You quoted the following, “Against The Night: Living In The New Dark Ages, in the arena where relativism reigns supreme in opposition to the law of God,” interestingly it was “Christians” that caused the first “Dark Ages.”

Also, you state that every religion leads to the Judeo/ Christian ideal of “God” however, what you are forgetting is the obvious areas within “Christianity” that take from far older religions.

As you have a “PhD.” from some wonderful little Oral Roberts styled university I will not attempt to argue this any further…

To separate the question of a creator’s existence from the bias of the particular person or group genuinely interested in an answer, requires that the evidence for and against be measured not so that it confirms an existing subjective belief, but so that it disproves an existing theory which has been objectively ascertained; what Popper denoted as the deductive logic of scientific discovery.

The burden of proof is not upon those who already have a pre-existing belief that a creator exists, to prove that this is so, until they use that conviction to make statements upon reality which have already been fully described independent of unknown factors and by the least assumptions made as to their origin.

In cosmology, if your existing theory is that, for example, the so-called universal constant proves a ‘fine-tuning’ argument, I think you would enjoy reading Nobel Prize winning Physicist Steven Weinberg, on his disproof’s of Hoyle’s fixed constants, which he successfully demonstrated to be, in fact, within a 20% margin of error–and not “constant” at all. Hoyle, incidentally, agreed that the method which Weinberg eventually used was a valid one and agreed that steady-state theory was falsified.

We no-doubt both agree that boil in the bag atheists, who simply call themselves irreligious because they are too lazy to get out of bed on a Sunday morning, are not in the same ball-park as Voltaire, Russell or Rand. Nor are blog comment trolls who have read a few chapters of Hitchens and Harris. Yet when you cite this kind of atheist alongside your rather disingenuous view of the “scientific establishment”, you are foisting a deception upon yourself and your readers, that to ignore the weight of evidence which comes down on the side of a creator-less universe, is the Christian thing to do. It isn’t. The Christian thing to do is to acknowledge your pre-existing conclusions and accept that the only explanation for the existence of everything is something beyond our current understanding.

To assert that this will be forever the case, no matter what the evidence shows us, is a logical fallacy. It is effectively saying that because you can’t disprove something responsible for everything does not exist, it must therefore exist. Russell’s teapot. Against this kind of hermetically sealed commitment to failed cognition, there is simply no way to debate the finer points of interest, which are genuinely mysterious and challenging. But to assume that they will forever remain so, because of an emotional attachment to a book of plagiarised Pagan astrology myths, is simply dishonest–no matter how well meaning that dishonesty is held.