Justify the belief that gods do not exist.

[wiploc]

Some people believe that gods do not exist. (One can call this position "atheism" or "strong atheism" or "anti-theist perversion," anything you want. But we aren't going to argue terminology in this thread. Clarity is good, so you can explain what you personally mean by "atheist," but you shouldn't suggest that other usages are inferior.)

This thread is to make a list of arguments, of reasons to believe that theism is false.

And we can discuss the soundness of those arguments.

I'll start:

1. The Parable of the Pawnbroker.
(I'll just post titles here, so as not to take too much space at the top of each thread.)

2. Presumptive Falsity of Outrageous Claims.



Feel free to add to this list.

[Fundagelico]

Re: 1, We observe the effects of gravity. We observe the effects and products of evolution. We observe the results of aging on the human body, even tho' we do not 'see' the 'agitron.'

We do not observe anything that requires the postulation of a god.

I mentioned the mutual attraction of massive bodies, the diversity of life on earth, and the existence of the observable universe as phenomena in need of explanation. We observe the universe. And if the universe requires an explanation, the universe itself obviously cannot provide it. Everyone's favorite philosopher, Richard Swinburne, put it simply: "Only something different from E can make E happen." Now it could be that the universe is a brute fact which needs no explanation. But the contingent, temporal and finite characteristics of the universe suggest that it does require an explanation for its existence.

Re: 3, We observe sentience. We do not need to 'explain' it, tho' that is not a difficult task.
We observe sentience even in ourselves as we experience our sensations and thoughts of those sensations in our consciousness. Sentience is easy to explain compared to consciousness. Consciousness emerged when our brains developed to contain some 100 billion neurons, each with 1000 connections. Just as two atoms of hydrogen can be combined with one of oxygen to produce a substance that is unlike either of it's constituents, the enormous physical complexity of the human brain produces thought.

Ah, so your explanation for the emergence of consciousness is that "brains developed" from the raw materials provided by a mindless universe. That's it: Brains developed. Easy. It just rolls right off the tongue. And once consciousness emerged somehow from developed brains, why, we were enabled to easily look back and rationally, reliably infer that our brains developed from the raw materials provided by a mindless universe. And yet we don't really need to know just how brains could have developed so highly.

That's a bit like arguing that time travel is easily explained as the result of having a functional time machine.

[Fundagelico]

Seriously? I was merely trying to rebut the assertion that theism's being far more complicated than naturalism should be granted as some sort of uncontroversial premise. It's not. (But that hardly makes my reference to Swinburne and some others an argument ad populum!)

No, that is not what you wrote.

Wow. Okay, for starters I did write that. Were you under the impression that someone else wrote it?

But of course it's not what I wrote initially. Otherwise to explain myself I would just repeatedly copy and paste what I wrote initially, in the hope that eventually you would understand my meaning. Instead I opted for the more traditional method of responding to feedback, which is for the source to rephrase the first message to help convey any meaning in it which was not properly understood by the receiver. (That's not to blame you for the miscommunication; obviously I am aware that I may not have explained myself well.)

With that in mind, I'm going to be generous here and give you the benefit of a doubt – though from what I can tell you would not be willing to extend me the same courtesy. So I am going to assume that you honestly misunderstood my meaning in the first post as well as the second, and not that you deliberately misunderstood in order to have a pretext for calling me out on presumed logical blunders.

You wrote:

4. Without derailing the thread, I should mention that God is held by many sophisticated thinkers (Richard Swinburne among others) to be the simplest possible cosmological hypothesis.

Instead of actually making an argument, instead of doing the actual analysis, you simply referenced a 'sophisticated thinker' who, according to you, claims that 'God' is the simplest possible cosmological hypothesis. This is not an argument, but an appeal to authority; that is, an 'authority' you claim to be an authority.

In a sense that's almost sort of close to being correct. It was not much of an argument, nor was it meant to be much of an argument. My reference to Swinburne as an authority was meant to be no more than a potential defeater for the premise that naturalism is necessarily or self-evidently more parsimonious than theism for all rational observers. It was not meant to actually demonstrate that naturalism is not more parsimonious than theism, nor that theism is more parsimonious than naturalism – only that the proposition is at least arguable, and therefore cannot usefully serve as a premise.

The very wording – "Without derailing the thread, I should mention…" – should have tipped you off that my purpose was not to argue the point in depth. But we could argue it, I guess. Do you seriously dispute the notion that God is held by many sophisticated thinkers (Richard Swinburne among others) to be the simplest possible cosmological hypothesis?

However, I do concede the idea "God did it" is indeed simplistic, simplistic in the absolute. It is so simplistic in fact that it has no explanatory power.

After hearing you stress the need for carefully reasoned arguments and analyses, I think it's fair for me to expect more from you than unsupported little rhetorical potshots like the one above.

[Divine Insight]

According to your own Brief History of Gravity, when Einstein's understanding of gravity came along it blew our previous understanding of gravity "through the roof," as you put it. I don't see how this can be reinterpreted to mean that Einstein's understanding was nothing markedly different from the understandings of Newton, Kepler or Aristotle.

No, Einstein's understanding was not markedly different from the understanding proposed by Newton. On the contrary, Newton simply showed that gravity was indeed related directly to the amount of mass present. Einstein simply enhanced that understanding by showing how the presence of mass actually creates gravity.

So this is not a markedly different understanding, it's simply a deeper understanding of what was already shown to be true by Newton.

As far as Kepler and Aristotle are concerned I'm not sure what you are referring to there. Insofar as I'm aware Kepler had no "theory of gravity" to offer. I don't even think Kepler had a clue that gravity was involved in the motions of the planets. He described the motions of the planets, but I don't believe that he proposed that gravity was the concept driving that motion.

And as far as Aristotle is concerned, his idea was simply totally wrong.

From Wikipedia:

The Aristotelian explanation of gravity is that all bodies move toward their natural place. For the elements earth and water, that place is the center of the (geocentric) universe;[18] the natural place of water is a concentric shell around the earth because earth is heavier; it sinks in water. The natural place of air is likewise a concentric shell surrounding that of water; bubbles rise in water. Finally, the natural place of fire is higher than that of air but below the innermost celestial sphere (carrying the Moon).

This wasn't really a "scientific idea" in the modern sense of science, it was just a guess on the part of Aristotle that turned out to be a totally wrong guess. It wasn't based upon any actual physical theories or explanations.

Clearly, your "understanding" of science is not based upon science, but instead it must necessarily be some sort of metaphysical philosophical view. If you are thinking of "gravity" as being some sort of thing that is something other than a behavioral property of our universe, then you aren't thinking of gravity scientifically.

You are trying to make a "ghost" out of gravity. It's no wonder that you then view it as being no different from a "god".

No, you "appear" to be "trying" to create an "argument" for me of whole "cloth" – or if you "prefer," a "man" out of "straw," so to "speak." (Gratuitous random scare quotes added for emphasis. ) You don't know what I'm trying to do until I tell you, and I never suggested anything like making a ghost out of gravity.

You are if you are claiming that Gravity is the same type of concept as a God.

But I don’t think of gravity in any of the ways you have ascribed to me, so this most recent lecture in your ongoing series of lectures on science and metaphysics is mostly irrelevant. I do consider gravity to be a theoretical explanation that is distinct from mere observation of its effects, however, and I am surprised that with such thoroughgoing knowledge of all things scientific you would disagree.

In modern science that's what a theory is. It's is nothing other than an explanation for what we observe.

You are the one who wants to compare the concept of "God" with gravity. Well gravity is an explanation of a very specific observation.

Therefore if you want to create a "God" that is the same as gravity you must identify precisely what observation you wish to call "God".

And then we can move forward from there scientifically.

By the way if you are claiming that God is analogous with Gravity then you are necessarily claiming that God is nothing other than a property of the universe.

That wouldn't be much of a God.

Granted, but again you're just thrashing strawmen with this. I never suggested that an analogue is identical in every respect to its target (indeed, by definition it is not). That's why I specifically stated: "I understand gravity to be a hypothesis to explain observations. And in that respect if no other, God and gravity are analogous. "

In that case what observation are you attempting to explain by your concept of "God"?

And does your "God" actually explain this observation? Or it is you concept of "God" just an excuse to say that you can't figure out how to explain it so you're "God Explanation" is simply an attempt to escape having to explain it by saying that some invisible magician did it?

I mean, you compared this with Gravity. In the case of Gravity Isaac Newton made great strides by showing that gravity is directly related to mass, and that it acts universally throughout the entire universe not just here on earth. Einstein then took this much further by showing how the pretense of mass actually warps the fabric of spacetime thus causing the effects of gravity.

What does your "God Theory" explain?

Does your "God Theory" explain how the universe came to be in its present condition? Or is your "God Theory" nothing other than a cop-out to just say, "I have no clue how the universe came to be therefore I hypothesis that a magical God did it".

That would hardly be analogous with a scientific Theory of Gravity.

Your "God Theory" is far more like the Aristotelian theory of Gravity, which wasn't a scientific theory at all. It was just an intuitive guess that turned out to be totally false.

[wiploc]

A reductio ad absurdum aims to show that a particular hypothesis has seemingly absurd implications. That's exactly what Hilbert's Hotel is doing.

Hilbert's Hotel demonstrates how transfinite math works. This seems incredible to people not used to transfinite math, even as irrational numbers seemed incredible to Pythagoras, even as subtracting three from two seems incredible to first graders, even as using irrational numbers to design computer chips seems incredible to me.

It seems incredible to people who aren't that familiar with transfinite mathematics.

That's not really an argument. It's really just a way of prejudicing less-educated people.

If, say, anal intercourse appalled me, that wouldn't mean I should be against gay marriage. I don't have to be prejudiced against what I don't understand. But many theists actively promote the belief that if you aren't comfortable with transfinite mathematics, you ought to believe that it is false, that it is a tool of Satan, that it is a conspiracy of liberal mathematicians, that it is deception, that it is wrong.

That is an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.

It is unconscionable.

The relevant question is not whether transfinite math seems weird to some people. One relevant question is whether it is a useful description of reality. Does it help scientists describe observed phenomena? The other relevant question is whether transfinite math contradicts itself.

We aren't interested in whether it contradicts other mathematical systems. Certified public accountants use negative numbers all the time, even though their mathematical system contradicts that of first graders.

We don't consider finite math to be wrong because it doesn't work the same as transfinite math, so we shouldn't consider transfinite math to be wrong because it doesn't work the same way as finite math

I don't like S5 (a rule having to do with one system of logic that some people to use to "prove" that a god exists). Do I therefore denounce that system, say it must be false since it doesn't work in a familiar way? No, I assume (as I assume of transfinite math) that it is good for something, even though I don't know what. And I demonstrate that S5 can be used to prove a god's non-existence as easily as his existence.

There is nothing absurd in the outcomes of the Monty Hall dilemma. They are fully comprehensible for anyone who cares to look at the explanation.

Seems absurd to me. I had to work hard to get past that absurdity. I'll bet there are a lot of people who can't get past it. Not as smart as me, not as educated maybe, not as motivated, or just tried on the wrong day. I'll bet a lot of people can't do it at all.

I'll bet a lot of people can't understand transfinite math too.

The real question isn't whether I understand like transfinite math. The question, since I'm not an expert myself, is what the experts think.

I've never heard anyone say that infinities don't exist, excepting only people purporting to prove the existence of gods. So I found three physics professors, and asked each of them whether infinities actually exist in the real world. Not one of them opined that they don't exist.

So, as far as I can tell, the claim that infinities don't exist is bogus. The sort of claim made by people who don't care how logical an argument is so long as it seems to come out the way they want. It is the argument of motivated believers, of people who know what they believe, and wish they had an argument to justify that belief.

Just because mathematics can accommodate infinity it does not follow that reality can.

Bertrand Russell said something like, "Where the experts are agreed, the layman does well not to hold the opposite opinion. Where the experts are disagreed, the layman does well not to hold any opinion at all."

If you show me a scientific consensus that infinities don't exist in reality, then I'll probably believe that is the case. (I'll have to believe, in consequence, that all movement consists of a series of teleportations, and that the circumference of the universe has jaggies, but if I have to then I have to.) And if you show me that the experts are substantially divided on the topic, then I'll have to retain my stance of not knowing what to believe.

But all I've been shown so far is that many theists are willing to pretend that incomprehension should be considered a persuasive argument.

That dog won't hunt.

No it wouldn't, if we postulate a God that does not exist in time. We cannot do the same for the universe, as we know that it exists inside time and space.

[/quote]

William Lane Craig insists that god exists in time and space. You can postulate that god doesn't exist anywhere or at any time if you want, but if gods can have timeless/space-less aspects, then why can't hotdogs or cosmic eggs?

One thing is clear: There is nothing less absurd or contradictory about a timeless cause than there is about Hilbert's Hotel. If, on that ground, we are supposed to reject one, then we should also reject the other.

The fact that those arguments (Hilbert's Hotel and the first cause argument) circulate without criticism in the same group of people is proof of bad faith, fraudulent intent.

PLEASE NOTE that I'm not saying that you personally have bad faith or fraudulent intent. On the contrary, I assume that you argue in good faith. What I am saying is that there is an obvious contradiction in believing that incongruity disproves Hilbert's Hotel but doesn't disprove a timeless cause. I'm saying that it is impossible for the group of religious leaders who keep these arguments circulating together not to have noticed that they contradict each other. The fact that they still keep both in circulation is proof of bad faith on their part.

[otseng]

I entirely agree with you about my belief the universe has always been. It is simply my own intuition. When given the choice between the universe coming into existence from nothing and the alternative that it has always been, the latter makes infinitely more sense to me.

Well, then if evidence is not necessary for beliefs, then theists believing in God based on faith alone should not be a problem either.

That there are physicists who agree with me, is of no great importance to me.

I assume you mean physicists who do not agree with you.

My central postulate is that this 'eternity principle' or whatever you want to call it, is at least as justifiable for what we know is here [the universe] as it is for some speculative 'ground of being' + personality called 'God.'

As I mentioned, science goes against the idea of an eternal universe.

If you want to believe science, you can't posit an eternal universe.

Why do you say that?

One reason is the second law of thermo. If the universe was eternal, then we would've reached the heat death by now. Since we are not at the heat death, the universe is not eternal.

Also, if one believes the Big Bang theory, then the universe could not be eternal.

As for God being eternal, God is not bound by science.

Talk about special pleading.

Would you agree that science is the study of the natural world? Since God created the natural world, God is not bound by science.

Is he by any chance bound by logic?

For purposes of discussions about God, yes, God is bound by logic.

[Divine Insight]

Well, then if evidence is not necessary for beliefs, then theists believing in God based on faith alone should not be a problem either.

Personally I have absolutely no problem at all with people believing in anything they so desire on faith alone.

All I ask is that they own up to it honestly and quit preaching to others as though its anything more than that.

The reason I find Christianity and Christendom so disgusting is because of their arrogance (both the authors of the Bible and the followers of that dogma), not because they confess that they merely believe in the religion as a matter of pure faith. If that were the case then the religion wouldn't be the problem that it is.

Any Christian who truly understands that their belief is based on pure faith should be able to totally accept the faith-based beliefs of anyone else as being just as valid as their own faith. Including atheists.

But that is seldom if ever the case.

[wiploc]

If you want to believe science, you can't posit an eternal universe.

Why do you say that?

One reason is the second law of thermo. If the universe was eternal, then we would've reached the heat death by now. Since we are not at the heat death, the universe is not eternal.

2LOT (2nd law of thermodynamics) is about an average, a strong tendency. The more particles involved, the stronger the tendency. Thus, the bigger the system that we're considering, the stronger the tendency of entropy to increase.

Here's an illustration of the principle. I've read this illustration three times in my life, provided by three different authors, over a period of decades. That is to say, I suspect that there's something to it, but I cannot attest to its accuracy of my own authority. (I don't have any authority, can't do much math. When I saw the equation for 2LOT, the only thing I recognized was the equals sign.)

=== Illustration ===

If you hang a bucket of water over a fire, you expect the heat from the fire to go into the water. That is, heat moves from high concentration to low; the water warms up, and the fire cools off.

But it could go the other way. The heat from the water could go into the fire. The water could freeze, while making the fire hotter. There's no reason it couldn't happen. It's just that on average, the heat tends to flow from hot to cold. How strong is this tendency? So strong that, if you could fill the known universe with buckets of water over fires, and keep it that way from the big bang until now, you wouldn't expect to observe the water freezing one time.

=== End of illustration ===

But on a small scale, with fewer molecules involved, the tendency is not so strong. You can imagine an experiment with, say, twelve kernels of popcorn. Sometimes, more kernels will land on the high platform than the low platform, or move from the big pan to the small pan, or whatever. Not only is this conceivable, it will happen if you give you give the experiment enough tries.

A cosmic egg is very small, a single particle. I don't know that 2LOT has any sway over that at all. So, if, for instance, we have an accordion universe (big bang, big crunch, repeat indefinitely)---which I don't think anybody believes in anymore, but it still illustrates the principle---then it's possible to reset entropy back to zero (or whatever the minimum is) every time. The universe could go on forever.

In any case, 2LOT only matters from the big bang on. We don't know what happened before that.

Also, if one believes the Big Bang theory, then the universe could not be eternal.

News to me. Why do you say that?

I definitely believe in the big bang, so I want to know how this constrains my other views.

Asimov and Hawking both say the big bang was the beginning, but then they both hedge by saying something like, "At least we can call it the beginning, because we don't know what happened before that."

That bothered me enough that I went up on campus and found me a cosmologist. I put to him the question of whether the big bang was really the beginning. He said, "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang."

So it's my impression that this is not a settled issue. But if you can show me a scientific consensus that nothing happened before the big bang, then I'm likely to change my mind.

So why do you say that, given the big bang, the universe cannot be eternal?


I have disturbing news. I asked the cosmologist what the currently (this was probably ten years ago) most popular theory was. He said it was that the farther back you went, the closer you got to the big bang, the more time slowed down. Thus, the big band was [in what fricking sense?] infinitely long ago!

So it seems like it may be possible that the universe is infinitely old even if it did begin at the big bang.

But I have to tell you that I don't like that theory at all. If time slows down, what does it slow down relative to? It just makes no sense to me, none at all. I hate it.

But, Bertrand Russell said something like, "Where the experts are agreed, the layman does well not to hold the opposite opinion. Where the experts disagree, the layman does well not to hold any opinion." So, even though it seems like garbage, I have to entertain the possibility, since it is (or was) the most popular opinion among people who have a right to have an opinion.

But it still sucks, even if it's true.


In any case, I await your reasoning: Why don't I get to believe the universe is eternal?


Not that I think it's eternal! I don't have any idea.

As for God being eternal, God is not bound by science.

Talk about special pleading.

Would you agree that science is the study of the natural world?

Yes.

Since God created the natural world, God is not bound by science.

Special pleading, circular reasoning, begging the question.

Is he by any chance bound by logic?

For purposes of discussions about God, yes, God is bound by logic.

Good answer.

[UFO]

Some people believe that gods do not exist. (One can call this position "atheism" or "strong atheism" or "anti-theist perversion," anything you want. But we aren't going to argue terminology in this thread. Clarity is good, so you can explain what you personally mean by "atheist," but you shouldn't suggest that other usages are inferior.)

This thread is to make a list of arguments, of reasons to believe that theism is false.

And we can discuss the soundness of those arguments.

I'll start:

1. The Parable of the Pawnbroker.
(I'll just post titles here, so as not to take too much space at the top of each thread.)

2. Presumptive Falsity of Outrageous Claims.



Feel free to add to this list.

It's easy to create a belief and almost imposible to prove it to be real to anyone other than the believer who created it. Generally speaking, we can list reasons why we don't believe in any god, but it would be a lot harder to prove theism is false because there's so many off-shoots of it!
One God should have one belief. The fact that's not the case, to me, indicates itself that theism, in regards to Christianity, is false.
So to add to the list in some fashion:
the ease of claimed belief &
the various branches of the same religion for the same god.

[KenRU]

You have evidence that god exists? I’d love to learn more.

That probably deserves another thread, or perhaps just revisiting some old threads. For now I will merely suggest that we have at least as much evidence that a self-existent creator exists as we have evidence that the observable universe has the property of self-existence.

God being the Creator does not exempt him from being defined or understood. If he can’t be, then you admit to him being more complex than our natural laws and consequently, more complex than a self-sustaining or self-causing universe.

A few points here:

1. God's being more complex than natural laws does not follow from his being less than completely defined or understood. (Besides, if the history of science teaches us anything, it's that we don't understand natural laws nearly as well as we think we do.)

So, an eternal universe can be more complex and difficult to explain then god? Please elaborate on your thinking here.

So, if your argument that “we don’t understand natural laws nearly as well as we think we do� is accurate, then wouldn’t that also mean we couldn’t possibly hope to know anything about god? How else would we know god exists and interacts? If we do not know the natural laws well, how do we know that unexplained natural laws are not the causes that make theists think a god exists?

2. Even given the premise of God's greater complexity, there is no reason to think that a more complex entity is less likely to exist than a simpler entity. … The existence of a contingent universe needs an explanation beyond itself, especially for those who demand scientific rather than metaphysical explanations.

Without debating which is more likely (complex or simple), it is relevant when trying to explain an event, and it is relevant when the explanation raises more questions than answers.

I never maintained the universe needs a cause. Until we have more evidence one way or the other, I maintain that I do not know. You seem to want to use science to make an argument that the universe needs a cause, yet sidestep science when it shows valid models that a Cause is not necessary.

3. As long as we're discussing definitions: I mentioned that "under no definition of naturalism is the natural universe itself sentient." If you agree, then the burden of proof for your side of this debate is to show just how a non-sentient universe managed to bring forth sentience – let alone intelligence, moral awareness, etc.

Evolution is sufficient to explain sentiency. There are numerous examples of remarkable intelligence in nature: Primates and dolphins exhibit intelligence, altruism and other examples closely resembling what we call sentience. (read E. Linden’s The Parrot’s Lament if you would like many such examples).

4. Without derailing the thread, I should mention that God is held by many sophisticated thinkers (Richard Swinburne among others) to be the simplest possible cosmological hypothesis.

I respectfully disagree that god is in any way a simpler answer.

In simplest terms, we have the natural world and evidence which supports much of how it works and we have no evidence of a supernatural world. The only evidence (that I have ever been confronted with anyway) for a supernnatural world has been the absence of science to explain the things we do not know currently. That is not evidence.

In terms of metaphysics I think it would be less presumptuous to simply say that we have the observable universe, and we are not sure how and why it is here, or how and why we are here to observe it. It all seems to call for an explanation. God as creator would supply one such explanation. The universe existing, on the other hand, would not explain its existence.

If god does not need an explanation, why does the universe need one? If god can exist eternally, why can’t the universe?

But don't get tripped up with semantics. If you're convinced that everything that exists rightly belongs to the natural (and vice-versa), we could easily conceive of God not as a supernatural but a higher-dimensional entity. That would place God in the same meta-cosmological category as various entities postulated by M-theory.

…

To simply say "the universe is all there is" would be nice and parsimonious, if the universe happened to exhibit properties of self-existence or eternality or infinity. But all the evidence we have at our disposal suggests the universe to be contingent, temporal and finite. From a cosmological standpoint, naturalism therefore borders on incoherence.

Again, there are many models (see L Krauss) that explain how the universe came to be. So, no, it is certainly not incoherent, and, again, not knowing is no reason to postulate something as incomprehensible as an omnipotent, omniscient, higher-dimensional being.

If you want to argue that aliens can be the cause, please, go ahead and argue that it is just as likely a cause as is god.

If you have evidence which supports a Creator, please present such evidence.

I have my doubts whether you and I share the same understanding of what constitutes "evidence." Just so that we don't waste lots of time talking past one another, please first let me know what exactly you think evidence is and then I'll do my best to either supply said evidence or correct your understanding of what it is.

I do not consider lack of proof or lack of understanding or lack of knowledge evidence. Personal experiences such as “god spoke to me� are also incredibly unreliable and often have other causes than a supernatural origin.

I have no wish to “talk past one another� either. Natural laws being violated would be a good example of evidence, but instead of me defining evidence, why not show me why my assertion that there is no evidence to believe in a god or gods is incorrect by providing your evidence?

All the best,

Thanks for that. It's all too easy for most of us to overlook common courtesy during debates and disagreements.

Of course. Sometimes my writing comes across as more harsh then I wish and consequently the tone in my head is not accurately represented, lol.

-All the best,

[KenRU]

Not to mention we don’t necessarily know a Cause (or cause) is definitely necessary.

If the universe began to exist, then it requires a cause.

And if it didn’t begin (always was) then it doesn’t.

If the universe caused itself, then like I said, it violates the principle of causality.

See above.

You have no evidence that the universe needs a Creator, and no evidence that says the universe could not have existed in any other varied form.

And you have evidence that our universe existed in another form?

That’s the point. Since this origin is still unknown, I fail to see how a Creator is either necessary or the best explanation. Why the need to go outside of nature for an explanation?

Do you have another explanation other than a supernatural explanation?

Lawrence Krauss explains there are many such models. I see no reason to believe an extraordinary claim over a natural one by a theoretical physicist.

I’m not making an “appeal to authority� here. I’ve already admitted to not knowing. But if you’re asking me what is a reasonable possibility, then I’ll go with one of the models he spoke of.

I’m not sure I agree that the god of the gaps argument is non-falsifiable. But even if I did, the overall point is that god’s abilities and properties (in this case) become smaller and less grandiose. Correct?

If it is a God of the gaps argument, yes. But, like I said, I'm not making a God of the gaps argument.

If one of Krauss’s models ever becomes proven true, then you are.

-All the best,