There's no contradiction of truthful teachings anywhere in the Bible. If you can find any such "nonsense", please bring it up. Otherwise, this is just another false assertion on your part.
You could say that, but it would be trivially easy to demonstrably prove otherwise. You see, Christians don't believe simply because words on a page say so, they believe because there are good reasons, evidence, and personal experiences that (in light of a defeater) have no more reason to be rejected than any other cognitive faculties we properly basically believe in.
In short, there's great reasons/evidence that your claim is false, therefore it's easy to dismiss.
False. There's no proof (by design), but there's plenty of evidence. For example:
1. The beginning of the universe is evidence that something time less, space less, immaterial, and extremely powerful must have been the transcendent cause for it. This evidence is supported by both philosophical conclusions regarding the impossibility of an infinite past, and scientific proof of a finite past for any universe that is on-average expanding (which ours is).
2. The existence of objective morality in the world. If even one thing is ever objectively "good" or "bad", then it follows necessarily that objective morality exists. Most people affirm this, and even atheists affirm that if God exists, objective morality doesn't exist. Yet, atheists are some of the most vocal about morality, as they want to claim to be "moral" people, or "good" people. The problem is, with out God there *is* no right or wrong. There is no such thing as an "ought". You can't tell me I "ought" to not judge others, because there's no basis for morality. But we all know morality isn't just a social adaptation. We all know that it's factually 'good' to love a child, and it's factually 'better' to love that child than to molest it, rape it, and torture it for fun. But if God doesn't exist, then objective morality doesn't exist, and it's therefore factually no 'better' or 'worse' to love a child than to rape it... but we all *know* that is wrong. We all affirm it. We all affirm there are some things which are truly good, and some things which are truly bad... and even if there's just one objectively "good" or objectively "bad" thing in this world, it follows necessarily that God must exist as the foundation of that objective truth.
3. The fine-tuning of the universe. You do realize that the multi-verse theory is the scientific theory meant to attempt to explain away the fine tuning of our universe for life, right? There's no proof at all for the multi-verse theory. The theory goes something like this, "because it's so ridiculously unlikely that a universe like ours should exist with these finely tuned properties to allow life, there must be a plethora of universes which don't have those properties... yeah, that must be it. Surely it can't be by design, even though that's what it looks like."
4. The person of Jesus of Nazareth, and his miraculous life/death. Most historians (new testament critics even) agree that Jesus lived, died on the cross, was buried by Joseph of Aremathia in a known tomb, the tomb was found empty by some of his women followers, and that Jesus post-mortem appearances were what gave rise to the Christian faith. All naturalistic explanations for those historical facts have all universally been rejected. Things like, "the disciples stole the body", or "Jesus wasn't really dead" - all historically ad-hoc, and rejected. The truth is, there just is no good naturalistic explanation for the facts around Jesus life and death... and this is good evidence that what the Bible teaches is true, that is that Jesus was raised form the dead.
5. Personal experiences. I'm a successful man by all worldly standards. I've had all the regular medical tests run on me that most people do during a lifetime, and it's clear that I'm a sane, logically thinking person. I've had experiences which I have no reason to reject as false. I've come to know Jesus in the properly basic way the people of the Bible came to know God. In the absence of a defeater, I see no reason to assume these experiences are false.
This is all evidence for God. None of it is proof... but it's great evidence. So now tell me, what's your evidence that there isn't a God?
As are all historical documents, but that doesn't mean you out-right dismiss them. What you do is you look at them critically, and you use the same tools historians use to identify what's most probably true, vs. what's most probably false, or inconclusive. You're right that many claims in the Bible aren't well supported with other historical evidence or corroborating texts... but neither are they DISPROVEN. Additionally, many facts in the Bible *ARE* recognized as incredibly well established, and can be taken as historical fact... such as the facts I mentioned above in relation to the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
Right, but would you die for your fictions? Would multiple people attest to the same fiction? Using the tools historians use, you can identify things which are plausibly (even probably) true, due to multiple attestations, similar accounts, proper historical context, closeness to the events described, and hermeneutical analysis.
The scriptures hold up incredibly well under such scrutiny. Your claims do not.
There's historical evidence that Jesus was a miracle worker, yes. There's also evidence that there was some sort of flood which covered massive amounts of the world at some point... but honestly, that's all "in-house" discussion material. What matters is, "is there a god?", and there's plenty of strong evidence that suggests there is indeed a God.
Look above.
I know that Zeus is most plausibly not real, because we can now fly into the skies, and show he's not there. You see, there's plenty of great evidence for the non-existence of these man-made Gods... but you have yet to give me *any* evidence that the God of the Bible doesn't exist.
Sure, but that's ad-hoc and contrived. Aliens aren't metaphysically necessary beings, and there's no evidence for a petri dish, especially considering petri dishes are man-made physical objects. So this analogy really fails, and falls very flat.
Yep.
Plausibility, philosophical evidence, scientific evidence, as well as comparative analysis.
For example, Islam is very likely false because the Karaan's mythical depiction of Jesus is completely historically inaccurate. The book was written multiple hundreds of years after the event, and the claims it makes about the person of Jesus are historically most likely false.
Similarly, the concept of many ancient Gods are demonstrably false. Thor, Zeus, they're easy to falsify.
Finally, science can actually aid us in disproving many of the far east religions, like Taoism and buddism. Such religions often claim the world, or the universe are themselves 'divine', and therefore eternal, but that claim is now quite easily falsifiable. The world and the universe are not past eternal. There's strong evidence philosophically, and there's scientific proof that it's finite.
So yes, there are many, many, many strong reasons to NOT believe in other religions of the world, and there are very many, many strong reasons to affirm the truth of Christianity.
In your opinion, but I still have yet to see you provide *any* argument or evidence for the non-existance of God. All I've seen from you is a passing of the buck of 'burden of proof'. You assert your claims with no backing, and then attack mine without any rational reasons or evidence... so really, you're claims (so far) have been the far more irrational, easy to debunk, and easy to brush aside.
Not at all. I'm not failing to see that. I'm seeing strong reasons and evidence for the religion I believe in (not least of which, are my own rational personal experiences with Christ), and I'm seeing strong evidence and justification to *not* beleive in other world views which (in my opinion) have very strong evidence against them.
What makes you assume that was my assumption?
Right. Nor can you PROVE me wrong, or any other Christian. It's irrational to speak of "prooving" one another wrong in this context. That's like asking someone to prove that we didn't pop into being 5 seconds ago with the appearance of age. You cannot disprove such a claim... but Ahkam's razor, rational arguments, reasonable evidence, and properly basic beliefs can certainly help us along there... and so far, I'm the only one of the two of us who's provided any evidence for my beliefs. You've shown you have none for yours.
Clearly, that's less rational than defending your world view with facts, philosophy, science, and evidence as I have today.
I don't have to.
There's no multiple attestation. You've given me strong reasons to doubt your claims here, as you've already made it clear that you don't believe in a God. If you did, you wouldn't be asking me to prove you wrong, you'd be telling me with awe about an experience that changed you. You've never mentioned "what" was spoken to you by this diety, nor have you given me (or anyone else here) any reason to believe you. Instead, you've provided us ample reason NOT to believe you.
So do I need to prove you wrong? Of course not. Is it demonstrably less PLAUSIBLE that God spoke to you? Sure is... and that's all I need.
