Sigh, I'll bite, one more time. > I mean, it sounds like this is not a new argument to you, so I expect you'll know what I mean when I say, "I think the astro

Sigh, I'll bite, one more time. > I mean, it sounds like this is not a new argument to you, so I expect you'll know what I mean when I say, "I think the astrophysics stuff is really good." You are correct, and my response is the same one I give whenever a theist brings up astrophysics as an argument for god: you probably don't understand "the astrophysics stuff" as well as you think you do. Depending on what, specifically, you mean by "the astrophysics stuff", it's likely that you have misconceptions about a) what the big bang theory is, the period of time covered by it, and related implications, or b) the second law of thermodynamics, or c) quantum mechanics, or some combination of the above. > That really does beg the question - what evidence would be good enough for you? I don't know, but if a god exists, she certainly does, and the fact that she hasn't shown it to me is evidence that either she does not exist or that she does not want me to know she exists. Either way, the only rational position for me to take is that I do not accept the claim that the christian god exists, until warranted by evidence. I have a more questions to ask you based on your responses, which I've yet to receive clear, succinct answers to from any theist, but I think I'll stop here since it's clear I won't get them. Bye.