Your post contains lots of empty phrases.

3pidemic, i would love to discuss your opinions as well but this is Pletho's thread and i do not wish to further derail it.

#1: There is no evidence for the extraordinary claim that it is the authoritative word of God, or even contains a single line from God
#2: The origin of the content, tone and "wisdom" in the book has many plausible mundane earthly explanations.
#3: From (1) and (2), there are many plausible mundane explanations for its origin, and there is no evidence for the (very) extraodinary claim that an all powerful invisible super dad-like figure wrote or inspired it. Sense dictates that is very likely not divine.

How about this ridiculous one (on top of the ones I posted earlier):

There is no evidence to refute the hypothesis that the biblical God was created by another 'higher' God, that pre-dates the biblical God (unbeknown to him and us). Once you give me evidence that refutes the above hypothesis, I may be more inclined to believe in the biblical God.

(p) God was created by a higher being.

1. If God is omniscient, then for (p) God does know (p) is true.
2. But, possibly, p is true and God does not know (p) is true.
3. Therefore, God is not omniscient.

Notice we can substitute ‘higher being’ for God or any X for God and the conclusion will still hold, (biblical or evidentiary claims not withstanding). That is, what is concluded is omniscience does not obtain for any X, which is another way of saying:

(a) omniscience does not obtain, period.

Further, since omniscience is defined as complete knowledge, we can restate (a) as:

(b) complete knowledge does not obtain.

Now the problem I see when concluding (b) is that we must also accept its consequent, that is: if (b), then

(c) there is no universally true proposition.

From which it follows that: if (c), then

(d) there is no absolute truth.

So, your argument works itself into a paradoxical pickle, whereby if (c) is true then it’s universally true which is a logical contradiction, and if (d) is true then it’s absolutely true which again is a logical contradiction. In other words: if (c) is true, then (~c) there is a universally true proposition, and if (d) is true then (~d) there is an absolute truth.

I mean.. I think Hitchens says it pretty well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOUB...eature=related