You've tailor made an excuse for a deity I'm afraid. Your created 'God' is 'just so' to avoid the questions you don't want to answer. You conveniently make claims that it's all 'beyond science' to try and avoid having to provide proof or answers. These are nothing more than claims, fantasies, and postulations. It's not even a logical theory. Thinking a deity is more likely to spontaneously erupt into being, than a simple quantum fluctuation just means your science knowledge is lacking. There is strong evidence and good theoretical support for the scientific view. You on the other hand have nothing more than convenient excuses.
There's that double standard again. Are hypotheses and theories not "tailor-made" to match the observations? Why would one's view of a deity be any different? It isn't an attempt to avoid anything; it's an attempt to understand what a deity would be. You speak as though the only definition for a deity that you would accept would be one that you can argue against. Here, presented with one that you can't, you simple call it an excuse. Your positions is absolutely ridiculous. Either argue the possibility of the God I have defined or don't. Don't cry unfair just because you don't have a position. As for your simple quantum fluctuations, that still requires there to have been SOMETHING (however dense and tiny) that erupted into the Big Bang. How did that something get there? Don't pretend that I don't understand my science to avoid the issue of infinite regress.
The bible is post Jesus, ... written a long time after he was dead, and then edited heavily, apocrypha removed, translations made after being kept secret in latin which many did not read apart from the Roman church. It was controlled, and has definitely been amended to unite Mithraism and Christianity. Why else do churches have crypts? Perhaps because they were built over Mithraic places of worship, which were underground?
The canonization of the Bible (2-3 hundred years after Christ) was a compilation of writings (some excluded, yes - and as I noted earlier I don't actually consider the NT to be divine) that were written as early as around 80 AD. However, that still establishes a "Biblical Christ" - an image of who he was as of around 300 AD. The injection of the myths you mention (including such things as Christmas and Easter) were AFTER 300 AD. Hell, if they weren't don't you think the people canonizing the Bible would have actually included those myths IN THE BIBLE?? Come on, you cannot be so obtuse as to not realize that myths created after the canonization of the Bible cannot be called part of the "Biblical Jesus". The history doesn't even matter on this one. It is simply a matter of language. If x is established at y, then everything post-y is not part of the original x.
You are holding that razor backwards. You introduce complexity when you start saying a God came first, then created the Universe. That is the antithesis of Occam's razor!
Not really. Insomuch as it applies to the supernatural realm, yes. But as far as the material universe goes, the idea that it magically came from nothing is far more complex than that it was simply created...
Hold on bub, this deity of yours supposedly created Adam and Eve who didn't obey him. He then got a bit annoyed with Sodom and destroyed it, and then of course, committed near complete genocide bar Noah et al. People do not follow God's will, so why would a Universe? You may argue people have free will. I would argue there is no free will if you ascribe a deity the attribute of omniscience, and of course, without that power, said deity cannot know his Universe is working perfectly as planned. Unless of course you are going to argue against random quantum events, and say your deity exactly understands each and every interaction that can occur, and set things in motion perfectly in the first instant, but then oh dear, free will comes in and mucks that up, if we decide the outcome of events. See, a simple logical discourse dissects your God and leaves it in pieces.
You don't get it. This is exhausting. Where to start... Ok, random quantum events are random to us, not God. He created the entire universe, start to finish, at once. This includes every action of every person, animal, etc. This includes every meteor from the sky, volcanic eruption, etc. It all unfolds for us in a predictable manner (more or less) because as we learn more and more things scientifically, we learn what causes these things - according the the natural laws created by God. There is no "setting things in motion" from God's perspective. He exists outside the time from which the very concept of things being in motion applies.
Here's your problem, other theists (take Lori7) reckon God speaks to her. The bible details God speaking to people. There is supposedly detailed 'secondary interjection' when God talks, and smites, and delivers commandments, and impregnates virgins. How can you reconcile these actions, against your claim that God hides behind nature? Unless of course you reject scripture entirely?
See above. God doesn't hide behind nature - God CREATED nature. Nature - and everything in this universe - behaves exactly the way it does because that's the way God created it. If people "hear" God ... whether it is some genetic anomaly, subconscious projection, or a brain tumor - that is ALL part of God's creation. The Bible uses terms like "God's Plan," "God's Will," etc. and they all reflect this simple, basic fact. God was done with creation when He created it. Everything WE experience is part of that creation, and it unfolds for us through this perception of time - but just because something is new to us doesn't mean God created the universe, start to finish, and then started muddling around with it. Hell, that doesn't even make sense. Back to the DVD analogy, how would I go about changing the events in my DVD? Any changes would result in a new DVD, and the characters and events in the old one still exist. Once that DVD is burned, that's it - THAT'S creation.
Excellent quote.