Can you please provide evidence for these Biblical events?

[Compassionist]

Can you please provide evidence for the following Biblical events?

1. Creation Miracles (Genesis 1–3)

Creation of the universe: God creates light, sky, land, seas, plants, stars, animals, and humans in six days.
Creation of angels: Implied in passages like Job 38:4–7; often considered an early act before physical creation.
Creation of Adam and Eve: God forms Adam from dust and breathes life into him; Eve is made from Adam’s rib.
Creation of other organisms: All species of plants and animals are said to have been created by divine command.
The Garden of Eden: A paradise created for Adam and Eve.
The Fall: The serpent speaks; Adam and Eve eat forbidden fruit and are evicted from Eden; curses are pronounced.

2. Early Genesis Miracles

The mark and protection of Cain (Genesis 4:15).
The longevity of pre-Flood humans (many living 900+ years).
Noah’s Flood (Genesis 6–9): God floods the entire world, saving only Noah, his family, and the animals in the ark.
The rainbow covenant: God sets a rainbow as a sign of the promise never again to flood the earth.
Confusion of languages at Babel (Genesis 11): Humanity’s speech is divided, and people scatter across the world.

3. Miracles in the Patriarchal Era (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph)

Call of Abram: God speaks directly to Abram (Genesis 12).
Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: Fire and brimstone from heaven (Genesis 19).
Lot’s wife turned to salt (Genesis 19:26).
Birth of Isaac to elderly Sarah (Genesis 21).
God’s testing of Abraham: A ram provided in place of Isaac (Genesis 22).
Jacob’s ladder dream and wrestling with God (Genesis 28; Genesis 32).
Joseph’s prophetic dreams and interpretations (Genesis 37–41).

4. Miracles of Moses and the Exodus

The burning bush (Exodus 3).
Staff turned into a serpent (Exodus 4).
The Ten Plagues on Egypt (Exodus 7–12):

1. Water to blood
2. Frogs
3. Gnats or lice
4. Flies
5. Livestock disease
6. Boils
7. Hail
8. Locusts
9. Darkness
10. Death of the firstborn
The Passover protection (Israelites spared).
Parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14).
Pillar of cloud by day and fire by night, guiding Israel.
Manna and quail were provided in the wilderness.
Water from the rock (Exodus 17).
Mount Sinai theophany: God’s voice, thunder, lightning, and tablets of stone.
Bronze serpent healing (Numbers 21).
Aaron’s rod budding (Numbers 17).
Moses’ radiant face after speaking with God (Exodus 34).

5. Miracles in the Time of Joshua, Judges, and Kings

Jordan River stops flowing so Israel can cross (Joshua 3).
Walls of Jericho fall (Joshua 6).
The sun stands still (Joshua 10).
Gideon’s fleece tests (Judges 6).
Samson’s strength feats (Judges 14–16).
Fire consumes Elijah’s offering on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18).
Elijah raises the widow’s son (1 Kings 17).
Elijah was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2).
Elisha parts the Jordan, purifies water, multiplies oil, raises the Shunammite’s son, feeds 100 men with loaves, heals Naaman’s leprosy, and makes an iron axe-head float (2 Kings 2–6).
The shadow on the sundial goes backwards for King Hezekiah (2 Kings 20).
Angelic destruction of the Assyrian army (2 Kings 19).
Daniel’s survival in the lions’ den (Daniel 6).
Three men survive the fiery furnace (Daniel 3).
Handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5).

6. Miracles in the Intertestamental and New Testament Era

Zechariah was struck mute until John the Baptist’s birth (Luke 1).
Virgin (immaculate) conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1; Luke 1).
Star of Bethlehem guiding the Magi (Matthew 2).
Angelic announcements to Mary, Joseph, and the shepherds.
John the Baptist’s prophetic calling before birth.

7. Miracles Performed by Jesus

Turning water into wine (John 2).
Healing the sick, blind, deaf, and lame (many Gospels).
Cleansing lepers (Matthew 8).
Casting out demons (Mark 5, etc.).
Feeding 5,000 (Matthew 14) and feeding 4,000 (Matthew 15).
Walking on water (Matthew 14).
Calming the storm (Mark 4).
Raising Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5).
Healing the centurion’s servant (Matthew 8).
Healing the bleeding woman (Mark 5).
Restoring sight to Bartimaeus (Mark 10).
Raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11).
The Transfiguration (Matthew 17).
Paying temple tax with a coin in a fish’s mouth (Matthew 17).
Cursing the barren fig tree (Mark 11).
The resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20).
Post-resurrection appearances (Luke 24; John 21).
Ascension into heaven (Acts 1).

8. Miracles in the Acts of the Apostles

Tongues of fire and the gift of languages at Pentecost (Acts 2).
Peter and John heal a lame man (Acts 3).
Peter raises Tabitha (Dorcas) from the dead (Acts 9).
Paul blinds and heals various people (Acts 13–28).
Earthquake freeing Paul and Silas from prison (Acts 16).
Paul survives a viper bite (Acts 28).
Philip’s teleportation (Acts 8).
Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for lying (Acts 5).

9. Apocalyptic and Prophetic Miracles

Visions of Heaven and angels (Revelation 4–5).
Trumpet and bowl judgments: cosmic catastrophes, locusts, plagues, blood rivers, darkness.
Two witnesses calling down fire (Revelation 11).
The New Jerusalem descending from heaven (Revelation 21).
Creation of a new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21–22).
God dwelling with humanity eternally - the final miracle of restoration.

[1213]

...Atheism is a metaphysical position (“there are no gods”)...

And "science" doesn't say God exists, which is the same as saying God doesn't exist.

How do you determine that the being you are loyal to is real and good...

I determine is something good, by actions and words. Bible God shows good actions and words, in my opinion.

And I believe God is real, for example because life and the Bible exists. I think people are too evil and stupid to make the Bible on their own.

I require independent evidence before concluding that any deity exists.

But is there anything independent from you? All you observe is based on how you see and think.

You appear to start with faith or loyalty to Christianity, and interpret everything through that lens. Did you become a Christian after objectively analysing the evidence for all religious and scientific claims about reality, or were you born into a Christian family?

I think God's teachings can be evaluated independently, without knowing all. And I think the teachings are good, even if the history of Jews would not have gone as told in the Bible, or even if God would not be real. That is why i want to be loyal to God anyway. If in the end it would be revealed that God was not real, I don't think I would have lost anything.

And about the other religions:
1) most of them are in my opinion about the same as worshiping a chair.
2) Islam, Quran tells we should believe Jesus, so I think I am doing the right thing according to Islam. (Quran 4:171, https://legacy.quran.com/4/171)
3) Buddhism, is basically the same as atheism, not really a religion, because no god.
4) Hinduism, by what I know, according to it, all paths are good.
5) And generally, the all other gods don't seem to have anything meaningful to say, or are not interested to let all people know it.

So, in my opinion there is really only one reasonable option, the Bible God. He has shown He knows things well and He is good.

And to me, real science is what can be observed and repeatedly tested. It is not in contradiction with the God, nor with the Bible.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #51]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, 1213.

And "science" doesn't say God exists, which is the same as saying God doesn't exist.

No, that's false. Science is methodologically neutral - it deals only with what can be observed, measured, and tested. To say “science doesn’t say God exists” is not the same as saying “science says God doesn’t exist.” It simply means there’s no empirical evidence for any god’s existence. The absence of evidence is not automatically evidence of absence, but if something allegedly affects the natural world and yet leaves no detectable trace, then it becomes indistinguishable from nonexistence in practice. If you can show evidence for the existence of the Biblical God, we can use the scientific method to examine it. Science is always open to evidence.

Bible God shows good actions and words, in my opinion.

That is a moral judgment, which I respect, but it’s not an independent one. If the same actions were attributed to any non-Christian deity - commanding genocide, endorsing slavery, inflicting plagues - would you still call them “good”? If the answer depends on who is said to have done it, that suggests loyalty, not moral reasoning, is the determining factor. Please see my post about why I consider the Biblical God evil: viewtopic.php?p=1179106#p1179106

I believe God is real, for example because life and the Bible exists. I think people are too evil and stupid to make the Bible on their own.

Life’s existence is best explained by biology and chemistry, not by religious texts. As for the Bible: humans demonstrably wrote it, in human languages, over many centuries, with evolving theology and many internal contradictions. The idea that humans are “too evil and stupid” to produce it underestimates both the creativity and the moral complexity of human beings - the same beings who also wrote the Quran, the Vedas, and many other scriptures.

But is there anything independent from you? All you observe is based on how you see and think.

Indeed, perception is subjective, which is precisely why science insists on independent verification - observations and experiments repeatable by anyone, regardless of belief. If a claim about reality depends on faith or interpretation rather than reproducible evidence, it cannot be reliably distinguished from imagination or bias.

And about the other religions:
1) most of them are in my opinion about the same as worshiping a chair.
2) Islam, Quran tells we should believe Jesus, so I think I am doing the right thing according to Islam. (Quran 4:171, https://legacy.quran.com/4/171)
3) Buddhism, is basically the same as atheism, not really a religion, because no god.
4) Hinduism, by what I know, according to it, all paths are good.
5) And generally, the all other gods don't seem to have anything meaningful to say, or are not interested to let all people know it.
That is why I want to be loyal to God anyway. If in the end it would be revealed that God was not real, I don't think I would have lost anything.

I understand that sentiment, but it does matter which God one chooses to be loyal to, and what one does in that God’s name. People have committed acts of great compassion - and great cruelty - under divine authority. If one’s loyalty can lead to harm or suppression of others’ freedom of thought, then it isn’t harmless.

Thank you for clarifying your views on other religions. I’d like to engage with each of your points carefully, because what you’ve written reflects a very common but deeply selective pattern of reasoning that nearly every believer, of every faith, tends to apply.

1) “Most of them are in my opinion about the same as worshiping a chair.”

Every religious believer throughout history has said something similar about every other religion. Muslims have said the same of Christianity (“the worship of a man”); Hindus have said it of monotheism (“an impoverished view of the divine”); atheists say it of all religion (“reverence for imaginary entities”). The problem is that each of these judgments rests on loyalty to one tradition’s framework as the reference point.

If you had been born in India, you would most likely say “worshiping a chair” about the Bible; if born in Saudi Arabia, you’d probably say it about the Trinity; if born in a secular home, about all gods. So, the disagreement among believers isn’t about evidence - it’s about which inherited narrative one starts with. Every religion presents itself as uniquely “obvious,” but each is obvious mainly to those raised inside it.

2) “Islam … tells we should believe Jesus, so I think I am doing the right thing according to Islam.”

The Qur’an indeed mentions Jesus - but not as divine, not as the Son of God, and not as crucified or resurrected. In Islamic theology, believing that God has a son is the gravest possible sin (shirk). From an Islamic standpoint, Christianity is blasphemy. So a Muslim would not see you as “doing the right thing according to Islam”; rather, they would see you as precisely the kind of misguided person the Qur’an warns against.

This mutual exclusivity shows that both religions cannot be right on their literal claims: either Jesus was divine or he was not; either he was crucified or he was not. The opposing claims of the Bible and the Quran cannot be true at once. When two revealed religions contradict each other, it suggests the revelations are human products, shaped by geography, language, and culture - not from an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God who would communicate consistently.

3) “Buddhism is basically the same as atheism, not really a religion, because no god.”

Buddhism is indeed non-theistic, but that doesn’t make it “the same as atheism.” It is a spiritual-ethical system based on psychological insight into suffering and compassion, aiming at liberation from craving and delusion. While it doesn’t posit a creator deity, it offers a detailed moral and psychological framework that has guided billions of people for millennia.

If moral worth depended on belief in a god, then Buddhists (and secular humanists) would all be immoral - yet we routinely see the opposite: people without gods behaving more peacefully and compassionately than many who claim divine backing. The data show that societies with higher secularism tend to have lower rates of violent crime, corruption, and inequality. Morality does not require a deity.

4) “Hinduism, by what I know, according to it, all paths are good.”

Hinduism is vast and internally diverse - more a family of philosophies than a single doctrine. Yes, some Hindu texts express inclusivity (“Truth is one; sages call it by many names”), but others prescribe rigid caste hierarchies and ritual obligations. The same mixture appears in Christianity and Islam: verses of love beside verses of exclusion.

Your impression that “all paths are good” is admirable, but ironically that very inclusivity undermines exclusive monotheistic claims. If all paths can be good, then the insistence that only one path is true (the Biblical God) becomes a self-contradiction. Compassion and reason both suggest that goodness can emerge from many traditions - and also independently of any tradition.

5) “Generally, all the other gods don't seem to have anything meaningful to say, or are not interested to let all people know it.”

But the same could be said of the Christian God from the perspective of non-Christians. Billions have lived and died never hearing of Jesus or the Bible, or hearing conflicting versions of both. If an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent being wanted everyone to know one clear truth, why scatter humanity across contradictory revelations, languages, and eras? Why leave His message dependent on geography and translation? It doesn't look like you truly explored other religions fully. You didn't even mention Jainism, Daoism, Bahaism, Shinto, and Sikhism. Jainism is the most peaceful religion on Earth.

A silence that varies by continent is more consistent with human invention than with divine revelation.

That is why I want to be loyal to God anyway. If in the end it would be revealed that God was not real, I don't think I would have lost anything.

This resembles Pascal’s Wager, but it overlooks several losses. First, truth itself has intrinsic value; to live by falsehood, even a comforting one, is to trade reality for lies. Second, loyalty to a false belief can misdirect moral energy - supporting doctrines that harm others (e.g., condemning unbelievers, LGBTQI people, or women’s autonomy). Third, every hour spent serving an imaginary deity could have been used to alleviate real suffering. Humans spend a lot of time, money and resources on creating religious structures, e.g. churches, mosques, temples, etc. These could have been used to make schools, hospitals, and laboratories instead. That is not nothing.

If we ground our ethics in compassion rather than faith, we lose nothing whether gods exist or not. If compassion is real, it remains good in every universe - divine or godless. That, to me, is the most reasonable foundation for loyalty: not to a deity whose existence is unverified, but to the sentient beings who unquestionably exist and can suffer.

So, in my opinion there is really only one reasonable option, the Bible God.

Yet billions of others find meaning, moral guidance, and even “evidence” for different gods - or for none at all. If reason and goodness alone pointed to one faith, humanity would have converged on it long ago. The persistence of mutually exclusive revelations suggests not one clear divine signal, but many human interpretations shaped by genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences - the GENE factors that determine how we think, feel and believe.

True goodness, in my view, does not depend on allegiance to any deity, but on compassion - the ability to reduce suffering and increase well-being for all sentient beings, regardless of creed.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #45]

Before discussing whether Jesus was buried in a tomb, I think we need to establish whether Jesus the Son of God - a divine-human being - existed at all.

Historians can and do debate the existence of a Jewish preacher named Jesus who was crucified under Pilate. But that’s a far cry from evidence that this person was divine - born of a virgin, performing miracles, crucified and resurrected. Those are supernatural claims, and so far, there is no physical or genetic evidence for them.

The historicity of the resurrection is my evidence for Jesus being the divine Son of God. Even if genetic information could have shed light on this, why would it be necessary when other evidence can get us there?

We can certainly start with whether a Jewish preacher named Jesus historically existed. Are you undecided about that? We can then talk about Jesus being crucified, if you are undecided about that.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #53]

I agree that we should begin by separating three distinct questions:

1. Did a historical Jesus exist?
Unknown. No one who allegedly met Jesus (e.g. Pontius Pilate) in person wrote about him. They also didn't keep any genetic samples from his allegedly divine-human body, so we could verify his allegedly immaculate conception. Matthew was written by an anonymous author around 80 to 90 CE. Mark was written by another anonymous author around 65 to 75 CE. Luke was written by another anonymous author around 80 to 95 CE. John was written by another anonymous author around 90 to 110 CE. As far as we can tell, these authors never met Jesus in person.

Period | Letters | Notes
49–60 CE | 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1–2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, Philemon | Authenticated writings of Paul
60–90 CE | 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians | Likely written by Paul’s circle
90–120 CE | 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus | Written by later church leaders in Paul’s name

Paul, Tacitus and Josephus never met Jesus in person, never witnessed his alleged miracles, never witnessed his alleged crucifixion and his alleged resurrection.

2. Did the resurrection occur as an objective event in nature?
The only sources are religious documents written decades later by believers, containing internal contradictions and the typical features of theological narrative (angelic messengers, earthquakes, darkness at noon, mass resurrections, etc.).
No contemporaneous Roman, Greek, or Jewish record corroborates any miracle or empty tomb.
In historical reasoning, extraordinary claims require proportionally extraordinary evidence. The available data - texts from small sectarian communities - don’t meet that threshold.

3. What kind of evidence could establish divinity?
Historical testimony, even if unanimous, could never demonstrate supernatural ontology. At best, it can show that the claimants believed they encountered something extraordinary.
To bridge from “people reported experiences” to “a God-man rose from the dead” requires providing independent, replicable physical evidence, which does not exist.

[Clownboat]

A true child of God operates on a different kind of evidence than the world does. It's an evidence called faith.

It is sadly true that people that call themselves children of a god concept operate on different kinds of evidence, but faith is not evidence and this is why humans need to avoid faith beliefs at all costs.

Why? I'm glad you asked.
Faith is a requirement in order for humans to believe that false things are true.
Want to believe in Bigfoot? Faith is required.
Want to believe that the faith of a true child of a god concept is actual evidence? Faith is required to believe this as well.
Nessie?
Alien abductions?
Allah?

Faith is required if you want to believe any of these claims. Which is why faith should be abhorred, because it is literally the mechanism used to believe that false things are true.

I acknowledge you are proud of your faith.

So, while the world (like the atheist) relies heavily on visual and scientific evidence in order to believe what he can verify, he actually also has faith because he believes in a threory that can't be proven (like the big bang).

This is a false claim that would require faith to believe. On faith, I could believe that atheists must believe in the Big Bang theory. I could literally apply faith and believe this falsehood, or I could acknowledge the truth that believing in a Big Bang is in fact not a requirement for being an atheist.

Furthermore, if he believes that some organism exploded to create everything we see today, then that means he needs to be able to answer where that organism came from.

Let's examine this to see if it has merit.
Currently, there are over 400,000 species of just beetles on this planet. How did we get from the couple that were on the ark some thousands of years ago, to the 400,000 we now have? You complain about evolution while seemingly believing in a super rapid form of it that would make biologists blush. Flood believers are the ones requiring this explosion you mention, not those you mean to disparage.

The only difference is that for the secular world, the evidence comes from science books, but for the true child of God, it comes from the Bible.

Hardly the only difference. You have left out that secular claims must have evidence, be falsifiable and repeatable. Contrast that with using faith to pretend that you know a thing is true. The differences are more glaring than you realize.

2 Corinthians 5:7 (KJV 1900)
(For we walk by faith, not by sight)

This applies to all religions. Of which, you are an atheist when it comes to them, less one of course. You are more atheist than you realize due to the fact that an atheist only takes it one god concept further than you do.

[1213]

...To say “science doesn’t say God exists” is not the same as saying “science says God doesn’t exist.”...

Maybe we should ask from the science, does God exist.

If the same actions were attributed to any non-Christian deity - commanding genocide, endorsing slavery, inflicting plagues - would you still call them “good”?

I think that is too inaccurate to comment.

Life’s existence is best explained by biology and chemistry

Please tell what is the explanation.

many internal contradictions.

I don't think there is any, if you understand it correctly.

The idea that humans are “too evil and stupid” to produce it underestimates both the creativity and the moral complexity of human beings

Is there any evidence for that humans are creative and morally complex? I don't think so.

the same beings who also wrote the Quran, the Vedas, and many other scriptures.

Quran seems to be very much a copy of the Bible. And I believe most of the other religious books are based on something real.

1) “Most of them are in my opinion about the same as worshiping a chair.”

Every religious believer throughout history has said something similar about every other religion. Muslims have said the same of Christianity (“the worship of a man”); Hindus have said it of monotheism (“an impoverished view of the divine”); atheists say it of all religion (“reverence for imaginary entities”). The problem is that each of these judgments rests on loyalty to one tradition’s framework as the reference point.

If you had been born in India, you would most likely say “worshiping a chair” about the Bible; if born in Saudi Arabia, you’d probably say it about the Trinity; if born in a secular home, about all gods. So, the disagreement among believers isn’t about evidence - it’s about which inherited narrative one starts with. Every religion presents itself as uniquely “obvious,” but each is obvious mainly to those raised inside it.

In that case you don't seem to understand the point. A chair is something that doesn't say or do anything. Bible God obviously has said something, otherwise we would not have His words in the Bible.

And, if we go by the Bible, we should not worship a man.

The Qur’an indeed mentions Jesus - but not as divine, not as the Son of God, and not as crucified or resurrected. In Islamic theology, believing that God has a son is the gravest possible sin (shirk). From an Islamic standpoint, Christianity is blasphemy. So a Muslim would not see you as “doing the right thing according to Islam”; ...

It seems you are saying Islam is not reasonable and doesn't believe what is said in the Quran.

Your impression that “all paths are good” is admirable, but ironically that very inclusivity undermines exclusive monotheistic claims. ...

So it also is not logical.

Third, every hour spent serving an imaginary deity could have been used to alleviate real suffering.

I think one alleviates suffering, if he goes by the teachings of the God. For example:

Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
James 1:27

Humans spend a lot of time, money and resources on creating religious structures, e.g. churches, mosques, temples, etc. These could have been used to make schools, hospitals, and laboratories instead. That is not nothing.

I don't think that would have alleviate real suffering more.

If we ground our ethics in compassion rather than faith, we lose nothing whether gods exist or not.

Compassion can mean many things, also things that are really not good.

the ability to reduce suffering and increase well-being for all sentient beings, regardless of creed.

If people would go by the teachings in the Bible, I think it would reduce suffering and increase well-being.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #56]

Maybe we should ask from the science, does God exist.

Science investigates testable causes and measurable phenomena. By definition, “God” - as an allegedly immaterial, supernatural being - falls outside its testable domain. Asking science to prove or disprove God is like asking science to count undetectable fairies. There are testable hypotheses and untestable hypotheses. Gods and fairies are untestable hypotheses. Science can, however, examine claims about God that affect the natural world (e.g. miracles, creation accounts). When tested, such claims have consistently lacked empirical confirmation.

References:

Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959) - defines falsifiability as the criterion for scientific claims.

Sean Carroll, The Big Picture (2016) - argues that supernatural claims are outside empirical science.

I think that is too inaccurate to comment.

It’s a straightforward moral question. If any other deity commanded genocide, slavery, or plagues the way the Biblical God did, we would condemn that deity as immoral. To exempt one deity (Yahweh) from the same moral judgment is special pleading - applying a double standard. Moral consistency requires evaluating actions by the same ethical yardstick, regardless of who performs them.

References:

1 Samuel 15:3 - “Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

Leviticus 25:44-46 - “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.”

Please tell what is the explanation.

The origin and diversity of life are explained by biochemistry and evolution:

Abiogenesis: Non-living molecules formed self-replicating systems through chemical evolution (Miller-Urey experiment, 1953).

Natural Selection: Random mutations filtered by environmental pressures produced adaptation and complexity (Darwin, 1859; modern evolutionary synthesis).

No supernatural input has been required in any verified step.

References:

Miller & Urey, Science (1953): “Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions.”

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986).

I don't think there is any [contradiction], if you understand it correctly.

Many internal contradictions exist in scripture. For example:

Examples of biblical contradictions:

Creation order: Genesis 1 (plants → animals → humans) vs. Genesis 2 (man → plants → animals → woman).

Judas’ death: Matthew 27:5 (hanging) vs. Acts 1:18 (falling and bursting open).

God’s nature: Malachi 3:6 (“I change not”) vs. Genesis 6:6 (“God repented”).
These are textual discrepancies, not misreadings. Harmonization requires reinterpretation, not consistency.

References:

Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted (2009).

Steve Wells, The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. This website https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ ... _list.html lists 560 contradictions in the Bible. Please read them.

Is there any evidence for that humans are creative and morally complex? I don't think so.

Human creativity is directly observable: art, technology, mathematics, language, and culture. Moral complexity is evident in our ability to reflect on ethics, experience guilt, empathy, and reform our behavior. No other species builds particle accelerators and space stations, or abolishes slavery after moral reasoning. That is clear evidence of both creativity and moral depth.

Quran seems to be very much a copy of the Bible. And I believe most of the other religious books are based on something real.

The Qur’an borrows narratives from earlier Jewish and Christian traditions, but calling it a “copy” oversimplifies centuries of theological evolution. As for being “based on something real” - yes, they reflect real human cultures, fears, hopes, and moral intuitions. That doesn’t make their supernatural claims true. Mythic frameworks often emerge from real experiences interpreted through limited ancient understanding.

A chair is something that doesn't say or do anything. Bible God obviously has said something, otherwise we would not have His words in the Bible. And, if we go by the Bible, we should not worship a man.

The Bible contains claims attributed to God, written by humans who believed they were inspired by God. Every religion says the same about its scriptures. The Qur’an, the Vedas, and the Book of Mormon all make similar assertions. Unless we independently verify that a divine being dictated these words, “God said” remains a human report, not evidence.

As for worshiping a man - that’s precisely what divides Christians from Jews and Muslims. Each side claims scriptural authority, showing again that “God’s words” depend on which human text one trusts. Christians pray in the name of Jesus while Jews and Muslims consider that blasphemy.

It seems you are saying Islam is not reasonable and doesn't believe what is said in the Quran.

No - I’m saying Islam does believe the Quran, and the Quran explicitly rejects the divinity of Jesus (4:171, 5:116). That means your earlier statement that Islam affirms Christian belief in Jesus as divine is mistaken. Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet, not as the Son of God.

“O People of the Book (Christians)! Do not go to extremes regarding your faith; say nothing about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah and the fulfilment of His Word through Mary and a spirit ˹created by a command˺ from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say, “Trinity.” Stop - for your own good. Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him! He is far above having a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a Trustee of Affairs.” - Quran 4:171

“They do blaspheme who say: God is Christ the son of Mary.” - Quran 5:72

“And ˹on Judgment Day˺ Allah will say, “O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you ever ask the people to worship you and your mother as gods besides Allah?” He will answer, “Glory be to You! How could I ever say what I had no right to say? If I had said such a thing, you would have certainly known it. You know what is ˹hidden˺ within me, but I do not know what is within You. Indeed, You ˹alone˺ are the Knower of all unseen.” - Quran 5:116

“It is not befitting for God that He should have a son.” - Quran 19:35

Therefore, saying Islam affirms Christianity’s theology is factually incorrect.

So it also is not logical.

Inclusivity (as in Hindu pluralism) is logical if one sees all gods as symbolic representations of the same ultimate reality. It only appears “illogical” from an exclusivist monotheistic view. Logic depends on initial assumptions - if the premise is pluralistic, inclusivity follows coherently.

I think one alleviates suffering, if he goes by the teachings of the God. For example: James 1:27

Yes, that verse promotes compassion - but compassion doesn’t require belief in the supernatural. Countless sentientists, Jains, Buddhists, and atheists dedicate their lives to helping the poor without invoking divine authority. Doing good for its own sake shows moral maturity that transcends religious boundaries.

I don't think that would have alleviate real suffering more.

Resources used to build and ornate religious buildings could indeed reduce suffering if redirected toward health, education, and sanitation. Historically, billions have been spent on temples and cathedrals while people starved nearby. While some religious institutions fund charity, the opportunity cost remains vast. For instance, the Vatican’s art collection alone is worth billions, while billions of people don't have the basic necessities for life. The Catholic Church owns an estimated 177 million acres of land globally, making it one of the largest non-governmental landowners in the world. If the land, the buildings, other assets and money owned by the Catholic Church were donated to poor people, they would no longer be poor. It's not just the Catholic Church that owns assets. So do Islamic Mosques, Hindu Temples, etc. All of these should be allocated to help humans and other species in need. Compassion without extravagance is the more efficient moral path.

References:

Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity (2008).

UNICEF (2024): “Global Hunger and Malnutrition Facts.”

Compassion can mean many things, also things that are really not good.

That’s why we define compassion operationally - as the consistent effort to reduce suffering and increase well-being for all sentient beings. When guided by reason and evidence, compassion becomes measurable: fewer deaths, less pain, more flourishing. When guided by dogma, compassion can be distorted into cruelty (e.g., forced conversions or “holy wars” done “out of love”).

If people would go by the teachings in the Bible, I think it would reduce suffering and increase well-being.

Some teachings, yes - the Golden Rule, helping the poor, forgiving others. The Golden Rule is not unique to the Bible. Many other cultures pre-dating the Bible had the Golden Rule. Others, however, cause suffering: commands to kill blasphemers, subjugate women, and endorse slavery. Here are some examples of Biblical malevolence:

Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Parents

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents

1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication

A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Death to Followers of Other Religions

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill False Prophets

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.” When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night

But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Kill Followers of Other Religions.

1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

Death for Blasphemy

One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD’s name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother’s name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD’s will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, “Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD’s name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD’s name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

A selective reading can make any text appear benevolent. That’s why reasoned compassion, not ancient authority, should be our universal ethical foundation.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #54]

I agree that we should begin by separating three distinct questions:

Great! I'm putting them in what I think is the more logical order, but I'm open to being convinced to follow your order.

Type of evidence needed

What kind of evidence could establish divinity?
Historical testimony, even if unanimous, could never demonstrate supernatural ontology. At best, it can show that the claimants believed they encountered something extraordinary.
To bridge from “people reported experiences” to “a God-man rose from the dead” requires providing independent, replicable physical evidence, which does not exist.

I agree that historical testimony alone isn't good enough. That's why there is a step 2, where a philosophical argument is made connecting the historical claim to the theological one. Why would that require replicable physical evidence?

The only sources are religious documents written decades later by believers, containing internal contradictions and the typical features of theological narrative (angelic messengers, earthquakes, darkness at noon, mass resurrections, etc.).
No contemporaneous Roman, Greek, or Jewish record corroborates any miracle or empty tomb.
In historical reasoning, extraordinary claims require proportionally extraordinary evidence. The available data - texts from small sectarian communities - don’t meet that threshold.

No professional historian throws out whole texts simply because they are biased, written decades later, contain errors and unbelievable elements. If they did, there would be no texts. Historians argue for/against specific claims within texts as individual units, which can be supported even in biased texts that have errors in some places. My case for the individual facts uses actual, unbiased historical criteria rather than this flawed all-or-nothing approach.

The historical facts

1. Did a historical Jesus exist?

While we can't say with certainty that any text was written by someone who met Jesus before his supposed resurrection, it's not as definite a "no" as you make it out to be. Traditionally, Matthew and John were, while Luke and Mark were companions of the earliest disciples of Jesus.

Still, these writings preserve the earliest oral traditions, community memories, and probable notes from eyewitnesses. And they were passed on and written within the very communities that would have known that Jesus wasn't a historical figure. When early opponents try to attack Christian claims, they never say he didn't exist, but paint a different picture of him.

There is multiple attestation from Mark, "Q", Paul, John, Roman sources, Jewish sources. Tacitus speaks of Christus being executed, which requires a view that he once lived, for instance.

The criterion of embarassment also supports his historicity. If Jesus wasn't historical, you wouldn't make up things like his baptism by John or his crucifixion as a criminal.

The early narratives that were produced for the mystery cults aren't biographies like the gospels and there are not real parallels in the gospels to the dying-and-rising god myths of those cults. That theory has been almost entirely abandoned in the scholarly world (Christians, Jewish, secular, and atheistic scholars) and treated as a decided question to the point that I was not allowed to write a dissertation on the topic.

Do you think the lack of genetic samples is actually consequential here? If so, support why.

Still to come...

2. Jesus was buried in a tomb
3. His tomb was later found empty
4. People claimed to experience post-mortem appearances
5. The Christian movement centered on the resurrection assertion

Then, step 2 - Explanation of the facts and step 3 - Implication of the facts, especially concerning God's existence.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #58]

Preliminary Clarification

You have presented a standard historical-apologetic framework (minimal facts → theological inference). My critique is not that historical reasoning is useless, but that its epistemic range is limited to the natural-historical domain. Once an explanation invokes supernatural agency, it ceases to be historical inference and becomes metaphysical speculation. The issue is not “bias” but causal domain leakage.

Historical testimony can, in principle, establish that people believed extraordinary things occurred. It cannot, by methodological design, adjudicate whether supernatural causation occurred. That distinction is central to keeping epistemic categories coherent.

On the Kind of Evidence Required

You ask why bridging from historical report to divine ontology requires replicable physical evidence.
The answer lies in the difference between existential claims (“someone named Jesus existed”) and ontological claims (“this being was divine, resurrected miraculously”).

Historical testimony is probabilistic, context-dependent, and non-replicable. Supernatural ontology is metaphysical and claims universal import. To rationally justify the latter from the former requires a form of evidence that transcends local, interpretive narratives - namely, reproducible empirical data or logically necessary argumentation. In their absence, the theological step remains an assertion of faith, not an inference from fact.

On Historical Method and “All-or-Nothing”

I agree that historians do not discard texts wholesale for bias or mythic elements. However, this does not mean all reported details are equally credible. Historians rank claims according to independent attestation, proximity, internal coherence, and congruence with known reality.

When a text includes impossible elements (earthquakes that open graves, mass resurrections, voices from heaven), methodological naturalism requires we treat such content as mythic or symbolic. Otherwise, we abandon the uniformity principle that undergirds all historical and scientific reasoning.

Your approach risks conflating two questions:
(1) Did early Christians believe Jesus was resurrected? (almost certainly yes)
(2) Did a resurrection actually occur as a physical event? (no independent evidence).

The first is historical; the second is metaphysical.

On Multiple Attestation and “Embarrassment”

Multiple attestation increases confidence only if the sources are independent. “Mark,” “Q,” “Matthew,” and “Luke” share literary dependence. “John” draws from a later theological milieu. Paul’s letters never mention an empty tomb or miracles beyond visionary language. Roman and Jewish references (Tacitus, Josephus) derive from what Christians themselves were saying decades later - not from direct observation.

As for the “criterion of embarrassment,” it presumes authors could not have had theological motives to invert humiliation into divine victory - a core motif of the entire Christian kerygma. A crucified messiah becomes a powerful symbol of divine victory through resurrection, not an embarrassment to avoid. Thus, the criterion loses force.

On the Mythic-Parallel Question

You note that scholars no longer view Christianity as derivative of mystery-cult myths. True, most academic mythicists no longer argue direct copying. Yet thematic parallelism - the pattern of dying-and-rising redeemers - remains an instance of cultural recurrence. The human cognitive bias toward redemptive narrative (tragedy → transcendence) explains the form naturally, without positing literal divine intrusion.

Here are well-documented examples of dying-and-rising redeemer figures or soteriological resurrection motifs that predate or parallel early Christianity. Scholars differ on interpretation - whether these are “resurrection,” “renewal,” or “seasonal return” myths - but together they show a persistent human pattern: death, descent, restoration, and renewal as symbols of hope and continuity.

1. Osiris (Egyptian Mythology, c. 2400 BCE onward)

Narrative: Osiris, a benevolent king, is murdered and dismembered by his brother Set. His wife Isis reassembles his body, resurrects him briefly, and conceives Horus.

Thematic Parallels: Death, bodily restoration, triumph over death, and judgment of souls in the afterlife.

Moral/Redemptive Role: Osiris becomes lord of the underworld and judge of the dead - symbolizing renewal and moral order.

Scholarly Note: Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride and earlier Pyramid Texts attest to the resurrection motif centuries before Christianity.

2. Tammuz / Dumuzi (Sumerian–Babylonian, 3000–1000 BCE)

Narrative: Dumuzi, the shepherd-lover of Inanna (Ishtar), is condemned to the underworld. Inanna arranges for his periodic return, marking the renewal of vegetation.

Thematic Parallels: Annual death and rebirth cycle tied to fertility; lamentation rituals similar to “passion” rites.

Cultic Significance: Women’s laments for Tammuz were widespread (see Ezekiel 8:14).

Moral/Redemptive Role: His descent and return ensure life’s continuation and cosmic balance.

3. Adonis (Greek adaptation of Tammuz, c. 700 BCE onward)

Narrative: Adonis, beloved of Aphrodite, is killed by a boar and later allowed to return from Hades for part of the year.

Thematic Parallels: Death and return to life; mourning followed by joy; divine love transcending death.

Cultic Practice: The Adonia festival involved ritual mourning and celebration of his revival.

4. Dionysus (Greek Mystery Cults, c. 600 BCE onward)

Narrative: In Orphic traditions, Dionysus Zagreus is dismembered by the Titans, later restored to life by Zeus.

Thematic Parallels: Death-rebirth; communion through wine (his blood); promise of immortality to initiates.

Influence: Early Christian writers such as Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria explicitly compared Dionysian rites to the Eucharist.

5. Attis (Phrygian/Cybele Cult, c. 500 BCE onward)

Narrative: Attis, the self-castrated consort of Cybele, dies beneath a tree and is later brought back to life by the goddess’s grief.

Thematic Parallels: Death, resurrection, sacred tree, salvation of devotees through ritual participation.

Cultic Practice: Spring festival included mourning, fasting, and ecstatic celebration of rebirth (Hilaria).

Sources: Firmicus Maternus (4th century CE) and earlier inscriptions describe the rites.

6. Heracles / Hercules (Greek-Roman Mythology)

Narrative: Dies in agony on a pyre, but is taken up to Olympus to live as an immortal god.

Thematic Parallels: Human suffering → divine ascension; mortal transformed into immortal savior-hero.

Moral Function: Prototype of apotheosis through virtuous endurance.

7. Persephone / Kore (Greek Mythology)

Narrative: Abducted by Hades, she spends part of each year in the underworld and returns in spring.

Thematic Parallels: Cyclical death and renewal of nature; divine mediation between life and death.

8. Mithras (Persian-Roman Cult, c. 100 BCE-300 CE)

Narrative: Slays the cosmic bull, whose blood brings life to the world.

Thematic Parallels: Salvific sacrifice, ritual meal, cosmic renewal.

Overlap: Mithraic initiations promised immortality through participation in the god’s act of creation and renewal.

Chronology: Mithraism and Christianity coexisted and influenced one another in the Roman world.

Synthesis

Across cultures, the same symbolic structure recurs:

Death → Descent → Restoration → Redemption → New Life.

This archetype reflects the biological and psychological rhythm of loss and renewal rather than a unique historical miracle. These myths are narrative expressions of life’s causal resilience - humanity’s effort to moralize entropy, to convert suffering into meaning.

Thus, even if Christianity gave the pattern its most historicized form, the cognitive and cultural grammar of the dying-and-rising redeemer long pre-existed it.

On the Historicity of Jesus

I do not claim Jesus certainly did not exist. The most defensible position is historical agnosticism: a plausible preacher or reformer may have existed, but we cannot reconstruct him reliably. The earliest sources - the undisputed Pauline letters - offer no biographical details and describe encounters that are visionary, not physical. The gospels, decades later, transform this visionary nucleus into a biographical narrative.

Therefore, the burden of proof shifts: even if a human “Jesus” existed, the divine attributes remain unsubstantiated. The existence of a man is not evidence of his divinity.

I appreciate your commitment to rigorous historical method. Yet, as philosophers and scientists, we must keep our categories clean:

History can show what people said, wrote, or did.
Science can show what is physically possible or probable.
Only metaphysics asserts what is ultimately real or divine.

Blending these without justified transitions leads to epistemic equivocation. Therefore, until replicable physical or logical necessity supports divine ontology, the resurrection remains a literary-theological construct - significant as moral myth, but not demonstrable as fact.

The Question of Divine Communication

If the Biblical God is truly omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then divine communication should be perfect in clarity, universality, and accessibility. Yet the medium chosen is a collection of human writings - anonymous, contradictory, and produced decades after the alleged resurrection of Jesus. A being capable of creating galaxies could easily write its message directly into the cosmos, using stars or universal signals comprehensible to all sentient beings. That such overwhelming clarity is absent poses a serious challenge to the coherence of the theistic model.

The Logical Structure of the Argument

1. If God is omniscient, He would know exactly what kind of evidence would convince every rational being of His existence and actions.
2. If God is omnipotent, He would be able to produce that evidence without error or delay.
3. If God is omnibenevolent, He would desire to remove unnecessary confusion, doubt, and religious conflict.
4. The actual world shows the opposite: many self-contradictory and mutually contradictory religions, contradictory scriptures, and ambiguous historical claims.
5. Therefore, the hypothesis of an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God conflicts with the observed epistemic situation.

The Problem of Divine Hiddenness

Philosopher J. L. Schellenberg formulated this problem clearly: a perfectly loving God would ensure that every sincere seeker has unmistakable awareness of His existence. The continuing religious diversity, uncertainty, and silence of God suggest either that God does not exist, or that He is not omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent - or that divine intentions are non-human and indifferent to human moral enlightenment. Any of these options contradict the Biblical portrayal of a God who desires universal belief and salvation.

The Expected vs. the Observed

If an omnibenevolent deity genuinely wanted everyone to understand the truth, it could communicate through universal means:

By encoding moral and theological truths into the very constants of nature, visible to all observers;
By renewing revelation periodically in every language and culture through direct perception;
By providing replicable, empirically testable miracles rather than unverified ancient anecdotes.

What we observe instead are localized myths, ancient texts, and theological debates that depend on interpretation, translation, and authority - hallmarks of human cultural evolution rather than divine omniscience.

The Inconsistency Summarized

A truly omniscient being would know every person’s evidential threshold; an omnipotent being would have the power to meet it; and an omnibenevolent being would have the desire to do so. Yet allegedly divine revelation appears limited, inconsistent, and dependent on fallible human messengers. The most reasonable conclusion is that revelation reflects the cognitive and cultural limits of human originators rather than the intent of an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God.

If belief or disbelief carries eternal consequences, a just deity would remove ambiguity. The fact that doubt is possible, even rational, shows that moral worth cannot depend on the acceptance of unverifiable ancient testimonies.

Conclusion

The reliance on fallible human texts instead of universal divine revelation undermines the claim of divine perfection. The ambiguity of scripture and the absence of unambiguous cosmic communication are precisely what we would expect if the stories are human creations seeking moral meaning in a silent universe.

[1213]

...It’s a straightforward moral question. If any other deity commanded genocide, slavery, or plagues the way the Biblical God did, we would condemn that deity as immoral.

If everything would be exactly the same, then I would not see a problem. God has given life, therefore He has the right to decide how long it lasts. And by Biblical rules, slavery would be possible only if the person accepts it, therefore I think there is no moral problem.

The origin and diversity of life are explained by biochemistry and evolution:

Abiogenesis: Non-living molecules formed self-replicating systems through chemical evolution (Miller-Urey experiment, 1953).

Natural Selection: Random mutations filtered by environmental pressures produced adaptation and complexity (Darwin, 1859; modern evolutionary synthesis).

No supernatural input has been required in any verified step.

How would you explain that people can't make a dead body alive again, even when there is all the physical parts of a living being?

Examples of biblical contradictions:

Creation order: Genesis 1 (plants → animals → humans) vs. Genesis 2 (man → plants → animals → woman).

Judas’ death: Matthew 27:5 (hanging) vs. Acts 1:18 (falling and bursting open).

God’s nature: Malachi 3:6 (“I change not”) vs. Genesis 6:6 (“God repented”).
These are textual discrepancies, not misreadings. Harmonization requires reinterpretation, not consistency.

Genesis 2 doesn't speak about creation, if we are literate. It speaks about forming and planting. Therefore no contradiction.

In the case of Judas, it can be that Judas hanged himself, the rope broke and he fall and burst open. No contradiction.

In Genesis 6:6 God repented, was sorry. I don't think being sorry means God has changed.

It is interesting that atheists seem to be unable to show any real meaningful contradiction in the Bible. To me, it makes the Bible even more convincing.

Human creativity is directly observable: art, technology, mathematics, language, and culture.

By what I see, it is all mimicking something humans have observed, not really creative.

Moral complexity is evident in our ability to reflect on ethics, experience guilt, empathy, and reform our behavior. No other species builds particle accelerators and space stations, or abolishes slavery after moral reasoning. That is clear evidence of both creativity and moral depth.

Hmmm... I don't see the complexity. But, maybe it depends on a person. For some even simple things can feel complex.

And by what I see, slavery was abolished because it was economically good thing for some or because some people read the Bible and understood that it is not right to keep anyone as a slave against their will. It is for example said:

Anyone who kidnaps someone and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Exod. 21:16

I don't believe slavery would have been abolished, if we would not have the teachings that are in the Bible.

The Bible contains claims attributed to God, written by humans who believed they were inspired by God. Every religion says the same about its scriptures. The Qur’an, the Vedas, and the Book of Mormon all make similar assertions. Unless we independently verify that a divine being dictated these words, “God said” remains a human report, not evidence.

I can understand that it can be said that they are not actually from God. But in this case, I was only looking about the options of God that allegedly has something to say. And it is interesting that most of the gods seems to be silent, have nothing meaningful to say. And when we are talking about, what God one would choose, I would limit instantly those who have nothing to say. Because I think it would be the same as keeping a random rock as god, if it has nothing to say.

After getting a list of those gods that have something to say, one could then think, is the message good and I chose the one who has something good and impressive to say.

As for worshiping a man - that’s precisely what divides Christians from Jews and Muslims.

Basically Quran is telling the same as the Bible. That is why I believe part of it can really be from the Bible God.

Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet, not as the Son of God.

But don't believe what Jesus said. I think that makes them hypocrites.