected by a voting process.

That does not meet even the most basic definition of being clear and explicit. That is fact, not opinion.

While it is commonly believed that the Bible's canon was determined through a voting process, particularly at the Council of Nicaea, there is no historical basis for this idea.

Instead, the process of selecting the books that compose the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, was a more complex and gradual development.

Here's a breakdown of how the canon was formed:
Old Testament Canon:
Emergence of the Torah: The first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah or Pentateuch, were recognized as authoritative relatively early in Jewish history.
Gradual Acceptance of Texts: Successive books like historical records, prophetic writings, and wisdom literature were added over time based on their perceived spiritual authority and coherence with existing scriptures.
Pharisaic Canon: By the first century CE, the Pharisees held to a canon of twenty-two or twenty-four books, which eventually became the basis for the Rabbinic Jewish canon.
No Single Jewish Council: Ancient Jews did not have a council in the same way Christians did to decide the canon.

New Testament Canon:
Apostolic Origin: Writings were considered canonical if they were directly related to or under the supervision of the apostles, Jesus' closest followers.
Recognition by Churches: If churches widely accepted a book as authoritative, it was more likely to be considered for inclusion.
Apostolic Content: The content of the book had to align with the doctrine the apostles taught.
Response to Heresies: The emergence of heretical movements in the early church necessitated the definition of a clear set of authoritative writings.
Increased Reliance on Writings: As the apostles died, their oral teaching became less familiar, leading to increased reliance on their writings and those of their associates.
Formal Affirmation by Councils: Regional councils like the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD) affirmed the canon that was already generally accepted by the churches.
In summary, the formation of the biblical canon was not a single event determined by a vote, but rather a long process of divine inspiration, community recognition, and affirmation by church councils, especially regarding the New Testament.

And none of this refutes the notion that the development of the Bible was clearly a human process.

It is not an undoubted document written in adamantium with clear language that all people can understand written by God. You know, the same entity that's supposedly the creator of all, but he can't or didn't create this?

The Scriptures show God speaking through human beings not sometimes but constantly. The words of the human authors are the way God's divine word is communicated, and when you encounter God's Spirit, you're encountering a human.

So if God works through people, then it makes sense that God’s word is communicated through human word. And this human communication is not a sad necessity or an unfortunate requirement—it’s God’s intent. This is how he chooses to communicate.

This is what many Christians believe.

You don’t have to be a Christian. You don’t have to believe in God or what Christians believe about the Bible.

You are fully entitled to believe that God could have written the Bible in the same material Wolverine of Marvel Comics fame has in his bones, but chose not to, so He doesn’t exist.

Both pov are valid for the holder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, this is a discussion in which the parameters force participants to accept a relativistic view of God. That’s not a very open discussion on the existence of the Absolute, is it?

No, this discussion is not concerned with the existence of God.

It’s centered on the fact that each person has an individual opinion on the topic of God’s existence, and should be respected.

It also is concerning the fact that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

If someone thinks they are God, should that perspective be respected too?

This is God. You must follow exactly as I say... if only I had given clear, explicit instructions on an indestructible medium so that there would be no doubt of my truth and existence

Christians believe that is called a Bible.

The point of the thread is you do not have to believe that, and that Christians can choose to believe that.

Why do you think your opinion is superior?

The Bible is none of those things. It is not clear, explicit and undoubtedly the word of God.

It is an amalgamation of stories that originated through oral tradition and were eventually written down. Those texts were then subject to individual styles, copy edit errors, and translations into various languages. Even which books compose the Bible as canon were selected by a voting process.

That does not meet even the most basic definition of being clear and explicit. That is fact, not opinion.

While it is commonly believed that the Bible's canon was determined through a voting process, particularly at the Council of Nicaea, there is no historical basis for this idea.

Instead, the process of selecting the books that compose the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, was a more complex and gradual development.

Here's a breakdown of how the canon was formed:
Old Testament Canon:
Emergence of the Torah: The first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah or Pentateuch, were recognized as authoritative relatively early in Jewish history.
Gradual Acceptance of Texts: Successive books like historical records, prophetic writings, and wisdom literature were added over time based on their perceived spiritual authority and coherence with existing scriptures.
Pharisaic Canon: By the first century CE, the Pharisees held to a canon of twenty-two or twenty-four books, which eventually became the basis for the Rabbinic Jewish canon.
No Single Jewish Council: Ancient Jews did not have a council in the same way Christians did to decide the canon.

New Testament Canon:
Apostolic Origin: Writings were considered canonical if they were directly related to or under the supervision of the apostles, Jesus' closest followers.
Recognition by Churches: If churches widely accepted a book as authoritative, it was more likely to be considered for inclusion.
Apostolic Content: The content of the book had to align with the doctrine the apostles taught.
Response to Heresies: The emergence of heretical movements in the early church necessitated the definition of a clear set of authoritative writings.
Increased Reliance on Writings: As the apostles died, their oral teaching became less familiar, leading to increased reliance on their writings and those of their associates.
Formal Affirmation by Councils: Regional councils like the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD) affirmed the canon that was already generally accepted by the churches.
In summary, the formation of the biblical canon was not a single event determined by a vote, but rather a long process of divine inspiration, community recognition, and affirmation by church councils, especially regarding the New Testament.

And none of this refutes the notion that the development of the Bible was clearly a human process.

It is not an undoubted document written in adamantium with clear language that all people can understand written by God. You know, the same entity that's supposedly the creator of all, but he can't or didn't create this?

Adamantium is a fictional, nearly indestructible metal alloy, primarily known for its appearance in Marvel Comics.

Do you believe the Bible was written in a fictional metal from a Marvel comic book? Or something to that effect?

Poster knows that its fictional. Just like the Bible.

However, you are distracting from their premise. An entity capable of creating the universe could have created something - anything - that provided its rules for its creation to follow that was unambiguous and clear for ALL of humanity to follow.

Instead, we have the esoteric writings of various groups of people over various periods of time in various languages with various interpretations of what it all means.

The Bible includes historical narratives, particularly in the Old Testament, with accounts of kings, kingdoms, and events that can be investigated through other historical sources and archaeological evidence.


The New Testament Gospels, particularly Luke, present themselves as based on eyewitness testimony.

Many scholars and religious leaders take a balanced approach, recognizing both the historical and literary aspects of the Bible. They acknowledge that while some parts can be verified historically, others are written with symbolic or allegorical intent.

The Bible is a complex text with both historical and religious significance, and whether it's considered "true" or "fiction" is a matter of interpretation and belief. Some parts, like historical accounts and legal codes, are generally accepted as factual records, even with potential for bias or inaccuracies. Other parts, particularly those involving miracles, prophecies, and theological concepts, are often viewed as matters of faith and spiritual truth rather than literal historical fact.

The Bible[b] is a collection of religious texts that are central to Christianity and Judaism, and esteemed in other Abrahamic religions such as Islam. The Bible is an anthology (a compilation of texts of a variety of forms) originally written in Hebrew and Koine Greek, with some parts in Aramaic. The texts include instructions, stories, poetry, prophecies, and other writings that convey ethical beliefs and values, and historical accounts. The collection of materials accepted as part of the Bible by a particular religious tradition or community is called a biblical canon. Believers generally consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, but the way they understand what that means and interpret the text varies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

You may hold the personal opinion that the Bible is a work of fiction, but other people hold different opinions on what the Bible is.