Ah, so you are saying that we have information of God, yet we are misinterpreting it? How can you say this when you can't tell us what the information is, nor can you tell us how we have misinterpreted it? Aren't you just assuming that this misinterpreted information exists in order to support your position?
Like willamena said, the people in 600 BCE had no concept of Pluto, they were Pluto agnostics. Just as in the modern case with God, the logical position is agnosticism. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - if you cannot see that from the Pluto example then i don't know how else to explain it.
What if they had something which told them exactly how to find pluto? Instructions on building telescopes etc. And then when they looked where Pluto was meant to be they found absolutely nothing? If they then turned around and said, "Well, we built the telescope that you said would let us see pluto, we looked exactly where you said Pluto would be, but still found nothing," wouldn't they be justified? of course.
If I told you how to find a unicorn - "Go to the other side of that grove of trees and look through the center of a stone that's shaped like a donut and you'll see a family of unicorns frolicking about" - and you followed my instructions and still found nothing, wouldn't you conclude I was full of it? of course you would.
So why have different standards for the Bible? The Bible does give us ways to find God, it is very clear. It says that a person with even a tiny amount of faith can pray for something in jesus' name, and that pray will be granted. People with even the tiniest amount of faith can pray to move a mountain and it will be done. This tells us a very easy way to get concrete information about God. And yet, many very religious people pray in Jesus' name and their prayers are unanswered. This is an example of the Bible telling us exactly a way to find very strong evidence for the existence of God - and yet it leads us nowhere. When we look for this evidence, we get the same reults as going behind the hill and looking through a stone to find unicorns. No results at all!
So, we have two situations where we know exactly where to look for evidence, and in both cases we find nothing. Unless we are to have a double standard (which would show a very unintellectual approach to the dilemma), we must accept the same logic for both situations.
And if this is the case, we must accept the possibility that there is a family of unicorns frolicking behind the hill that we can't see even though... or we must accept that the fact that the Bible tells us exactly what we must do to find evidence of God, and that when we do this we get no evidence at all - that this is evidence that the Bible is just made up, just as the story about the unicorns is.
So we are left with quite a choice.
Do we accept any ridiculous claim as possible, not matter how stupid... or do we accept an absence of evidence as evidence of absence?
And what do you choose? Do you accept the unicorn story as possible? Or do you accept that the failure of the Bible to provide concrete evidence of God as evidence that the whole thing is made up?
