Entropy, Kalam, and First Cause

[Mudhammam]

Ai! I disappear for a little while and come back to find three pages of discussion to read through. So much interesting stuff here; I enjoy taking it all in and trying to understand this stuff with my finite mind.

So, a recurring theme which I observe in the explanations here is the response to my admission that I can't wrap my mind around the issue. You guys say that it's natural to not be able to understand this stuff, there are a lot of unknowns and we really don't have answers, but reality is not constrained by our ability to grasp it; if something is true then it is true, whether we understand and acknowledge it or not.

True. But skeptics tend to place their value of knowledge in the matrimony of empiricism and reason---the two become one flesh---rather than any dogma enjoined to faith claims. Sure, no one can dismiss deism with complete certainty, but it's not exactly that interesting of a position to many considering the possibilities built on the monument of knowledge and not what many consider an irrational leap rooted in primitive thought. We tend to be biased towards seeing false patterns in data, which is why methods for discerning fact from fiction have become increasingly rigorous over the past five centuries; some doubt God is an idea that really survives that rigor.

My concern is that all of that sounds remarkably similar to what the theists tell me to believe- "God is real even if we cannot comprehend him. It may not all make sense but the fact that you can't wrap your mind around it logically or scientifically doesn't mean it is false."

The difference is that atheists can support the claim that some facts about reality do not conform to our conception of logical. We do not need to make an unjustifiable assertion about any system or being beyond the data our brains collect, and then backtrack when we're called to account for our claims, as atheism is merely the absence of any positive claim about an entity in existence and its "incomprehensible" nature. The Universe is more than enough for us to try to wrap our heads around. No need to make an extra step beyond the material reality assuming that some laws really are fundamental.

And, to be honest, given all of the unknowns which you guys readily admit, shouldn't we seek the explanation which has the most explanatory power for the facts which we do have? As far as I can tell, the Christian understanding of God, creation, time, space, etc fits the available data very well and explains things better than all the shaky, unknown speculation atheists propose. (of course, either way it is shaky and unknown and you are going to be making guesses that can't be proven)

Another way of putting my point: it seems like some kind of "god"-explanation is the most reasonable conclusion; the only reason one would reject such an explanation is if he were already predisposed against the notion of god. (i.e. approaches the question with unwarranted naturalistic/materialistic presuppositions)

Explanatory power? I don't see it. You make a few claims here though, and I would like to know what exactly you mean. First off, can you tell us about your basic beliefs regarding Christianity?