Understood... but based on that thinking would you acknowledge that it would still be at least possible for a supreme being to still exist? Sure you can make anything real, and things do get passed down. For instance though, let's take your Grandmother's favorite cookie recipe, she made it because her mother maybe made it, that same one was taught to your Mother and so forth. I'm just saying based on your thinking that anything could be passed down, but it doesn't mean it's false and it also would mean that even adding or taking away a little bit ... it's still a cookie.
History is a big give away for me. Before Christians it was worshipping the sun and the trees. Just because it was written in a book I'm supposed to believe it? Also, your analogy of cookies is not very good. A recipe would provide repeatable and provable evidence with the end result always being a cookie. However, what you have can not be repeated. Nobody is conversing with God directly (Like Moses did, getting a one on one conversation, and if they do they are crazy). Nobody is performing miracles like Jesus supposedly did. You can say "Miracles happen every day" but no. They don't.
Why would god be male? A singular God being if he exists, would have no need for a gender, or sexual organs.
Isn't that kind of like saying "Given that a master ninja could hide anywhere, there always exists the potential that there is a master ninja hiding under your sink at any time?"
True story: I confessed to my friend that whenever I used the toilet, I had to pull aside the shower curtain to make sure no one was hiding in there. He told me that he would never give into that urge, because then it's just a short leap in logic to start checking under the sink for a very short assassin. Thanks to him, I always check under the sink now as well.
As an atheist, you go based on fact and science, yet this statement is simply opinion. You don't know that miracles don't happen all the time. What even is a miracle to you?
A miracle would be something that happens independently of any external cause - none of those have happened recently
I don't think it's the atheist's job to say when a miracle has been performed and anyway it seems the rules have changed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23205409 Do you think this is a miracle? If someone else with the same illness dies, is this a failure on God's part?
I would argue with this definition. According to current theories of quantum mechanics, acausal events happen all the time. Of course these are isolated to incredibly tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny scales. I don't think that these are miraculous events, simply events that show that the fundamental nature of reality doesn't operate in accordance with common sense.
Such as? The reason a miracle is a miracle is that it has no knowable cause for the result gained - typically it can also be "unexplainable" but that can have the caveat "yet" attached to it I course
Quantum entanglement was, I believe, the first demonstrated 'breaking' of causality as we know it. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130109105932.htm Hawking seems to suggest that the existence of the universe itself is an acausal event.
I think the main difference is an acausal event in and of itself - such as the "big bang" - is not in reaction to another object. A miracle in nearly every case is a solution to a "problem" that needs fixing (illness etc) or else is an ability to do something that is beyond "normal" (walk on water for example)
Is it truly acausal or is it simply that our understanding is incomplete? It could be that events happening in the multiverse but outside our universe are the causes for these the acasual events, or perhaps causality doesn't quite work the way we think and nonlocal events in our universe trigger events that appear to be acasual because there are dimensions or forces well outside our ken at this time. Still doesn't mean god did it.
