sry, the bible I was reading out of said that he was... guess I will have 2 get a better type.
What if your Bible is the correct one? A religion will never be convincing if it has more than one sect. Abrahamic religions practically fell apart after the death of the messengers (one of which is the son of God, or God himself, but let's not get into that.) After Jesus died, more and more sects of Christianity emerged, the same applies to Islam. During the lifetime of Muhammed, Islam was just that. Later on, Islam was split into many sects (Sunni, Shiite, Druiz, etc.) Think of it this way, a paper is torn into several pieces, and you glue them back together, when the glue wears off, you will have several pieces of paper that are worthless without the essensial part, the glue. These messengers were the glue, keeping it all from crumbling away, once they were no more, the religions were torn into a bunch of mini religions that don't have a guiding figure to tell them whats right and whats not.
The point here is, how do you know which one is right? You could be raised as a catholic, for example, and have enough faith to blindly follow what you were taught about God in that sect of Christianity. This is a matter of belief, making someone believe something isn't hard. A good business man can make you believe faeces are good for you and sell'em to you, and you'll be rubbing dog manure all over your face thinking it'll get rid of the acne/scars, or whatever lie he threw at you. Your belief in that sect of Christianity is no stronger than the faith of the poo customer, because you both strongly believe, after being taught to, that you are correct.
I don't want to get into deep religious debates because in the history of this community there has been TONS of debates that led no where other than the monster at the 51st page. The reason for that, is because no matter how eloquent your speech is, the debate is one that cannot be dispatched to even the simplest common ground between you, and the reason for that is very simple, you are not arguing whether the sky is blue or pink, you are arguing conviction.
Let's use Christianity for this part, as it is the most well seated Religion in the western world. Do Christians ever think "What was before the bible?" or even "What was before this god of the bible?" These questions are never asked by Christians because the priests who decipher the Bible did an exceptionally good job explaining the Book to the flock, they are the business men of the Light, they provide you with very convincing answers to your questions, without answering your questions. The idea that there is no god is not a new or bright one, many have stood and proclaimed that eons before us and had their bodies seperated from their heads (namely Galileo.)
We shouldn't be arguing whether an omnipotent being exists. Actually, we shouldn't be arguing at all, if we hope to become a race that will last until even the Earth is engulfed by the Sun's explosion. Otherwise, we will end up nothing but a bunch of fossils, that the next intelligent mutation (if another comes along) will find and study. We don't appreciate being human beings, any of us can change the world. If we must argue about omnipotent beings, then the argument should be what bought on the belief, what part of our evolution required the faith in a God. I understand Gods go right along with human evolution since the dawn of Man, but why do we, as intelligent beings, need such things that are so outside of ourselves. What went on during the evolution of humans that required this belief.
One of my favorite quotes by one of my most highly respected men, Mark Twain. "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." Religion was used by rulers since the earliest tribes, to maintain the tribe leader's superiority and respect by the tribesmen.
