Replies

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.

"Respectfully, I don't think you have a very compelling reason for rejecting God. "

One doesn't need a reason to reject something that has no evidence in it's favor. We don't reject leprechauns because we can disprove them, we reject them because there is no evidence not to.

"The Judao-Christian God has qualities that are fundamentally different than finite beings..."

If an infinite being interacts with the physical world in meaningful ways then those points of interaction become the purview of scientific investigation. Example: a global flood would leave certain tell-tale signs that one could search for.

"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."

By all means have at it. I'm sufficiently competent in physics that I should at least be able to keep up.

"If you follow the argument in Stephen M. Barr's book, ... 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"

I have not read the book but I did look up several long reviews after you mentioned it so I have a general idea of the points of the book.

Mr. Barr appears to be in the minority of physicists. Therefore if I were to go with an appleal to authority, then I would be inclined to go with the much larger body of physicists, most of whom currently accept that one or more of those "absurd conclusions" are in fact the best current explanation of the universe we see.