“is there not even a possibility that subconciously your questioning and desire for debate is only primarily prompted by the desire to prove ‘believers’ wrong but behind and under the surface your questions are really indicative of a yearning for truth in the innermost parts. A truth perhaps which will satisfy your inner thirst without violating your respect for scientific logic and reason.”
Hummm….. No! As Sigmend Freud used to say: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
“does not logic demand that, that which is somehow became that way.”
If you aren’t going to apply the laws of logic to your God, why would you apply them to anything else
“It is pretty clear that we do not invent the laws of physics, we discover them. They are all already there for us to find. That indicates to me that creation and mathematics demonstrate a fundamental truth that lies beyond and behind the physicality of existence. I call that God.”
Very interesting concept. Suppose that “fundamental truth that lies beyond and behind the physicality of existence” is not intelligent; or any of the other attributes you apply to God; suppose it is no more alive than nature, would you still call it God? I guess my point it; I have no idea how things turned out the way they are. To suggest God did it without proof might work for some, but it doesn’t for me. Interesting point though.