Unsupported by evidence? I could think of a few things...
It is interesting ot note that some dismiss divinity on one ground, namely, where did God come from? Is this not akin to your charge of dismissing all science becuase of one or two (though in actuallity one could find an almost unlimited supply of inprovable things sciecne will never be able to definately answer) unanswerable questions? You likely diagree, so please explain how the two differ so dramaticaly.
It is interesting ot note that some dismiss divinity on one ground, namely, where did God come from? Is this not akin to your charge of dismissing all science becuase of one or two (though in actuallity one could find an almost unlimited supply of inprovable things sciecne will never be able to definately answer) unanswerable questions? You likely diagree, so please explain how the two differ so dramaticaly.
The question about the origin of a deity who is, himself, alleged to be the origin of all things is indeed a philosophical problem, but that's far from the only problem. The biggest issue is the total lack of evidence for the existence of such a creature (or creatures). And when you have zero evidence to support a claim, the claim is literally a non-starter. This is entirely different from a scientific theory which is supported by verifiable evidence. It may be true that a particular theory may not have all the evidence one may desire, and thus one may accept the theory on only a tentative basis, but surely you see the enormous gulf between: (a) being a skeptic regarding a thinly supported scientific proposition; and (b) disregarding a totally unsupported theological doctrine.