Replies

"Just saw from an earlier post that you are an atheist. Are you an atheist atheist, or an agnostic?"

atheist

"I think it is intellectually dishonest to be an atheist. Either you have no evidence or you have evidence."

I used to go by the agnostic label but I'm no more agnostic about the existence of god(s) then I am about Xenu or the Easter Bunny.

I doubt you would refer to yourself as agnostic regarding the existence of the Easter Bunny even though it is technically impossible to disprove his existence.

If there were compelling circumstantial evidence in favor of the existence of God (or even Xenu and the Easter Bunny for that matter) then I would be willing to shift my position back to agnostic in regards to those entities.

To hold on to an agnostic position in regards to one entity (say god) while positively affirming your disbelief in another (say the Easter Bunny) when both share a common degree of confirming evidence (read none) that is true intellectual dishonesty.

"I can make an extremely compelling case for a Creator, and one that is completely consistent with the scientific evidence. But I am only willing to engage people who are sincerely interested in listening. ..."

I appreciate your willingness but it was not my intention to convert anyone nor to enter into a lengthy debate for the sake of debate.

If you think you have a deal killer, that is, an irrefutable body of evidence that affirms the existence of whichever entity you want to argue in favor of I will give it an honest review.

I appreciate your willingness but it was not my intention to convert anyone nor to enter into a lengthy debate for the sake of debate.

If you think you have a deal killer, that is, an irrefutable body of evidence that affirms the existence of whichever entity you want to argue in favor of I will give it an honest review.

Respectfully, I don't think you have a very compelling reason for rejecting God. God is not in the same category as the Easter Bunny. The Judao-Christian God has qualities that are fundamentally different than finite beings like Easter Bunnies or flying spaghetti monsters. I've read Dawkins, and he is an amateur. He should stick to biology.

Unfortunately, it would take a somewhat lengthy discussion about physics to make the case for God, and in that case, it would require that you probably change how you are thinking about "God."

When you talk about God as an "entity," then you are thinking about the notion of God in a pagan way, which is not consistent with the Judao-Christian God, who exists outside of His creation. This is fundamentally important to the argument. The Judao-Christian God has certain qualities that do not belong to finite entities. And it is these qualities that can be demonstrated to exist via physics.

If you follow the argument in Stephen M. Barr's book, "Moder Physics and Ancient Faith," you will see a very compelling argument, by a physicist, that it would literally require you to draw completely absurd conclusions about the origins of the universe -- including multiple universes that go on infinitely and which would have to include in principle the reality of, literally, every possibility. You would see -- and I am not kidding you -- that to NOT believe in God, you would HAVE TO believe in the Easter Bunny -- if not in this Universe than in an alternative one. Read the book.