No offense taken and never will be because Christians don't have blind faith.
Then defend your claim. Provide epistemological justification for faith. Are you willing and able to do so?
It is faith based on the fact that what is verifiable, has been verified.
What exactly is verifiable, has been verified?
And on that basis, we can take the rest on faith.
Will your accept the claims of other religions and their holy-book tales if they have similar support?
If you can prove that Christ wasn't crucified and didn't rise from the dead, then I will publicly renounce Christianity as a farce and a false religion.
Ric, I've already dispelled this silly argument that "you cant prove God doesn't exist".
Care to make a rebuttal?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...e-universe-says-hawking-8.html#post1058963196
"It is not uncommon to hear statements like, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," from apologists when they are challenged to support the claim that God exists. Such statements are an attempt to shift the burden of proof, a kind of logical fallacy.
Statements like this — which is a special case of the more general claim, "You can't prove a negative" — are based on the premise that belief in God is justified until sufficient evidence is presented to refute such existence. While this response may be considered sound under a world view which accepts the premise, this is simply a form of compartmentalization. If we were to apply that premise to all claims, we'd be unable to develop any useful picture of reality, since every claim would then have to be accepted as true (until it is disproved — a burden which is especially difficult when dealing with supernatural claims).
To put it more bluntly, no sane human being would seriously claim that because we have not disproved the existence of leprechauns or unicorns, they must therefore exist (or must be assumed to exist).
More tellingly, though, apologists typically only apply this premise to questions that address their particular religion — and nothing else. The same Christian, for example, who argues, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," would almost certainly reject such an attempt to shift the burden of proof if it was attempted by, say, a Hindu: "You can't prove Vishnu doesn't exist!" This compartmentalization is a form of special pleading.
A somewhat famous counter-argument was posed by Bertrand Russell when he said the following:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.""
Science has not disproven anything in the Bible.
Its not the job of scientists to prove or disprove the Bible.
Scientists study nature, the natural world and find theories to explain what is observed. The study of nature quite incontrovertibly tells us that:
1) dead bodies do not rise from the grave three days later
2) water does not magically turn to wine.
3) people are not healed by magic touches.
4) people cannot walk on water.
Are you telling me that the above events are rational conclusions to draw from the study of nature? What evidence or reason do you have to support such claims other than opinion, conjecture, hear-say, holy-book tales, and imagination?
In fact, there have been numerous examples where archeologists said the Bible was wrong historically, i.e. No Pontius Pilate, No Sodom or Gomorrah. Then they found the cornerstones bearing the name of Pilate and confirmed that he was Procurator of Judea during the time of Christ. They found the dead cities submerged in the Dead Sea with scorch marks on the stones.
1) do you have any scholarly sources for the things you claim?
2) How does this support the existence of your God?
I often find that when theists try to spell out their argument rather than making vague and ambiguous claims like you do, they quickly find their reasoning is invalid and flawed. So spell it out for us ric.
1) If Pontius Pilate existed how does the support Jesus miracles?
2) If Sodom and Gomorrah existed does that mean your favored God destroyed the city and Job's wife was turned into a pillar of salt?
3) Have you ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Iliad, or Gone with the Wind?