[ARootlessTree]

Originally Posted by Epsilon

Well I would certainly never say this to you lol. I'm sure you live a very happy life, and truth be told, as one who believes in God, although aspects of my belief relieve many burdens on me, it also does weigh on me, because belief in God demands a certain responsibility that you would otherwise not have. I believe I am accountable to something higher than myself and I need to keep that in my mind when I live my life. But I can tell you this much, if I did not believe in God, my entire world view would change, a worldview I now consider abhorrent, but such terms would be arbitrary if I had no standard by which to measure them, a standard I find in my belief in God. *2 cents*

Accountability for something higher than yourself? I see no higher accountability than the one I keep for how I treat my fellow man. I don't see how you can find a worldview like this abhorrent: one that says you should be kind simply because you can empathize and help your fellow man, and not because you fear punishment.

Originally Posted by Epsilon

I think this is a clichéd generalization. There is a substantial difference between discounting belief in a sun god, or tree god, a moon god, and discounting a belief in a prime mover God/Creator God. The former are merely aitiological beliefs attempting to explain the power and appearance of natural phenomena, phenomena that could otherwise be explained in much simpler and reasoned terms. And I do not believe the criticisms levied against belief in these sorts of gods, apply to the common belief in God as the all knowing, all powerful, all present God who created the natural world. Belief in this God is one that finds it's invitation in reason and illuminated by faith, and what I mean by this is that people, such as myself find no other recourse than to accept the existence of this being who is the uncaused caused to a finite and natural world.

No, it is not a clichéd generalization. Discounting belief in anything is the same as discounting belief in another. Conversely, believers of the Greek mythology would believe just as strongly, and potentially more so in their gods and practices than you do. Is there a substantial difference in believing in those, as compared to believing in a prime mover God/Creator God? As for that last sentence, I shall quote Benjamin Franklin: "To way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." There is no reasonability to take any philosophical or scientific stance based on faith alone.

Originally Posted by Epsilon

If we go back to the beginning of the universe, prior to the big bang we still do not know what caused the universe to spring into being, and it is my belief that there must be a cause for the creation of this universe that exists outside of the universe itself, or outside of nature.. supernatural if you will. I see this as an entirely reasonable proposition to believe. It is not a God of the gaps cop out, it is a fundamental question of logic applied to what it is we know about the universe, and what we know is that the universe is finite in age; it had a beginning, the very cause of its inception remains a mystery, a mystery I believe is explained by a cause outside of nature that creature nature, who we call God. And from this basic belief, which I believe one can arise at through reason, it is through faith where people will attribute other things to this God depending upon their religious tradition.

It is a God of the Gaps argument. Here's how:

If we go back to the beginning of the universe, prior to the big bang we still do not know what caused the universe to spring into being

That, coupled with

...it is my belief that there must be a cause for the creation of this universe that exists outside of the universe itself...

Your argument is that because there is a gap in scientific knowledge, there is a reason to believe it is God's work. First off, why God? Why God, and not some other mechanism? It could have been an astronomically sized nutcracker that caused the Big Bang. I'd like to quote Dan Barker for you, because he says it infinitely better than I could.

"The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty, but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.” As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to begging the question."