God must first pass through man to reach the believer; without man, God speaks no word, and still to this day has not. Therefore, all that God says is dependent on man being honest. We know that man cannot be honest at all times. Therefore, we cannot prove God's word to be God's word, we can only prove that it is man's word; ergo,
God is only as omnipotent as we believe him to be. This is just the logic I'm laying out for the believer
They can take it or discard it if they want.
I'm not saying the Bible is true or false; I'm saying it cannot be absolute, so God's word cannot be absolute. We should not burn any books due to men lying for either those books are intentional lies (of which I love), or they are observable truths (such as the writing of many philosophers and scientists, which can be proven to be lies or not.)
If the individual cannot discern what is real and what is not on their own, they cannot trust any book asserted as truth, including religious texts, including political texts. The beginning of this distrust, I believe, is by making obvious that books of absolute truth are only as honest as man, which is something any believer can relate with.
Suggestion: Look up the word omnipotent in the dictionary. The bolded statement is not logical, its logically broken. Your whole argument is utterly broken because your premise does not follow.
If God isn't omnipotent, then God isn't. The grey area you're conjuring does not exist anywhere in reality. Conditional omnipotence. Haha, that is likely the best oxymoron Ive' ever encountered. I thought jumbo shrimp was good.
2nd bolded statement. No scientist seeks the truth on their own. They collaborate. That is the nature of science, it does not rely merely on individual efforts. That's why the bible has so many authors who cohesively agree on truth. I argue it is the strongest argument for truth that this world has ever seen. So to sum up my response, I fully disagree with your explanation of how we as human beings discern truth.
