Christianity and the 'Thousands' of 'Proofs'

I think it's funny that when talking about Christianity, a Christian will start to go on and on about the proofs of God's existence, whether it be the complexity within nature, an innate desire for god, morality, and so on. Sure, all these things can be used to argue for a supreme being's existence, but the God of Christianity? Not one single bit.

Let's back up a little. This only occurred to me recently, but it's been on my mind ever since. I got talking with a Christian and made the mistake of claiming God cannot exist, after which he asked me to back up my claim. Fair enough - if I make any claim, I should be able to back it up. But that's another idea for another time. Back to the topic...

When talking about Christianity, or any specific religion, there are very few arguments for it's existence, yet so many of it's adherents will list countless arguments. Say where talking about Christianity, a Christian being a person who believes the Jesus is "the way, the truth and the life" and who believes in the bible as the inspired word of God. There are only two arguments. Yep, that's it - the bible and Jesus.

For the Christian God to be real, Jesus must have lived, died, and rose, and the bible must have been the word of god. If either of these two things is not true, then it follows that Christianity is not true.

Any other argument for God's existence is simply an argument for the existence of A God. It says nothing about the identity of this God. Take the first cause argument. Everything that exists must have a cause. The universe exists. Therefore, God exists as the un-caused first cause of the universe. Even if we accept this argument as valid, all we have proven is that God exists. Which God? No idea. This argument, and many others like it only argue that God exists. What many Christians fail to realise is that they cannot use these arguments to back up their belief in the Christian God, because these arguments prove nothing about the identity of the God. Sure, it's all well and good to accept that God exists. The problem arises when we start trying to assign names or identities to it.

This applies to any religion with the belief in a God. The specific religion believes in a God with an identity, but almost all arguments for God's existence only postulate his existence, and not his identity.

So next time a Christian (or any theist for that matter) starts rattling of proofs of God's existence, remind him that the only two that count in his case, are proofs for the bible as the divine word of God, and proofs of Jesus life, death and ressurection. The silly thing is that these two proofs are tied together. What book beside the bible testifies to Jesus existence? I know of none, but feel free to let me know.

What this also means is that if there is proof that the bible is inconsistent, shows signs of human interference, or has any defects, it is likely that it is not the word of God and therefore the Christian God does not exist. Same with Jesus - if there is no substantial proof that he lived, died and rose then he certainly was not God.

Of course, no one can prove that Jesus does not exist, as it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. But we can make a rational assessment of the facts at hand and decide with intelligence whether it is reasonable to believe in his existence. There are countless sites and YouTube videos about this subject, so I won't go into it.

I for one, do not believe there is any good reason to believe in Jesus (at the very least, his resurrection), and nor the bible.

Another reason why I don't believe in God.