Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But none targeted to the degree that Christianity is on this forum.

So are you just defending your particular Christian God? Do you think other Gods are real, too?

The most hated God is the Christian God.

John 3:19

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

OOOOHHH I just received this lovely heartfelt bible quote in my birthday card from an ultra religious friend! Such a warm, touching sentiment, right? Time to rethink this friendship as I see where it's going. I'm a project that needs to be saved now.

The most fantastical thing written in this thread is that you have a friend.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 :roll:

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? :roll:

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.

You think God should have written the Bible in American english at a time when nobody in the world spoke American english? And because He chose to have the authors write the Bible in languages they themselves knew, He doesn’t exist?

That is your opinion. You are welcome to hold your opinion as valid. It is the correct opinion for you.

It is not the opinion of everyone else on earth, or even on this discussion forum.

Other people should allow you to hold your own opinions, and you should in turn allow others to believe as they wish about the Bible.

It’s really quite easy in our country to do this.

For example, right now you are on a voluntary discussion forum discussing religion. That’s freedom. You aren’t being forced by anyone to be here discussing religion, you are choosing to come here and discuss your own opinions about religion. You can log off at any moment and go do non-religious activities and discuss other topics that do not involve religion.

But because we live in a free society, you can choose to come here and discuss religion whenever you feel like talking about religion.

You should respect the opinion of others.

You don’t have to insist everyone who doesn’t hold your opinion is wrong.

It’s entirely possible God doesn’t exist because He didn’t write the Bible in American English and the Bible was written in the languages that were common at the time they were written.

Scholars generally recognize three languages as original biblical languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek.

What is your reading comprehension? I see nowhere that the poster said it had to be in American English.

This all knowing all powerful supreme being didn't know to create something directly that all peoples on earth could see and know. Instead it has to work through divine inspiration in us fallible humans? First, through oral traditions, and then in writings passed on by various writers, authors, and interpretations?

Why be so obtuse?

Anonymous wrote:

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 :roll:

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? :roll:

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.

You think God should have written the Bible in American english at a time when nobody in the world spoke American english? And because He chose to have the authors write the Bible in languages they themselves knew, He doesn’t exist?

That is your opinion. You are welcome to hold your opinion as valid. It is the correct opinion for you.

It is not the opinion of everyone else on earth, or even on this discussion forum.

Other people should allow you to hold your own opinions, and you should in turn allow others to believe as they wish about the Bible.

It’s really quite easy in our country to do this.

For example, right now you are on a voluntary discussion forum discussing religion. That’s freedom. You aren’t being forced by anyone to be here discussing religion, you are choosing to come here and discuss your own opinions about religion. You can log off at any moment and go do non-religious activities and discuss other topics that do not involve religion.

But because we live in a free society, you can choose to come here and discuss religion whenever you feel like talking about religion.

You should respect the opinion of others.

You don’t have to insist everyone who doesn’t hold your opinion is wrong.

It’s entirely possible God doesn’t exist because He didn’t write the Bible in American English and the Bible was written in the languages that were common at the time they were written.

Scholars generally recognize three languages as original biblical languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ever heard of the "pothole and the puddle" argument? Quite simplistic thinking involved, but it's something people should read

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ever heard of the "pothole and the puddle" argument? Quite simplistic thinking involved, but it's something people should read

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But none targeted to the degree that Christianity is on this forum.

So are you just defending your particular Christian God? Do you think other Gods are real, too?

The most hated God is the Christian God.

John 3:19

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

OOOOHHH I just received this lovely heartfelt bible quote in my birthday card from an ultra religious friend! Such a warm, touching sentiment, right? Time to rethink this friendship as I see where it's going. I'm a project that needs to be saved now.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But none targeted to the degree that Christianity is on this forum.

So are you just defending your particular Christian God? Do you think other Gods are real, too?

The most hated God is the Christian God.

John 3:19

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

OOOOHHH I just received this lovely heartfelt bible quote in my birthday card from an ultra religious friend! Such a warm, touching sentiment, right? Time to rethink this friendship as I see where it's going. I'm a project that needs to be saved now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But none targeted to the degree that Christianity is on this forum.

So are you just defending your particular Christian God? Do you think other Gods are real, too?

The most hated God is the Christian God.

John 3:19

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

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.

Are you practicing your AI prompts, OP?

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.

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.

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 :roll:

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? :roll:

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.