Evidence for God from Science

Could use some help on how to answer this in the best way

How is the bible proof of it any more than the qu'ran is proof of their god?

By this logic, we could also conclude that Laws of Manu is proof of Shiva, Vishni or Devi. Since the epic of gilgamesh is a known, proven ancient artifact, how could you dismiss that it is proof of an ancient flood caused by the gods when it's clear that Ishtar exists. I mean she's mentioned in it right? Clearly Ishtar exists too.

Atheism requires no evidence because it is a stance on the subject. It is literally, "I lack belief in a god or gods." there is no need to meet a burden of proof there as it is the default stance of many things. If someone makes a claim and cannot bring evidence to meet their burden of proof, the default stance of the person who is skeptical is not that they are in a sub sect of non-belief. They simply don't believe it.

If someone says you are guilty of murder, is it not on them to prove that you did it since they are the one posting the claim? For those who are on the end of the jury, the default is to not make an accusation in lieu of evidence. No evidence, can't hold them guilty.

In this same way, god is either guilty or not guilty of existing. You are posting the claim, and you say, "my evidence is a book." and we are saying, "then why are the other books false and YOURS true?" and all you are going back to is, "Book." I'm saying, "Your book doesn't meet this criteria any more than any other ancient book." and that your evidence is lacking. Aside from citing the same website over and over, you are failing to explain why and how your holy book is a convincing manner to prove that:

- god exists
- the bible is true
- god exists outside time and space
- how you know this

If you cannot meet the burden of proof to these claims, then my default stance is, "god is not guilty of existing. the bible is not guilty of being correct. god is not guilty of being outside of time and space. you are not guilty of knowing this is true."

You're doing a tapdance avoiding the questions and then telling us, who are the ones skeptical of your claim that we need proof of our skepticism. This is not how skepticism and non-belief works. Someone who does not believe something is not the person who is required to post the evidence, the person staking the claim does.

So tell me, why is your book the correct book. Why are the Laws of Manu incorrect? Since you're using ancient text as your proof, you're going to need to explain to me why every other ancient text of other religions are false and only yours is correct.

Wannalearn,

I'll let someone else speak to why reason and logic are why the God of the bible is the only God. But, I did want to respond to what you wrote here:

Atheism requires no evidence because it is a stance on the subject. It is literally, "I lack belief in a god or gods." there is no need to meet a burden of proof there as it is the default stance of many things. If someone makes a claim and cannot bring evidence to meet their burden of proof, the default stance of the person who is skeptical is not that they are in a sub sect of non-belief. They simply don't believe it.

If an atheist is using the part I underlined as an argument, it's a cowardly argument. They at least need to stand behind their belief that there is no God, and be willing to cite proof for their belief.
If an atheist tells you, "I lack belief in a god or gods", call them on that cowardice. A true atheist actually has a positive belief that there is no God. Don't let them get away with claiming any differently.

Providing arguments to an atheist suggesting the existence of God usually will demonstrate - through their responses - that their, "I lack belief in a god or gods," is word-game weaselry. Putting things simply: an atheist asserts that there is no god; an agnostic says they don't know, much care, and don't think God's existence/non-existence matters much; a deist believes god probably exists and probably created the universe, but did so much like winding a up clock, setting it on a shelf, and forgetting about it (IOW, the god of deism has nothing further to do with the universe he/she/it created).

Alright thanks. But how would you show them that are bible is different from all other cults?

You can't, not convincingly. The sacred books are not used as "proof" of their gods in the first place, its broken logic.

Once I saw I talk about reliability of Quran. About comparison of Bible and Quran in that how they got changed or not changed in the past. Quran was rewritten whereas Bible not and in case of the Bible all the Bibles from all corners of the world pointed to once source whereas this was not the case for the Quran.

I saw this talk but never studied this.