logansrun:
You do not list any "evidence" which definitively signifies the universe "just IS."
Did I say definative? No. Also, the theories I talk of don't automatically exclude a 'god'; they just don't require a 'god'.
Does 'god' have to be the petty little anthropomorphic thing in the Bible to be believable?
Again, these are respectible notions that are fascinating. All the same, the farther we go back to the Big Bang, the more and more speculative we get.
Yup, but there is a difference; the above theories do not require an intelligent designer to have popped out of nowhere. A belief in a god-as-first-cause-there-before-anything-else-was requires an explanation that is not available - how did the complex entity get there?
A belief in the theories require no such explanation. These theories don't speculate regarding the existence of a magically occuring complex entity, but of simpler 'entities' in the form of constants 'the just IS'.
Either way, you end up in the same place (well, lets call it a place but obviously we are talking about a time before time and a place before places; cosmology requires new words as much as time travel demands new tenses (Ishalldone, for example... ), but in one example you are looking for something similar to gravity (a force); in the other you are looking for an enitity.
Occam's Razor indicates creator god to be the less likely idea unless better evidence to support the theory comes along.
All the same, there are some who would point to the Big Bang as being evidence of a creator. I'm not so sure they are correct. (It does beg the question as I stated in my original post) But, you cannot deny that it leaves open the possibility and even made some people with atheistic leanings very uncumfortable.
Ah, you see, this is where presuppositions kick in. If I am an atheist because I don't think there is evidence of god, and then someone provides evidence of god, it would not be disturbing as it doesn't change my paradigm for evaluating what is real. You make the assumption (or at least it's implicit in your language, you may not realise it) that an atheist has an ideological basis for not believing in god that would result in discomfort if god was shown to exist. It's the thin edge of the baby with the bath water argument.
Fred Hoyle for years proposed a "steady-state" model of the universe because a beginning to the universe seemed inadequate. We now can pretty definitively state that the universe DID have a beginning. Does this imply there is a creator, either personal or not? I'm not sure. I don't think there is any evidence against such an argument, nor is there any evidence for such, that is, evidence without the proponent taking a leap of faith.
Can't you see the problem though? If someone came up with the idea of god TODAY, would people believe it? I don't think so; there's an adequate (at least AS adequate) explanation for reality; asking people to accept another explanation without any proof that also required acceptance of special pleading would result in ridicule.
BUT people HAVE believed in god for eons (we can debate about the inevitability of religion seperately if you like), and it is a powerful meme as it is not possible to disprove. You can't prove it's not so even if it isn't so. And the nature of the meme means that logic can be suspended when explaining it and magic can be invoked to cover up the dodgy bits.
This is only acceptable because it has been happening for so long; if it was a new idea is would be ridiculed UNLESS THERE WAS PROOF.
Thus the idea of there being a god is illogical UNLESS god requires nothing from us, as for God to require something without proof of its existance to those it requires it from does not seem reasonable. Supposed proof to a few thousand people a few thousand years ago recorded in a book is not decent enough proof as it is too disputable and unauthenticatable.
There is no such proof, so this arguably indicates IF there is a god IT DOESN'T have a plan for us.
Now, it is as likely that we are a by-product of something else god wanted to do as it is we are a special creation; both are 'magical' ideas with equal probability.
It is just the human ego likes thinking of itself as central to the reason for the Universe (which is what most conceptions of god imply), and doesn't like the idea of us being the wood-shavings on the floor of a carpenter's workroom.
Let me make something clear...I'm an agnostic with a feeling -- a hunch -- there is something more to the universe besides just quantum vacuums and mathematical equations, although I'm not dogmatic about it. You seem to be stating (I said seem) that there absolutely, unequivically is no god(s) or metaphysical order to the universe. Let's take off the gloves of a logician for a moment and just say that you are a strong atheist. Am I wrong?
Yup, you are wrong, as I've clarified above. I even dislike the term 'atheist'; it's as acurate as calling an adult an 'asantaist' and just as silly. As my 'hunch' is that all human conceptions of god are probably so far removed from reality as to be fantasy (either with regard to nature of god or existence of god), the whole word 'god' or theos is too predicated in meaning to be of any worth. I suppose secular humanist is acurate, but is far too pious sounding for me to be comfortable with.
I am quite happy to catagorically state I believe the god of the Bible is a mythical beast, and not a nice one at that. I can apply the same standard against the other religons I have studied and find them equally wanting; they are all too flawed to be proof of a god.
There might be a god, but if there is we seemingly have not been contacted in any provable way by it.
All talk of using discernment, gnosis and seeking god is a ruse for the oldeest confidence trick in the world; it makes the fault of not believing in god that of the human rather than of a postulated entity that is so unconcerned with people believing in it it reduces it to a guessing game by not providing proof. Under some conceptions of god god becomes a malevolent trickster I wouldn't worship if it DID exist.
If you applied the same trick to lutilevel marketing people would ridicule those falling for it; the word 'god' somehow makes such foolery acceptable.
MY hunch is that if there were a god with a plan for us it would be as obvious as gravity. It isn't, so there is probably no god with a plan for us. At best we are incidental to the creator's design; there is no proof to the contrary. Either that, or there is no creator. Either that, or the Bible is 100% accurate, I am totally screwed, and god is an immoral monster I wouldn't worship anyway.
ADDED:
The rules of formal logic are sound and helpful. But, there are always exceptions. For instance, one can point out countless ad hominem attacks on this forum. Some of these arguments do obfuscate the truth and are unneccessary. Some, I believe, are good ad hominem attacks. (If a person is truly a lunatic, is there anything wrong with calling him one?) Listing great minds of history who had a leaning the way I do is not going to win arguments in the arenal of formal logic, but I do believe it lends some credibility to what I say. At the very least, it should make one pause to think.
Re. argument from authority; if you put it there to make someone think, you put it there as an argument from authority, QED. Why should the thoughts of a car mechanic, a teacher and a wheelwright from the 18th C on 19th C Spode Pottery influence my thoughts on Spode Pottery unless those thoughts have merit in themselves? One of them wouldn't even know of its existence, so him saying it didn't exist would be utterly irrelevent. Linking names together in a similar appeal of relevency is futile; it suggests that you can know what historic characters would think were they alive today, and it suggests that philosphers have valid views on science; as liable to be rubbish as the reverse opinion, if not more so as scientific knowledge has a larger corpus of data then philosophy and is harder to cross-discipline in with credibility. Lists of names are an excuse for an argument; all it makes me 'pause to think' is 'your argument can't be that good if you resort to naming people who agree with you, it should stand on its own'.
Re. ad hominum; you have a big nose and your cat smells of treacle!