I, as a deist, believe in God due to the order of creation and the fact that we understand roughly 3% of the known universe. I'll bet my faith that somewhere in the 97% we don't know, there is a being that would fit our definition of God.
I don't believe He inspired any books, because He would have no need to.
I had a thread about the leap to this conclusion and didn't get any
real explanation or rational justification.
Magisterium, none of the reasons we gave you were accepted by you.
Do you recall the Cave analogy we mentioned... how by looking at the remnents in a cave (warm ash, hair clippings, etc) you could deduce that someone was there. You mentioned not to disregard other evidence about that person, ie. DNA from the hair, possibly a journal etc.
Well, say we found 4 journals in that cave, but only 1 hair sample. This leads us to believe only 1 person wrote those 4 journals. Yet, they describe the man in 4 different ways, totally different perspectives of only similar events. One perhaps shows him a jolly man, one a harsh, bitter man, one a cautious man, the last a risk taker.
Are we supposed to believe only one of those journals describes the man correctly? If you choose one, why not the others that provide evidence about the man? If I get 4 pieces of evidence that all contradict eachother, by logic, I'm more likely to disregard them. Parts of the journals, I'll believe. Such as the fact that it describes a man. I don't doubt a man lived in the cave, alternate facts + the journals proves without a doubt that a man lived there. How he lived, acted or was, the journals don't prove since they don't agree.
Anyhow, just a thought...