The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Upside Down Dog]

I've lately seen a rash of theists here, old and new alike, that when confronted with the question, "Do you have evidence for the existence of your god?" that proceed to quote biblical scripture as the source of their conviction. This is not a strange thing, as these particular theists called Christians more often than not perceive this text to be full of accounts that were directly-inspired by divine means, or tell the tale of historical events relating to their particular religious history. Taking such a stance is, in actuality, a non-answer to the question posed above.

The Bible is a book of divine claims, telling of a god (or gods, in some interpretations) that has yet to be proven to exist. Since evidence must be demonstrated to be true before it can be taken as fact, the Bible falls short in satisfying any demands of proof, as it can in no way be proven that the men who wrote were actually under any divine influence.

I know my request to theists to stop appealing to the Bible as evidence of a god (or gods) will fall on many deaf ears, but I feel this phenomenon has gotten a little out of hand as of late and really needed to be addressed. Thank you for taking a moment to read this, especially if you are a Christian member of this forum.

I hear you.

And I never use the Bible as an authority if it's not mutually considered so; however, if when debating an atheist and scripture is used to bolster an atheist's claim, I will call them out on that. It works both ways. Or, I will consider the box to be open and the Bible used as evidence as it has been relented as an authority in some sense.

But, to be honest, arguing the existence of God is moot on either end. In order to prove existence, verifiable, empirical evidence that can be tested and retested has to be present.

The belief in God is based on faith and is metaphysical which is in direct contention with empirical evidence and physical evidence; however, on the flip side, He cannot also be disproved under the same set of rules.

So, you get a debate that can't go anywhere... it's a futile attempt on both sides to try and find different examples of empirical evidence to prove something that can't be proved. It's a constant battle of trying to make empirical evidence do something it can never do.