You presume that God is unknown and unknowable. We differ on this.
OK, if you think that God is knowable then you should be able to tell me what are the attributes of God? How did you come to know them?
You don't accept the bible as true and I do. Any description of God I would give you will still be meaningless to you.
Of course I don't accept the Bible as true. If I did, I'd be putting the cart before the horse.
In short, I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins and that He rose on the 3rd day and I have accepted His graceful gift of forgiveness by faith.
In short you're telling us nothing.
OK, go ahead please.
Go ahead to do what? Explain cold fusion? It's a type of nuclear reaction that would occur at low temperatures (at least low when compared to traditional "hot" fusion). It's controversial, and the scientific consensus so far is that it's not likely to be possible. Please note that I don't have to first
believe that cold fusion is possible in order to consider its merit as a theory.
So you believe that it is a theory. So do I.
Yes, I believe it is a theory. But the nature of my belief is very different from the basis of your belief in God. I know what the theory claims to explain without having to believe the theory is true; I know what the evidence is without having to believe the theory is true; and I use all that information to make a decision based on the
evidence: no
belief required.
But do you believe macro evolution occurs/has occured...correct? Isn't there something missing in that theory that you are taking by faith? Or do you believe it is thoroughly outlined..step by step (without needing any step accepted by faith)? If you have a link that you think is good that proves this I am willing to read/watch video etc.
Based on the evidence available to us, I am confident that macro-evolution explains things very well and doesn't have any obvious shortcomings; of course, I remain open to a new and better theory, but I am pretty confident that any such theory would be a superset of evolution rather that something completely new.
Is there "something missing"? No, I don't think so. I don't need a complete, unbroken causal chain from A to Z, although that would certainly be great and awesome. If
you think there is something missing then the onus is on you to bring it up. I'd be happy to consider any objections you bring up, but I am telling you in advance that you would have a very high hurdle to jump over.