You fail again. God is a metaphysical concept, not a mythological being. For god to be a mythical being he would have to have a billy-goat beard and shoot fire out his ass or some shit like that. God has no corporeal body.
Ah, ok. So Jesus, having a corporeal body, is a mythical being, then. Or maybe not? Perhaps Zeus is a metaphysical concept as well? Or did you mean that God in general is a metaphysical concept, but your God in specific is a mythical being? Or do you mean Zeus is a mythical being but your God is a metaphysical concept?
mythological
• adjective 1 relating to or found in mythology; mythical. 2 fictitious.
mythical
• adjective 1 occurring in or characteristic of myths or folk tales. 2 fictitious.
I don't see how having a corporeal body is a requirement. You may object that your God is not fictitious, but I may in turn object that Zeus is not fictitious. Would you object to labeling of Zeus a mythological being? Yet your God has no more evidence of his existence than Zeus. Both are certainly characteristic of myths; your God is similar in many ways to other ancient Gods that, I think, you would not hesitate to label as myths.
The cosmic egg is only matter. Why would all the matter that makes up the universe remain motionless for eternity then suddenly move. The cosmic egg would need a mover, it does not answer primum movens at all. It is impossible to reach the beginning of the universe purely using scientific reasoning as there would be an infinite regression of causes.
Um, no. The cosmic egg was not matter. Matter did not form until a small fraction of a second after the Big Bang.
Yes, of course you have an infinite regression, unless you assume a first cause in place 'before' time. The cosmic egg is a possibility, God is another. Stephen Hawking speculated that time is simply our perception of the direction of increasing universal entropy. In that case, time would not have existed before the Bang. Either candidate for
primum movens could have existed forever 'before' time. The God explanation, however, requires unnecessary multiplication of entities. You ask why would the cosmic egg remain motionless for eternity then explode- I might as well ask why God would remain motionless for eternity then create the universe. We
don't know, in either case. Your folly lies in claiming this lack of knowledge as warrant for belief in your God.
He was using one of many definition of magic. If you consider anything mysterious magic then dark matter is magic. The point is he is trying to associate god with the illusions you might see at birthday parties.
I don't consider anything mysterious magic. I consider anything with magical abilities magic. God's abilities clearly fit that particular definition of magic. You may take issue with that definition, but it is childish to take issue with my labeling of 'God' as magical when such a label is perfectly consistent with this very common usage of the term.
LOL, no. Non-literalists agree on the majority of scripture, including what is metaphor.
Having spoken with many Christians on the subject, some of whom were literalists, some non-literalists, many of them professors of theology or philosophy, that is simply false. The range and variety of disagreement is vast. Tell me, is this passage meant to be taken literally or metaphorically:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.
No limitations at all!
You would have done well to quote the previous verses of James 4, which show that it is far from clear that the above-quoted verse refers to prayer at all:
From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
So you don't have any rational besides labeling them all 'absurd', bravo.
They are all absurd because they all speak of events in the history of the material world that current science deems extremely unlikely (read: so unlikely that probability should forbid them from having happened in the lifetime of the universe), without providing a shred of evidence to back up these claims, and demanding that they be taken at face value simply on their say-so.
Oh, and it's 'rationale', by the way.