Originally Posted by Mike Doolittle
I'm not suggesting a "God of the Gaps" where scientific blanks infer the existence of God. It's an illustration to say that belief in a God isn't unreasonable. I thought Liddle really hit it well when he was talking about physics and the creation of the universe.
If I've understood you correctly, your argument goes about like this (correct me if I'm wrong):
1.) We cannot account for the origins of the universe.
2.) We cannot account for the origins of God.
3.) Therefore, it is equally reasonable to believe in both.
If that is your argument, then my objection is that no one is claiming to account for the origins of the universe; all we (atheists) are saying is that the origins of the universe CAN be accounted for, and they CAN be understood according to the principles of reason (regardless of the fact that we haven't done so just yet
; in terms of knowledge, atheistic belief doesn't imply closure, while theistic does). The reason why this is more sustainable than the theistic alternative is that the latter is contradictory; you cannot postulate a being which transcends our faculties of reason, because to postulate is itself an act of reason.
I'd have a few more things to say, but I'd like to leave it at that for the moment, as this is the issue that most concerns me.
EDIT: Let me restate, btw, that being an atheist does not exclude parts of our experience that transcend issues of knowledge / verifiability, as one can see in my old (but still not completely disowned) post in this discussion: http://www.gamecritics.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=10778