It is only 'merely the physical universe' if nobody ever wonders how it came about.
So incredibly wrong. Wondering how it "came about" doesn't change one aspect of how it came about. The universe doesn't suspect our existence. What do you think all those scientists/astrophysysists etc have been working so hard for all these years? They really want to know more about the universe and how it "came about". It may very well be that it didn't "come about", but that it has always been.
The key word I challenged was 'merely'. As you clearly agree, we all want to know how the universe came about. We all think about it. I didn't suggest that wondering how it came about leads automatically to 'God made it'. At least, I certainly didn't intend to suggest that. It's a starting point. It exists. It came about.
And if you're willing to contemplate that the universe has just 'always been', which it appears you are, it seems like you shouldn't dismiss any suggestion that God has 'always been'
It's possible for somebody to conclude that the physical universe was created
Sure, conclude on presupposition and ignorance, not evidence.
"Gods are the finish line which are drawn at the start."
No, conclude on the fact that we have no knowledge of anything, ever, just appearing.
....and that it was God who did the creating.
You mean daddy? What do you mean when you say "god"?
I mean the thing we best describe as a deity, an eternal intelligent being, as somewhat described in the bible.
I assume you're a grown man. Saying 'Daddy', even to try and be snide, is just really damn creepy and off.
If a person can use the physical universe as a starting point (it exists, where did it come from)....
Again, perhaps there is an error built into the question; "come from". For perhaps it didn't "come from" anywhere or anything. Dream about gods (father figures) all you want, but it is a primitive, infantile first guess. )
See point above, it is more reasonable to believe that the physical universe came from somewhere/something/someone than otherwise
...it makes sense to examine closely a book that claims God created it.
But the thing is, the closer one examines said book, the more painfully obvious it is that it could not be "the word of the creator of the universe, it's got human fingerprints all over every page.
Many disagree with your assessment. They aren't automatically wrong, and you right.
You may not accept that the bible is in any way a reliable historical book, but countless believe it is
double edged sword. Unless of course you're happy to accept that a majority of scientists accepting evolution means jack shit.
Many, many people of those people have much greater qualification than you (or me) to make the assessment.
Qualified? How? Is an astrologer more qualified than me to assess the truthiness of their assertions? Dude, I used to live & breathe christianity; born & raised in it; bible studies; summer camp; prayer meetings; witnessing; baptized when I was 18. What more "qualifications" do I need? .
Specifically what I referred to here was that there are people highly skilled and qualified in the historical method who accept that the bible is a significant historical document, independent of its faith claims
Other people, having wondered how the physical universe came about, and having determined that the book which claims it was God has significant historical merit, and in the absence of any other claim as to how the physical universe came about, look at the behavioural differences and determine that mankind appears different because mankind actually IS different...as described in the bible.
Again, the "came about" question may be inherently erroneous. I explained how humans are and aren't different - didn't you read that part? It would be nice if you acknowledge if I make a valid point instead of just more squirming.
It's a valid point to make, not necessarily the correct one. There is an alternate explanation.
I maintain that intelligent people can use those things to believe God is real.
Sure they can, that's why we have thousands of gods, but that lazy leap is done without a shred of evidence.
"Believing is easier than thinking, thus so many more believers than thinkers."
I submit that you haven't come even close to demonstrating that belief in God has no foundation in evidence.