Theism

Firstly, I believe the bible does mean 7 literal days when talking about the creation of the earth. Here's why: The bible mentions events that occurs over time in the amount of days. 40 days and 40 nights. Jesus died and rose from the dead in the course of 3 days. If the bible is written by this smart being trying to relay such an important question, he would not allow this confusion. He would have one standard of time. Either 'day' in the bible means billions of years or 'day' means a 24 hour period. It should not mean both. The bible is of course is written entirely under the inspiration of god (2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work). Once again we come back to the "something can't come from nothing" argument. However, once again, where does God come from? If God is not restricted by this, than anything should be allowed to be a constant. Also, Stephen Hawking talks about how particle waves spontaneously form up, which contain energy. So, some things can come from 'nothing'. Another thing to think about is that people say the odds of the earth being fit for life is slim, and that we shouldn't be here if there isn't a being behind all of it. However, billions of years ago, it was not fit for us, and billions of years from now, it will also not be fit for life. So, our time is limited. People haven't been here for that long, and life on earth for people may be going away rather soon, in the next some thousand years. So, the conditions are right for life on earth, but for a very, very short amount of time. Just like in some areas of the world, for only a short amount of time, the conditions are right for farming, skiing, and certain sports. Actually, thinking about it, not every area on earth is inhabitable for humans. So, the conditions aren't exactly perfect. Prophecies of the bible: the events considered prophecies are all events that are influenced by people. People could have read the old testament and then they would have worked towards that goal. It's also very possible that... the whole thing is made up. I find this to be very likely because there are a few million religions. Also, the majority of Christianity was stolen from religions before it's time. The story of Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, Virgin Birth, death of Jesus, etc, are all stories extremely similar to stories found in the stories of Greek Gods. In fact, you'll read that there was Greek God who had died and came back to life days later, saving his people. This story existed long before the bible. But, this debate is about theism. I do not find any of it possible. I feel as though, just as Stephen Hawking, that the universe does not need a god to make it possible. We have seen reasons for why we are here. Abiogenesis combined with evolution explains human, animal and plant life. Nothing in any holy text has been proved true. Yes, the bible does have some things that are true, but the bible is not the proof, it just provides the claim. Noah's Ark has not only not been proved to exist, it has been proved to be impossible with in the confines of earth. First off, all the water that has ever been on earth is all the water we will ever have. Water is constantly being recycled in bodies that absorb it, evaporation, precipitation, and absorbed in the ground. Water out of the ground, out of the oceans, and out of all the bodies of living organisms (which would kill them) would not be enough water to cover to earth at it's tallest point. Yes, at one point all of earth may have been under water, but not as much water as described in the bible. Theism is highly unlikely. Theism also has too many claims. There are literally millions of theistic claims from millions of religions. If "theism" is correct, which theistic claim is right, and how come that one is more true that all the other millions of claims? Theism lacks the evidence that science provides. If we do not know the reason for something, claiming a god did it is not the answer. "I don't know" is not a reason to credit a god, rather it's a reason to keep looking for the answer. That is my conclusion. Although there was no set structure for this debate, my opponent didn't have an argument to start off. Because I started off with an argument, I will not argue in the last round, making it so that we had equal chances at arguments.