Kent, I've stated many times that I do not believe any god has met his burden of proof.
As for a "theory of God", you need to show how this is a well substantiated explanation that was repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experiment.
What observations and experiments do you have supporting the existence of your God. As for Abiogenesis, 65 years ago we were able to produce over 20 amino acids, the building blocks of life, withing a laboratory. As a result, the difference is we have evidence on the side of abiogenesis, but not on the side of your God.
At one time you did think God met the proof, you are disingenuous.
Kent
Kent, I attended Church for a couple of years. I assumed the Bible had to be true because everybody believed it (argument ad populum). Since I like to excel at the things I do, of course I wanted to excel in my Christianity as well. So in accordance with 1 Peter 3:15 ... be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you... I went looking for the evidence that would convert any non-believer. The preacher said he could prove it, the Sr. Laity claimed they could prove it, etc. Week after week, all they could bring we was logical fallacy after logical fallacy.
Finally one of the Sr. Bible instructors said she had a chart of 100 proofs the bible was true. I specifically asked if it included non-biblical sources, such as writing from contemporary Roman historians etc. I was assured, these types of evidence were included. As it turned out, the document did not include a single extra-biblical source. All it consisted of was 100 instances of Circular reasoning, in part A the Bible says this, in part B is says this, see, it proved it!! <face palm>
After that, they fell back to Faith, basically admitting they had no evidence at all. I'd already read a good portion of the NT, and not satisfied with the "faith" card, I decided to read the Bible for my self. I made it to 2 Kings, 2:24 at which point it was apparent to me this was not the work of an all knowing, all powerful, and certainly not an all benevolent God. Scientifically and historically the text was inconsistent with reality, and featured an bumbling, morally corrupt, god with no foresight.
Of course Dawkins says it better then I ever could:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
And that is not a God I can worship. It would not be moral to do so.
The important lesson here is I FOLLOWED THE EVIDENCE. When the evidence demonstrated that my presupposed idea was wrong, I followed the evidence, even though that was not the road I'd figured I would travel.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 09/04/15.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
