Fisherman I believe you have given an accurate idea of Krauss' idea of the universe, such as "that the universe, its drive , description and dynamics always existed". I agree with that view, that the universe (according to some definition of the word "universe) or nature, has always existed. To me that is what science strongly points because science has not found a beginning to dynamic energy and thus not a beginning to nature. As a result to me that means there that nature (and the universe in a broad sense which includes what existed prior to the big bang) was never created and thus there is no creator, and thus no God. I am satisfied with that idea. But to me that is not miraculous, at least not in the supernatural since, though it is highly amazing and mysterious. To me the universe in the broad sense, namely nature, is all there is and it influences us and we are a part of it. Maybe that view means nature is ultimate.
I also think that perhaps on some level the universe as a whole might be conscious. By that I mean in the sense of panpsychism, and even that what exists at the quantum level might be the building 'blocks' of such consciousness. Thus, to some extent we (Fisherman, slimboyfat, and I) might have some degree of commonality in regards to the idea of intention being bound up in (or playing a role in) the existence of the universe.
https://blog.unitedseminary.edu/the-canvas/religious-naturalism-a-theology-for-uu-humanists-part-i-0 says the following about religious naturalism. [I am a naturalist, but I am not religious and thus not a religious naturalist. I do however have the same view about naturalism as stated in the following quote, except for me not being religious.]
'For
the religious naturalist, nature is ultimate; there is nothing above,
beyond, or in addition to nature. For that reason, the religious
naturalist is vehemently anti-supernaturalistic. There are no
supernatural entities of any sort, no heavenly realms or otherworldly
destinies, no overarching cosmic purpose or direction, no miracles or
special revelations, and no immortal souls that live on after death.
Such items, as Wesley Wildman cleverly puts it, are not on the religious
naturalist’s “ontological inventory” (Wildman 2014: 42-43). Nor is
there any anthropomorphic divine being determining or guiding the course
of history. Once again, what there is, and all there is, is nature.
This means that there is nothing outside of nature, and anything that does exist, including humans and their civilizations, is a part of nature.'
slimboyfat you might appreciate the following which is also said on that web page.
'I
think it is fair to say that Unitarian Universalism is the foremost
liberal religion in America today. And, to me, religious naturalism is
the quintessential expression of a liberal theological outlook. Like UU
liberals, religious naturalists are anti-authoritarian to the core,
insisting on a free and responsible search for truth and meaning. Like
UU liberals, religious naturalists draw on a diverse array of sources
such as science, poetry, art, and the world religions. Like UU liberals,
religious naturalists look to the guidance of reason and experience,
including the “direct experience of that transcending mystery, affirmed
in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an
openness to the forces which create and uphold life.” For the religious
naturalist, that transcending mystery is nature itself.'
