Monday, September 1, 2008

Atheism Simply Doesn't Compute

Except for epistemic, experiential, logical, coherent and reasonable evidence for the existence of God, I could be an atheist. Instead, my belief in God begins with the following observations:

. Because of scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) facts, we know that Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
. Because of scientific evidence, we know that The universe began to exist.
Because those premises are true and coherent we can know that the following conclusion is also true: The universe has a cause.

. Matter and energy cannot precede themselves or preexist themselves either physically or chronologically.
. The reason that no event can precede itself is because “Coming Into Being” is an essential and objective feature of time. Time did not exist prior to the Big Bang.
. Matter and energy do not have the ability to create themselves or bring themselves into existence from nothing ex nihilo
. As will be shown below, matter and energy cannot exist from infinity past.
. Whatever brought matter, energy, space and time into existence had to have existed outside of these entities.

. Anything that exists has an explanation of it’s existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. That is because:
- Existing outside of time, the Cause is infinite or Eternal,
- Existing outside of matter, the Cause is immaterial or Spiritual,
- Existing as the Cause of time and energy, space, matter and the laws of physics, the Cause is immeasurably more powerful than the mathematically precise universe and its exquisitely Finely Tuned constants and quantities.
- The cause cannot be “scientific” because neither matter nor the laws of physics existed prior to the Singularity.
- Therefore the cause is not scientific but Personal.
- The transcendent Cause of the universe is therefore on the order of a Mind. It’s omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

That Cause, at least in the West is described as God.
. The universe exists.
. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true: The explanation of the existence of the universe is God

. If atheism is true, then the universe has no explanation of its existence. This in fact is what atheists would have us believe as literally over a dozen theories have come and gone in a vain attempt to rule out God as the Cause of a beginning universe.
. If there IS an explanation of the universe’s existence, then atheism is not true.
. Most atheists would admit that the universe does indeed have a beginning.
. Hence, most atheists are implicitly committed to God being the explanation of why the universe exists.

Some may deny that the universe began to exist, but in reality the universe cannot be infinite. That is because: The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the possibility of the universe existing from infinity past. As well -
. It is physically impossible to have an Actual Infinite Number of Things or Events preceding our today.
. A beginningless Series of events in time entails an actual infinite number of things.
. Therefore, a beginningless Series of events in time that leads to the beginning of our universe cannot exist.

. Neither can we get to our point in time by forming an actual infinite Collection of things by adding one member after another.
. A series of events in time is a collection formed by adding one member after another
. A collection formed by adding one member after another cannot be an actual infinite.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true: A collection of events in time cannot be actually infinite - therefore the universe cannot be infinite. Therefore the universe had to have a beginning and a Cause.

I believe in God because His existence answers not just, Why did the universe come into being, but Why is it so finely tuned that we can exist? Note: Fine Tuning is a neutral secular term in that it refers to constants and quantities (atomic weight, gravitational constant, etc.) being just right for the existence of intelligent life. That’s in comparison with the virtually infinite range of possible values. So:
. The fine tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design.
. It is not due to physical necessity (there is no reason whatsoever that any given universe would be so finely tuned) nor is this fine tuning due to chance (the fine tuning of our universe is so exquisite that an infinitesimal change in any one of the necessary constants and quantities would mean that neither we nor any life would happen).

. True claim: If observers who have evolved within a universe observe its constants and quantities, it is highly PROBABLE that they will observe them to be fine-tuned for their existence.

. True claim: It is highly and extraordinarily IMPROBABLE that a universe exists which is finely tuned for the evolution of observers within it.

Some might think that if the constants and quantities of our universe were different, then other life forms would have evolved. Virtually all of these people are those who hold to the neurotic hyperbole or Richard Dawkins. Nevertheless, this is simply not true. “Life” means the ability to take in food and use its energy, to grow and adapt and reproduce. Without the fine tuning that we observe, not even atomic matter would exist, not to mention planets where life might evolve. Among other things the universe would have either recollapsed or expanded beyond any ability to congeal. Again, there is no reason to expect that a universe as finely tuned as is our universe should exist by chance, nor is there any need or physical necessity for such a universe to exist anywhere except for the sole purpose of life. Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true: The fine tuning of the universe is due to design.

I also believe in the existence of God because:
. If God does not exist, objective morals, values and duties do not exist
. But objective morals, values and duties DO exist.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true: God exists.

Physical laws are fully realised in the physical world. Objective moral laws are fully realised in Jesus and Father God. Our daily interactions with others shows we believe that objective moral order is as real and independent of our recognition as is the natural order of things. Our perceptions of natural and moral laws are givens of our experience.

Fact: Objective moral Goodness and Duty are based on God’s character. Since our moral duties are grounded in the Divine commands, they are not independent of God. Neither are God’s commands arbitrary, for they are the necessary expression of His just and loving nature.

. Mercy is required of me if and only if a just and loving God commands me to be merciful. Meanness is forbidden of me if and only if a just and loving God commands me to not be mean. Mercy or meanness are permitted or denied for me if and only if a just and loving God commands me to / not to commit acts of mercy or meanness. God is merciful therefore He commands us to be merciful. God is not mean therefore He commands us to not be mean. God is Just therefore He commands us to act Justly. What God commands or permits is good and what He forbids is wrong, bad, evil, self-destructive. This is what it means for morality to be objective vs. subjective or relative to the situation or to the individual’s character or personality or level of empathy, likes or dislikes, sanity or insanity.

I believe in God because of the following philosophical and metaphysical evidence. Virtually all philosophers agree that if there is the slightest chance of God existing, then He does in fact exist. Therefore, we can ask ourselves, “What is the greatest conceivable being?” Our answer goes past me and you and the Dali Lama and any other "great" human being we can think of and we come to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being that we commonly call “God” We can call it a Mind or something else but it amounts to the same thing ie. The Greatest Conceivable Being That Can Possibly Exist.

Therefore we can know that God exists because:
. It is in fact metaphysically possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists.
. Because it’s possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists, a Greatest Conceivable Being does exist in some possible reality.
. Because of the very nature of a Greatest Conceivable Being, if a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in SOME possible reality, it exists in EVERY possible reality.
. If a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in every possible reality, then it exists in actual reality.
. If a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in the actual reality, then a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in our reality.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, it stands to reason that the conclusion is also true: A Greatest Conceivable Being or God exists.

I also believe in a Greatest Conceivable Being - God - because:
. Abstract objects, such as numbers and propositions, are either independently existing realities or else they are concepts that find their grounding in and from some Mind.
. Abstract objects are not independently existing realities. Yet we intuitively know that they exist. Our problem is that when we become aware of the sheer volume of potential abstract objects we know for certain that the mind which causes them to exist and find their being and grounding could never be any human mind.
. If abstract objects are concepts in some Mind, then an omniscient, metaphysically necessary being exists. That is, only in an omniscient intelligence or mind can we find the grounding or cause for abstract objects.
. Because some of these concepts exist necessarily they cannot find their grounding in contingent beings, namely us.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the conclusion must also be true: An omniscient, metaphysically necessary being exists. That Being is what we call God.

. Because the cosmological argument shows that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists who is the cause or grounding of reality as we know it, and
. Because the moral argument shows that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists who is the cause or grounding of all objective morals, values, duties and Truth, and
. Because the conceptualist argument shows that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists who is the necessary intelligence for the grounding of abstract objects,
I believe that Creator God exists.

While any or all the above may or may not give you pause for thought, The most important basis for my belief in God has nothing to do with any of the above. Instead, His palpable presence in my life, His counsel, His comfort, His correction and guidance, His love and mercy and grace. All of these things are so very real in my innermost being that they compel me to acknowledge the truth of His existence. I am so very grateful that I have been granted the gift of "Wide-Band Awareness." This is an Gift / ability that is shared and immediately recognised by people from around the world regardless of race, social stature, gender or intellectual ability. For some reason atheists seem denied this perceptive ability.

Secondly, I believe in God because of the historicity of Jesus. His life, death and resurrection cannot be adequately explained away. Something totally other took place when Jesus appeared on earth.

Third, I believe in God because the heavens and the earth declare His handiwork. There is simply no sufficient explanation for why the universe began to exist exactly as it did other than “Creator God.” This is not an explanation from ignorance because Creator God is the conclusion that fits the scientific evidence.

While it's true that atheists have proposed other theories for the "Creation” of the universe, it was not because of any inadequacy in or lack of evidence for the idea of God as Creator. The presentation of alternative theories is only because God as Creator is philosophically unacceptable to atheists.

The type of belief in God that I'm talking about is sometimes called “faith.” But faith is often misunderstood as being separate from reason or evidence. That could not be more inaccurate. For one thing, we are told to love the Lord our God with, among other things, “all our mind.” Second the Bible describes Faith as being “The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen.” While one’s faith does not find its origin in evidence (the origin is purely from God - John 6:44), faith is clearly supported by evidence, reason and logic. In other words, Faith is anything but blind or uninformed. In my opinion agnostics are the only ones who ‘go as far as empirical evidence will let them.’ Atheists, as I’ve stated, take the next step because of a philosophically unacceptable conclusion to where the evidence points: Creator God exists. Christians take the next step because of the reality of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord of lords and King of kings who lives within their very being. Nevertheless, my epistemic and experiential belief in God is grounded in logic and reason and that is why I'm not an atheist.

While there have been criticisms of the above premises, what’s important to note is that a criticism or an objection is not a refutation.

- When an intelligent person willfully abandons reason and begins to posit finite infinities, causeless beginnings and beginningless beginnings, I know that I’m dealing with someone involved in a desperate attempt to avoid a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.

- When an intelligent person willfully abandons classical historical scholarship and begins to deny known and knowable facts of history, but only as they apply to the person of Jesus, I know that I’m dealing with someone who is confronted with a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.

- When an intelligent person willfully and falsely claims to follow whatever ethical standard is currently in vogue and calls that a reasonable way to live, I know that I’m dealing with someone involved in a desperate, fearful attempt to avoid a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.

- When someone goes in search of ever more complicated solutions, abandoning one after another, after another, after another, not because of new evidence but because of a need to avoid current evidence, and when that person never returns to a simple solution that coincides with current knowledge and common sense, I know that I’ve encountered an individual who has been confronted with a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.

That is sad and that is why I’m not an atheist.


Preeti said...

Thanks for taking time with my post.
I do have some contradicting views.

If God is the cause and explanation for the existence of the universe, there should be a cause for God as well. And if God can just exist, so can the universe, isn’t it?

Morals and duties do exist. Most people believe it is because of God and religion because that is what they have been told, and as Ken rightly put it, they are just “'Understandable ways to feeding science' to less mentally privileged people”. And if the only reason that one is not mean is because God commands him/her to be merciful, then it is indeed a sad world. I definitely agree that the “concept” of “God” and religion have done great things to the humans civilization initially, when civilizations began to exist. But now that humans have evolved into something better than just being puppets to someone who is supposedly sitting in the sky and pulling strings, they should think for themselves as to what is right and wrong, and not just follow what has been written in a book. It's again ones choice as to what he/she wants to do.

And most people believe in God, because they always need someone to protect them. The feeling of presence of a greater being is always a comfort. Science is just beginning to know things and we would have to go a long way until we have evidence about the origins of the universe. Until then God is what most believers’ would like to call it.

I believe that Religion and God where just ideas conceived by humans to try and familiarize the not-so-gifted people to social life, moral codes and ethics, and everything unexplainable, even the basic natural occurrences such as thunder and lightening. This has now become blind belief and a denial to accept new things.

A simple solution to all questions could be God, even though we have learnt over time that science can produce evidence of how things work. If everyone had just believed that the earth was flat, and had there been no search for a more “complicated solution” as you put it, then we would all still be blind. God is definitely an easy and lazy solution to all questions one might ask, but that hangs ones thirst to know more to death, and there is no greater disgrace than a dead and wasted human mind.

Makarios said...

“If God is the cause and explanation for the existence of the universe, there should be a cause for God as well. And if God can just exist, so can the universe, isn’t it?”

Well, not exactly, the premise does not state “Whatever exists has a cause,” rather it states, “Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause.” God did not begin to exist so He does not need a cause and as a necessary Being He does not need an explanation, or more correctly, there is no explanation that we would be able to understand. Further, as I showed, quite clearly, it is impossible for the universe to exist from infinity past, because if it did, we would not be able to reach “today” because infinity past simply stretches back, well, into infinity. As well, to be thinking otherwise goes against all the available scientific evidence that shows the universe, space, time, matter, energy, the law’s of physics upon which science itself if based came into existence at the big bang. Literally nothing existed before.
As well, thermodynamics shows that the universe had to have a beginning. if, given sufficient time, the universe will suffer heat death, then why, if it has existed forever, is it not now in a state of heat death? If in a finite amount of time the universe will inevitably come to equilibrium, from which no significant further change is physically possible, then it should already be at equilibrium by now, if it has existed for infinite time. Like a ticking clock, it should by now have run down. Since it has not yet run down, this implies, in the words of Richard Schlegel, that “in some way the universe must have been wound up.”

Assuming that there is no positive cosmological constant fueling the expansion of the universe, that expansion will decelerate over time. Very recent discoveries provide strong evidence that there is effectively a positive cosmological constant which causes the cosmic expansion to accelerate rather than decelerate. Paradoxically, since the volume of space increased exponentially, allowing greater room for further entropy production, the universe actually grows farther and farther from equilibrium state as time proceeds. But the acceleration only hastens the cosmos’s disintegration into increasingly isolated material patches no longer causally connected with similarly marooned remnants of the expanding universe. Each of these patches faces, in turn, thermodynamic extinction. Therefore, the grim future predicted on the basis of the second law remains fundamentally unaltered. So the questions remains, if the universe has existed forever, is it not now in a cold, dark, dilute, and lifeless state?

After all, the stars cannot keep burning forever. The same is true of all irreversible physical processes; the stock of energy available of the so-called second law of thermodynamics, which, applied to the entire cosmos predicts that it is stuck on a one-way slide to degeneration and decay towards a final state of maximum entropy, or disorder. As this final state has not yet been reached, it follows that the universe cannot have existed for an infinite time. Atheists have tried to escape this conclusion by arguing that the universe oscillated in and out from eternity. But wholly apart from the difficulties already know about this theory, the fact is that the thermodynamic properties of oscillating models imply that very beginning of the universe that their proponents sought to avoid. For entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle in such models, which has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations with each successive cycle. The multi-cycle model may have an infinite future, but only a finite past. Indeed, astronomer Joseph Silk estimates on the basis of the current level of entropy in the universe that it could not have gone through more than 100 previous oscillations. A universe rebounding from a single, infinitely long contraction is, if entropy increased during the contracting phase, incompatible with the initial low entropy condition of our expanding phase.
Other atheists have proposed an inflationary mulitiverse. According to this theory, among the infinity of worlds generated by inflation there will be some worlds that are in a state of thermodynamic disequilibrium and only such worlds can support observers. It is therefore not surprising that we find our world in a state of disequilibrium, since that is the only kind of world that we could observe. But then the proposed solution is plagued by the same failing as Boltzman’s hypothesis. In a multiverse of eternally inflating vacua most of the volume will be occupied by high entropy, disordered states incapable of supporting observers. There are two ways in which observable states can exist: First, by being part of high entropy world. Even though young universes are constantly nucleating out of the false vacuum, their volumes will be small in comparison with the older bubbles. Disordered states will therefore be on average strongly predominant. That implies that observers are much more likely to be the result of thermal fluctuations than the result of young, low entropy condition that we find ourselves in.

But then the objection once again arises that it is incomprehensibly more probable that a much smaller region of disequilibrium should arise via a fluctuation than a region as large as our observable universe. Roger Penrose along with Stephen Hawking calculates that the odds of our universe’s initial low entropy conditions’s coming into existence are on the order of one part in ten to the power of

Anyhow, thermodynamics implies that the universe had a beginning. In a certain respect the evidence of thermodynamics is even more impressive that the evidence afforded by the expansion of the universe. For while an accurate physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time remains and perhaps always will remain unknown, thereby affording room for speculations aimed at averting the origin of time and space implied by the expanding cosmos, no such uncertainty attends the laws of thermodynamics and their application. Indeed, thermodynamics is so well established that this field is virtually a closed science. Even though we may not like it, we must say on the basis of the thermodynamic properties of the universe that the universe’s energy was somehow simply “put in” at the creation as an initial condition. Prior to the creation, the universe simply did not exist.
As to your question regarding, If God can be infinite why not the universe? - On A Theory of time the universe does endure through successive intervals of time. It arrives at its present event-state only by enduring through a series of prior event-states. So before the present event could occur, the event immediately prior to it would have to occur; and before that event could occur, the event immediately prior to it would have to occur; and so on ad infinitum. So one gets driven back and back into the infinite past, making it impossible for any event to occur. Thus, if the series of past events were beginningless, the present event could not have occurred, which is absurd. Now some point to Zeno’s paradoxes of motion, but in reality nobody really believes that motion is impossible. Even if Achilles must pass through an infinite number of halfway points in order to cross the stadium, somehow he manages to do so. As well, such an objection fails to reckon with two crucial disanalogies of an infinite past to Zeno’s paradoxes: whereas in Zeno’s thought experiments the intervals traversed are potential and unequal, in the case of an infinite past the intervals are actual and equal. The claim that Achilles must pass through an infinite number of halfway points in order to cross the stadium is question-begging, for it already assumes that the whole interval is a composition of an infinite number or point, whereas Zeno’s opponents take the line as a whole to be, conceptually prior to any divisions which we might make in it. Moreover, Zeno’s intervals being unequal, sum to a merely finite distance, whereas the intervals in an infinite past sum to an infinite distance. Thus, his thought experiments are crucially disanalogous to the task of traversing an infinite number of equal, actual intervals to arrive at our present location. Besides, how is the claim that from any given moment in the past there is only a finite distance to the present even relevant to the issue? The defender of the kalam argument could agree to this happily. For the issue is how the whole series can be formed, not a finite portion of it. Does anyone think that because every finite segment of the series can be formed by successive addition that the whole infinite series can be so formed? That is as logically fallacious as saying because every part of an elephant is light in weight, the whole elephant is light in weight. The claim is therefore irrelevant.

Another example. Suppose we meet a man who claims to have been counting down from infinity and who is now finishing . . ., -3 -2 -1, 0. We could ask, why didn’t he finish counting yesterday or the day before or the year before? By then an infinite time had already elapsed, so that he could already have finished. Thus, at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should already be done! In fact, no matter how far back into the past we go, we can never find the man counting at all, for at ANY point we reach he will already have finished. But if at no point in the past do we find him counting, this contradicts the hypothesis that he has been counting from eternity. This shows again that the formation of an actual infinite by never beginning but reaching and end is as impossible as beginning at a point and trying to reach infinity. If the universe did not begin to exist a finite time ago, then the present moment would never arrive. But obviously it has arrived. Therefore, we know that the universe is finite in the past and began to exist. Therefore, if one wishes to deny the beginning of the universe, he must refute, not one, but both of these arguments. Finally, an actual infinite is not constructable and therefore not actualizable, this is precisely why a realised past infinity in time is not considered possible, since it represents endorsements of both the kalam arguments. The arguments against an infinite past time are strong - it’s simply not constructable in terms of events or instants of time, besides being conceptually indefinite.

The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely of an idea. Hillbert’s Hotel shows the absurdity of infinity. The absurdities can be seen to result precisely because we do understand the notion of a collection with an actually infinite number of members. If an actually infinite number of things were possible, then such a hotel must be possible. It logically follows that if such a hotel is impossible, then the real existence of an actual infinite is also impossible.

Someone might ask then, “So how can God be infinite?” This is a misunderstanding of the term. When we use the term, “the infinity of God” we are not using the word in a mathematical sense to refer to an aggregate of infinite number of finite parts. God’s infinity is qualitative, not quantitative. It means that God is metaphysically necessary, morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal etc.
First of all, in order to recognise an explanation as the best, one needn’t have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as understood in the philosophy of science. For example, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize and explanation as the best, one needn’t be able to explain the explanation. In fact, to require and explanation of the explanation would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would come to a standstill. In order to recognise that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn’t be able to explain the Designer.

Second, some people like Richard Dawkins thinks that in the case of Designer of the universe, the Designer is just as or more complex than the universe itself, so that no explanatory advance is made. Dawkins’ fundamental mistake lies in his assumption that a divine Designer is an entity comparable in complexity to the universe. As an unembodied Mind, God is a remarkable simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable constants and quantities, a Divine Mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a Mind may have complex ideas, but the Mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind’s ideas, which may, indeed be complex, with a mind itself. Therefore, postulating a Divine Mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity. After the other two choices of chance and necessity have been considered, in regards to the fine tuning of the universe, the teleological argument holds its own as a sound and persuasive argument for a Designer of the cosmos.
I know this is long but it’s important that you understand that self-creation is metaphysically absurd, since in order to cause itself to come into being, the universe would have to already exist.

There are two types of causal explanations: a scientific explanation in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. Now, a first state of the universe CANNOT have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, therefore it cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. It can only be accounted for in terms of an agent and His volitions, in other words, a personal explanation. Second, the personhood of the cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality.

“And if the only reason that one is not mean is because God commands him/her to be merciful, then it is indeed a sad world.”

But I’m not saying that is the only reason for someone to not be mean. There are many reasons to not be mean. What I’m saying is that God and His nature are the only reason that not being mean has an objective base. Anything other than God may very well be good reasons, survival, socio-biological conditioning etc, are good reasons to not be mean, but they are subjective, and relative to the situation. They change with time. For example, according to socio-biological and even survival reasons, discrimination against homosexuals was considered right and good. Now because sociol and community values have changed it is no longer acceptable. What I’m saying is that because of God, who is not unfair, it is objectively wrong to treat someone unfairly and it is objectively wrong only because God says that He desires mercy more than anything else.

“But now that humans have evolved into something better”

Do you really think that’s true? Do you ever listen to the news? From my background in Psychology, I’ve got to tell you that human nature is remarkably stable over time, from culture to culture, age to age, race to race etc. I don’t see any evidence that we are evolving into something better.

“It's again ones choice as to what he/she wants to do.”

Well, yes it is but there are an awful lot of people making an awful lot of really, really self-destructive choices simply because they don’t know the difference between life nurturing and life destroying behaviours. Just a few examples might include: Abandoning one’s children to carry on an affair with someone else’s spouse. Stealing money from other people’s pension funds. Sticking needles into their arms and on and on.

“And most people believe in God, because they always need someone to protect them.”

I’m sure that’s true for some people. But surely I’ve shown that there are several other very good reasons to consider the existence of God that have only to do with philosophy and science and nothing whatsoever to do with fear or a need for security.

“If everyone had just believed that the earth was flat, and had there been no search for a more “complicated solution” as you put it, then we would all still be blind.”

Ya, I agree. As a point of interest though, no where in the Bible is it taught that the earth is flat. Nevertheless, you’re right, a lot of people have used the “God of gaps” solution and it’s done a lot of harm to their cause. On the other hand, just because you or I or anyone get some things wrong, that doesn’t mean that we get everything wrong. And for what it’s worth, if ever there was a good example of using the “Atheism of the gaps” abiogenesis and the causeless beginning of the universe would be it.====

“God is definitely an easy and lazy solution to all questions one might ask, mind.”

Well, I would disagree with this one completely. Some of the greatest minds to have ever existed have been theologians and deeply Theistic scientists. Pondering the existence of God is not any pursuit for the feeble minded. If you want to show me wrong, why not show me which premise of the Moral argument is false:
. If God does not exist, objective morals, values and duties do not exist
. But objective morals, values and duties DO exist.

Or show me which part of Kalam is wrong.

. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
. The universe began to exist
And if you can’t do that, explain to me why you don’t accept the logically coherent conclusion, that Creator God exists. :-)

These are not questions posed by feeble minded or lazy theists. They are questions that virtually everyone on the planet would like answered. Anyhow thanks for your time.