Well backnad you've written a lot so I will respond in three sections hoping to keep some semblance of sanity to this.
Response 1:
Blacknad wrote:
"I don?t expect people to plough through this so you may want to skip to the next poster."
I wouldn't miss it for the world.
You write:
"?The scientific method simply does not have enough evidence to come to a decision one way or another?."
I think you are making a classic error here. We, fallible humans, don't know it all and don't pretend to know it all. That we haven't reached some ultimate destination with respect to wisdom and knowledge does not reflect on the methodology ... the methodology, scientific, is clearly filling in the gaps and an ever increasing pace. Which, as you can clearly see, is reducing the viability of belief systems.
and asks:
"Correct me if I am wrong, but is there an ?if a then not b? argument connected to the nature of the universe and god. ?If the speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s then God does not exist??"
You are incorrect. I could easily accept that some god or goddess made an arbitrary decision with respect to the speed of light if there were evidence that (A) a decision had been made, that (B) any entity existed that might have made that decision, and/or that (C) that had the decision not been made things would be different.
There is no evidence supporting the existence of a decision maker and no evidence that a decision was made.
