The Existence of God

I disagree that the Scriptures are a trust-worthy reference to history. The Old Testament is filled with many historical inaccuracies and are contradicted with archaeological findings. For example we can use the scripture to determine that Noah's flood was some time around 2,504 B.C.. But we are also able to trace back to when the pyramids were built to be supposedly around 200 years after Noah's flood. How is it possible that after this world-wide flood that wiped out everyone on Earth except Noah and his family, Egypt has an entire civilization just two years after. The problem with both the New and Old testament is that the claims about divinity or anything supernatural are problematic when it comes to the historical reliability. The Gospel weren't written until 40 years after the death of Jesus, also after the epistles Paul, which mention almost none of the alleged facts of Jesus life. Johns gospel claims that Jesus was born in Galilee, and while both Mathew and Luke claims Jesus was born in Bethlehem, they got him there using completely different routes. As Robin Lane Fox in "The Unauthorized Version" pointed out, "Luke's story is historically impossible and internally incoherent". In the gospel of Luke we know there actually was a census under Governor Quirinius, but it was only a local census, not for the Empire as a whole. But it happened AD 6, long after the death of King Herod. Other contradictions or instances that are confusing from scripture are... The familiar features of the Jesus legend from previously existing religions throughout the Mediterranean; Joseph's ancestry to King David should not be used to fulfil the prophesy that the Messiah should come from the house of David if Jesus was born of the virgin marry; And If you ever read the Infant Gospel of Thomas, one of the additional gospels that were omitted in the Bible, you would think you are reading a children's fictional novel. Today scientists have not yet completely cracked the code for house the Universe began, but there are a lot of other things that we don't know about the universe and we should fill in the gap with " It must have been God". Today scientists figure that it truly is possible for something to come from nothing because "nothing" isn't really nothing anymore, its really something. Empty space is really a complicated boiling brew of particles coming in and out of existence and we now know that the dominant energy of the Universe resides in empty space. In fact, the empty space in the protons that make up your body is where most of the mass of your body comes from. Gravity and Quantum mechanics can allow space itself to be created from nothing by quantum mechanical effects. According to Newton's Law of Gravity, it would be right to assume that the universe is slowing its rate of expansion, but because energy resides in empty space we found that the universe is actually increasing its rate of expansion. This leads scientists to believe that this energy in empty space (the external force) that is altering the velocity of the Universe (the object), can be traceable to the Big Bang and possibly play an important role in the origins of our universe. We now truly have proof that the Universe could have came from nothing. The reason we can still deny stories of miracles in the scriptures is because there is absolutely no scientific reasoning behind any of it nor is there any proof. Lets pretend God created the universe outside the laws of physics just as he created miracles in the scriptures. Why would he create the Universe, then wait around 4 billions years to create life on a planet is the corner of a galaxy out of billions of other galaxies, then decide to use the same powers un-governed by the laws of physics so he can have a relationship with one and only one of the many other species of life on the planet. But he must be really shy to because he goes through great pains to conceal himself. I have to admit that I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to prove but by the looks of it you have no idea what you are talking about. I already know that living animals are living and that nonliving things are nonliving, which by the way trees and plants are living things. Yes, it may seem like a convincing argument to you, but that is only because you cant comprehend the idea of something coming from nothing. Its almost like something that humans seem to be born with, that something cannot come from nothing its not possible. It is almost similar to the idea of essentalism: a belief that things have a set of characteristics that make them what they are. The view that categories of people have instrincally different and characteristic nature or dispositions. https://www.google.com...... According to Richard Dawkins in "The Greatest Show On Earth", this belief is the reason that it took humans so long to come up with the idea of evolution. Before Darwin, there had been many discoveries and achievements in other areas of science that were a lot more complicated then the idea of evolution, but it is was only because this idea of essentialism made it so hard to comprehend such an idea. In conclusion I would like to add that I believe once we avoid the problem of comprehending these extremely difficult ideas about our universe, we can throw out the theory of a supernatural deity.