Greylorn

Your comment is not worth a cogent reply. I did not say that the universe is all that there is. Do not make up crap to start an argument. Similarly I did not "applaud" a four-year old boy. I hypthesized the existence of such an advanced person by way of example. I assume that this is your customary style of posing questions. Therefore I will not reply to further questions from you. Not worth the time. I wrote a book, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul, to back up those assertions in great detail. However it is not a trivial book, like a comic book, and is only accessible to intelligent readers who do not need to open a dictionary upon encountering 3-syallble words. BTW I think that the word you were looking for is "peddling," which means selling, marketing, or promoting, not "pedaling," which refers to the biomechanical operations needed to ride a bicycle or other foot-operated mechanism.

You've not really discussed any actual ideas. You seem to be capable of controlling normal people, which is not inherently a bad thing, especially when they pay your room and board, or perhaps if you want to be POTUS or Pope. But so what? What are your ideas? What's a "polymath?"

Like most atheists (a presumption on my part) you begin with your version of the traditional God-concept, essentially a religious idea that was invented by men who thought that the earth upon which they lived was flat, and was the center of the universe. My cat could refute that kind of God-concept, if I had a cat. For fun, let's take a look at your proposition 1, that God is the origin of all that exists. This is not possible, given even the little we know of basic thermodynamics: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. God cannot have created energy. The best that any creator might have done is to restructure it into the stuff of the universe that we know. By way of analogy, humans do not create wood. However, we can do a lot of different things with wood by restructuring it into houses, furniture, baseball bats, etc. Arguing against any traditional monotheistic god-concept is a good start because it means that you've been thinking--- like a 4 year old kid who figured out all by himself that Santa Claus is a fiction . Good job! But do you get to quit thinking? Have you applied the same kind of critical analysis to Big Bang theory, or even easier, to abiogenesis?

The problems with your argument are relatively small and inconsequential. (e.g: you snuck "omnibenevolent" in, without suitable introduction or attribution. Most religiouists would probably regard God as omnibenevolent, so I understand your point despite the Democrat-like presentation style.) There are even better arguments against the existence of God, but so what? Yours is good enough-- and so what? You have shown that the Christian/Muslim definition of God is not logical, but have not addressed the possibility that there is a Creator of the Universe who possesses more realistic attrributes. For example, suppose that God thinks? If so, God cannot know everything, because even human thought involves the ability to invent new information-- impossible for an entity who already knows everything. A thinking God cannot also be omniscient. The omnipotence property is useless to a real Creator of the Universe. If such a "God" were to apply infinite force to a single electron, the electron would instantly accelerate to the velocity of light. In doing so it would instantly acquire infinite mass, thereby creating an infinitely powerful gravitational field that would instandly suck the entire universe into it, destroying everything. A realistic version of a Creator would not need either omnipotence or omniscience. He would only need to have acquired sentience and purpose. That Creator would act more like an engineer than a know-it-all, taking a few billion years to develop life on our planet (for example) because when he began the project he had no idea of exactly how to go about it. A real Creator would be bound by the First and Third Laws of Thermodynamics. A real Creator would not even be singular. If you were to interpret the evolution of critters as well as galaxies as an engineering process, the first observation you must make is that a lot of different engineers, with different design philosophies, have been involved. So, although you have joined the parade of folks who can prove that the omnipotent, omniscient God of Christianity does not exist, have you disproved the concept that we live in a created universe?

Note your own use of the word "belief," and that you chose to apply it to science rather than to religion. Your choice might have been inadvertent, but it was correct. You might want to read Digital Universe -- Analog Soul. Its author developed similar conflicts a few years later in life than you did, while trying to resolve Christianity with thermodynamics. DUAS answers all the questions you've posed here. But unless you are an ancient kind of "soul" and have self-educated, you will find it a difficult read. It was inspired, sort of, by a novel, The Soul of Anna Klane, that you can only get on used-book markets but is an easier and more entertaining read. Best and cheapest version of that is the Ballantine paperpack with a really ugly cover. Amazon has diverse reviews for both books.

Yours is one of the more thoughtful replioes here, largely thanks to your recognition of the First Law of Thermodynamics. Nonetheless, I invite you to reconsider it on these grounds: Big Bang (BB) theory not only fails to explain the origin of its mysterious singularity, it fails to explain: 1. What triggered its explosion into a universe? 2. How the 20-odd constants necessary to make the resultant universe work properly happened to be conveniently embedded within this, ah, "singularity?" 3. The notion of a "singularity" arose from mathematics. Exactly what is a physical singularity? 4. Exactly how did the BB create the subatomic particles and form them into atoms while the entire mix of stuff generated by the alleged bang was rapidly expanding from a central point, making the subatomic particles less likely to interact with one another? (You'll notice that particle accelerators do their thing by forcing a lot of high-energy particles together into the same confined space.) Therefore I invite you to give up BB theory entirely, on the grounds that it is a silly hand-waving explanation for the beginnings of things that is functionally identical to the omnipotent-God theory, but not an improvement.