Thanks very much Cristobal for a gracious and thoughtful response. I highlighted the comment above because I'd like to point out that there is a difference in believing in a creator, an entity with the ability to design and bring the universe into existence, and a God that is personal and interested in each of his creatures. I don't know if you read any of my posts on the topic of creation and physicalism, but I do believe the evidence from what we know of nature points quite clearly to a creator. There are two main alternatives: an eternal universe with no beginning or end and physicalism which says the universe began from fully natural, non-transcendent causes. I think both of those fail based on evidence from science. It was this evidence that convinced prominent atheist Antony Flew to conclude that there is indeed a God, but that evidence did not convince him that the God who created the universe was necessarily the God of the Bible.

I do think in today's cultural, intellectual milieu it is difficult to accept and hold the ideas of creation, a transcendent reality, and most certainly a personal God. That is, in my mind, because we have been repeatedly told by the primary intellectual authorities of our day that science shows it to be unnecessary or impossible. The fact that science says no such thing is one of the main motives I have for writing and engaging with thoughtful people like you.