Still, seriously, if you can actually tell me how your arguments hold water in the context above, I would love to see that. Until then, I'm just going to have to stick with the position that reality doesn't care about being liked, nor does it need to pander to my ego, or give a shit about my existence. Or, to put it another way, reality just is.
tl;dr. Any danger of something a little more convincing than an argument from wishful thinking?
xyzzy, you have a very excellent, well-thought out, and mostly eloquently stated rebuttal. If William Lane Craig, Frances Schaeffer, Alvin Plantinga, and others who have greater minds that me cannot convince you, then I certainly cannot either. Rather than convince you, I only want to raise the question among atheists: Is the biblical worldview of God, creation, man, and man's relationship to God possible?
You seem like someone that is capable of discussing such things on a more academic level. Maybe we should talk more.
gzusfreke, that's very kind and generous of you. However, you haven't actually answered my questions and I really would like for you to do so.
You refer to Craig, Schaeffer, and Plantinga. All philosophers, and not scientists (why this matters, I will get to in a moment). They don't necessarily agree with each other on all points, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't tell me what your answers are, or why you select them. Further, it absolutely does nothing to explain the inconsistencies in your arguments.
If your reference is by way of an appeal to authority, then I wonder if you don't understand their arguments. Now, that is not meant as a slam, but I tend to wonder if you are not lost in their obfuscating language and equivocating between, say, some philosophical use of "possible" versus what "possibly" may happen in the real world, but is so unlikely to occur as to be practically impossible and not worth worrying about.
Now I'm not dissing philosophy per se, but those philosophical arguments don't actually prove a damn thing. They would need to be validated in the real world to actually be of consequence, and they never have been.
Now let me demonstrate why your asking about what is "possible" is special pleading designed to leave the door open so that you (theist you, FWIW) can claim - "well, it's possible and you can't prove otherwise".
Theists often tend to mangle and misuse quantum mechanics and uncertainty, so I'll use that as a base. So, one could argue that it is "possible" that that sandwich you are eating this one time, this only time, never to happen again, has suddenly transmuted into a toxic substance. So, yes, I'll allow using the vaguest possible (see what I did there?) use of the term that that's a possibility.
I suppose that it's also possible that that nice clean glass of a wonderful mixture of hydrogen and oxygen could forget how it's supposed to behave and combine with airborne sulphur to produce sulphuric acid which loves to munch on organic substances such as us. So, you'd better not ever drink water to guard against those possibilities. You do avoid water for this reason, don't you? Also, don't forget that airborne nitrogen dioxide can act as a catalyst for oxidization of sulphur dioxide which does produce "acid rain" - aka sulphuric acid. That does happen. So are you avoiding rain to avoid the possibility that one day that stuff becomes really, really, concentrated? If you are living your life according to "possibilities", I trust that you are?
But all of that is moot, and I'll explain why. If you are living based on possibilities then how are you protecting yourself from the uncertainty that that solid pavement suddenly isn't? I mean, it is "possible" that that might happen, right?
Now of course you aren't living according to those possibilities. I hope you don't mind my making a personal assumption, but I strongly think it's possible that I am correct. Yet you are trying to get us to agree to the possibility that your god, most likely your personal and unique interpretation of such, exists when in each and every other aspect of your life, you totally ignore other possibly more likely possibilities. Why is that? I really want to understand that.
That is but one reason why I suggest that you engage in a critical examination of your arguments, and try again.