You have no evidence that the Bible isn't the word of God, yet you have a negative belief about that claim, and you don't believe in God, but can't seem to find evidence he doesn't exist, which really should leave you beliefless in both cases, and therefore offering no opinion.
You go on at great length about science and physics, and how that is what you believe in, yet, I doubt you can coherently reproduce ANY of the mathematical calculations necessary to provide expalanations for the Big Bang theory, or any number of related scientific theories. This would mean, essentially, that you "believe in" science you can't truly explain, or understand, and have no evidence for.
If I gave you evidence for the origin of all things written in Sanskrit, and you can't read Sanskrit, can you claim to have real evidence? If the top 100 physicists in the world tell you that the manuscript I gave you is all true, and scientifically proven, does it pass your avowed empirical test? I guess not, if you can't read it. And even if you could, and are not a world class physicist, could you even understand it? No.
You may as well be reading Sanskrit as trying to understand the mathematics of a theoretical physicist. No offense, but you aren't that bright. So, you are incapable of understanding the very "evidence" you claim to rely on. You CHOOSE to believe it, but don't have the empirical evidence a disciplined skeptic should require. In the end, you believe that which you don't understand. Isn't that your criticism of people who believe in God?
You go on at great length about science and physics, and how that is what you believe in, yet, I doubt you can coherently reproduce ANY of the mathematical calculations necessary to provide expalanations for the Big Bang theory, or any number of related scientific theories. This would mean, essentially, that you "believe in" science you can't truly explain, or understand, and have no evidence for.
If I gave you evidence for the origin of all things written in Sanskrit, and you can't read Sanskrit, can you claim to have real evidence? If the top 100 physicists in the world tell you that the manuscript I gave you is all true, and scientifically proven, does it pass your avowed empirical test? I guess not, if you can't read it. And even if you could, and are not a world class physicist, could you even understand it? No.
You may as well be reading Sanskrit as trying to understand the mathematics of a theoretical physicist. No offense, but you aren't that bright. So, you are incapable of understanding the very "evidence" you claim to rely on. You CHOOSE to believe it, but don't have the empirical evidence a disciplined skeptic should require. In the end, you believe that which you don't understand. Isn't that your criticism of people who believe in God?