This is some of the most flawed logic I've seen in quite a while.
Mathematics has proven that some infinities are bigger than others. If you think about it, there are an infinite number of combinations after the decimal point between any two integers. 1, 1.0000000000001, 1.00000000000001 ad infinitum to get to 2, yet we can still get from one number to the next without spending an eternity doing so.
Secondly, most atheists don't consider an infinite regress logical either so you're arguing against something that very few people claim.
You're mixing up your concepts here. How is the number of ways particles can rearrange themselves an
infinite regress? The latter goes back in time, studying the transfer of heat goes forward in time and as previously demonstrated, we go through infinities all the time, every time we count for example.
I also chuckled at your phrase "this is obviously not seen in reality" because that's exactly what I'd say about God!
You are contradicting yourself. You say matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed and then go on to say matter and energy must have been created
In any case, that's false. You don't seem to be thinking outside the box much because there is another option: that matter and energy have
always existed, in some form or other. This would certainly agree with the Laws of Thermodynamics that you're repeatedly bringing up.
There's no evidence anything created matter and energy. In fact, your own Laws of Thermodynamics say their creation is impossible.
False premises from the get-go. First, there is no evidence for the creation of matter and energy and second, it violates basic logic to say something can come out of a literal nothing. That is impossible.
Perhaps take greater care with the words you choose. I presume you're trying to say God would be
eternal, which means something very different to
infinite. I don't even know what it would mean to call a person or being infinite. Also, as I previously demonstrated, there are an infinite number of numbers between any two integers and that obviously applies to seconds, minutes, hours, yet we still move through them without wasting an eternity. Maths proves you wrong on this front I'm afraid.
Again, you don't appear to know the definitions of the words you're using. Omnipresent does
not mean one isn't bound by spatial boundaries, it simply means something occupies all space. Most of your next sentence is unintelligible.
Your logic has demonstrated no such thing. It is a jumble of unsupported assumptions and shoddy mathematics.
And here we have it, another assumption for which there is not an iota of evidence. What caused the Big Bang may have been an unthinking law of nature/reality with no ability to reason and make decisions.
This is a confused mess. As far as we know, time began with the Big Bang so it doesn't even make sense to say a being chose to create the universe at a particular point in time because when making that decision time itself wouldn't even have existed.
Moreover, the Big Bang doesn't actually prove the universe isn't eternal. There are many hypotheses out there which outline how an eternal, changing universe could still produce Big Bangs, the
cyclic model perhaps being the most well-known.
You have shown none of those things through logic, merely made unsupported claims.
Nonsensical statement to make. We see in the world all around us plenty of things which have identical characteristics and compositions, the chemical elements to name the most obvious example. Therefore there is no logical argument against multiple gods.
Where are you getting this garbage from? I could place two identical pieces of anything in front of you and your inability to tell them apart would not mean only one existed. Seriously, I can't believe I'm having to explain this kind of thing to an adult presumably. Even a 5-year-old would understand this.
What is this about coordinates? They inherently rely on space, yet you've been saying this whole time that God exists outside of space and implying it doesn't need space to exist, therefore multiple gods could exist by this exact line of reasoning.
Again, you have shown no such thing. Also, I'm pretty sure none of the Abrahamic gods are regarded as being omnipresent. In Islam for example it is believed that Allah is not anywhere in physical reality, he is merely observing it from a different dimension/plane of existence. Ergo if he is not in physical reality then he is not omnipresent. I'm pretty sure the same theology applies to Christianity and Judaism.
It is only pantheists and panentheists who can say God is omnipresent while actually meaning it.
Life absolutely cannot be a test if God is all-knowing. You only test someone if there is an element of doubt involved. You cannot test someone if you 100%
know what they're going to do because you cannot be surprised in any way. This is basic logic.
This is just a cop-out so theists don't have to provide evidence for their claims: "Guys, God is real yeah, but there isn't any evidence for him because that would defeat the test!" I have to hand it to whoever made that up, they clearly weren't stupid having their cake and eating it too. What do you think of this statement:
"Guys, an invisible pink rabbit that is more powerful than Allah exists yeah, but there isn't any evidence for it because that would defeat the purpose of making Allah look like God"
?
We don't need faith in the way you mean and it is extremely disingenuous to try and conflate religious faith with scientific "faith". Science is all based on empirical evidence and observation. The belief in God is not based on any empirical evidence and observation, you yourself have admitted there is no evidence for God because it would render the test defunct.
Logic points to no such thing and yours certainly hasn't by any stretch of the imagination. You haven't opened my eyes up no, but you have made me bang my head against my desk. Several times.