SNG: re. disinterested god.
I find sci-fi fascinating. Very often, exclusively in the case of Star Trek, it is speciesist. Plucky little human beings over-take moribund civilisations thousands of years older, or unite them into a peaceful union (where the humans really seem to sit in the driving seat). More advanced civilisations that can defeat humans are always cold, inhuman or evil.
What we see is exactly what most primitive cultures espouse. Many tribal names translated as something along the lines of 'real people'. Other tribes weren't really people. Everyone thought they were special. And as there wasn't a good explanation for things like lightning, god entered as a filler of gaps.
But each god made his people feel special. Chosen.
The idea that a Universal creator would occupy itself with anything as petty as us seems to be an assumption bred of human conceit that the world revolves around them.
And about the topic in general...
Now the 'gaps' spoken of above are an awful lot smaller. One can insist that complex things need a designer, but then, to avoid the obvious contradiction, you either have to speculate on the possibility of a non-complex designer, or ask why the maker of a barrel of complex things would be bound by the rules for complex things in the barrel.
BOTH these again require an explanation of origin, either for the curiously non-complex designer, or for the barrel-maker.
Unless one presupposes an eternally existing curiously non-complex designer or barrel-maker, which is on about the same level of logic as putting a bone through your nose to keep evil spirits away, you still end up with an infinitely recursive set of designers. This is a silly idea, although if they were indeed outside time they would have plenty of emit to be recursive in, as well as teanifni ecaps.
Now, you can have fun with a non-complex god that is comprised of everything that exists, a Universal mind, with some people accessing it as 'Avatars'. Hinduism, Buddhism, even way-out Catholics like Teilhard all play with this idea.
But if believing in god is about faith, and your particular belief requires you to make a leap-of-faith and presuppose the existence of an eternal creator... please get on with it.
There is nothing wrong with doing that. It is indeed an expression of the certitude of your faith.
To make extraordinary claims that when you don't have extraordinary evidence is what faith is about. But it doesn't mean one should insist the claims are in some way logical. They shouldn't have to be if you have faith. Get over it. You don't have to play golf, you can play tennis. Just don't insist that the rules are the same.
Besides, "I believe just because I believe" is one hell of a good way of getting me to shut-up.
