"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.
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.
But there is evidence for God, as I will demonstrate. There are many empirical and logical arguments for God's existence. And, on top of that, the belief in God is cross-cultural and trans-historical, and for that reason alone, demands a refutation beyond an appeal to ignorance. This latter fact alone is no proof of God, but it demands in response more than an appeal to ignorance, that's for sure.
The
appeal to ignorance is of course a logical fallacy:
There is no evidence for p. (God)
Therefore, not-p. (not-God)
And I will hold you to that, as I am sure you will hold me to a similar fallacious appeal to ignorance:
There is no evidence for p. (God)
Therefore, p. (God).
Let's be fair, after all.
If an infinite being interacts with the physical world in meaningful ways then those points of interaction become the purview of scientific investigation.
I would go at least one step further than you. One should demonstrate, logically, not so much that there are points of interaction between God and creation -- because this assumes God interacts with creation, which is not necessarily my claim -- but rather that God is the origin of existence. The case here is that God must be presumed in order for existence to have intelligibility in the first place and, therefore, God is (or more exactly, the qualities of the Judao-Christian God are) implicitly endorsed and presumed by any scientific investigation, if it is to be meaningful and intelligible. This is a more radical argument than the one you have framed. I won't be arguing on your terms, but on the terms I put forth, and you can attempt to refute those claims and/or my basis for making those claims -- challenges that I fully expect and welcome graciously. In any case, the argument I make combines empirical and ontological lines of argument at the same time, which is why it takes effort to articulate clearly within a limited format.
But more on this later, as I will explain below...
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.
I will get back to you with the argument from physics (combined with ontological arguments) -- and will need some time to formulate a clear and simple explanation of the physics I aim to convey.
For now, though, just a quick comment. Again, with regard to fallacious arguments: I am sure you are aware that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. When I refer to Barr's book, I am not appealing to authority, but rather to what I perceive to be the soundness of his argument from the evidence. The fact that he is a physicist simply lends weight to the validity of his arguments grounded in the science of physics. A graduate in physics from Princeton, now a Professor of Physics at University of Delaware can be presumed to be competent in physics, to say the least. He is not a dilettante.
In any case, the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. That's why I recommend that you read the book.
Second, you fall prey to another logical fallacy when, by default, you appeal to the "much larger body of physicists" in order to reject Barr's thesis
a priori, without considering his case. The fallacy here is called
argumentum ad populum -- sometimes called "appeal to the majority" -- which is when a proposition is claimd to be true solely because many people believe it to be true. The fact of the matter is, most physicists don't think very much about theological issues and usually think of these issues as 'above their pay grade,' so to speak. I know, because I talk to a lot of physicists, and most won't touch this issues with a ten foot pole. Maybe they are smart to avoid these issues! They might not like what they find!
But I will get back to you with a summary of the argument from physics -- which combined with the ontological argument, converges on a very compelling, even if perhaps not full-proof, argument for the existence of a God. Note: there are alternative conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, but, I would appeal, they are less parsimonious and less satisfying even from a purely empirical perspective. Until then, cheers.