slimboyfat: Either everything that exists arose by itself without any external cause, or a being outside of time and space brought the universe into existence. Either option is miraculous, in the sense that it is outside physical cause and effect.
I agree, which is why I don't take an absolute stance on the issue of the existence of god. For most of my life, I believed that god existed because I'd been told that god existed, and accepted that without question. When I stopped assuming that god existed, I was not able to present a definitive argument for a god. That did not make the alternative option automatically true- I had rejected that kind of thinking already.
I am left with three options: the universe began when a super-dense dot of mass/energy began to expand, or a being outside of existence created everything, or some third, unknown option. None of these fit with the human concept that everything has an absolute beginning. From that perspective, none of them make sense. Yet, here we are. I don't see why I need to choose one of those to the exclusion of the others. There isn't enough knowledge or understanding on my part to do so.
The most compelling arguments for the existence of god take the shape of "god has to exist." In other words, a god is necessary for the universe to make sense. The individual arguments all have their flaws, mostly based on our lack of knowledge about the universe. But for me, it must suffice. However, if that is the best argument for a god, it leaves us with no information as to who or what it or they are. I must therefore judge the human concept of god on its merits, and I find those lacking. That doesn't mean there isn't a god, it just means we haven't figured out its nature.
That being the case, it seems to me that god is not as interested in us as we would like to think. Perhaps god will make itself known in time, perhaps not. Until it does, I will live my life as best I can and not worry too much about it.
