Uncertainty and the vicissitudes of life can infantalize. Some people retreat for comfort to a time when they relied on a Strong Father to protect and care for them, to explain things, to dictate wrong and right, and prescribe proper behavior. Children are relieved of the burden of thought and reflection. Some adults seek the same solace from religious mythology or Charismatic leaders.
Agreed. And that's a good description of what I meant by comfort coming from religious belief and why it is so appealing to take that leap of faith and embrace gods as real, especially the god of Abraham, who allegedly offers an afterlife and paradise, and who answers prayer and protects us.
Can you prove this? What evidence or proof do you have to make this positive claim?
His claim doesn't need evidence. It wasn't an existential claim. Another poster wrote, "There are three proposals in regards to the advent of existence. That it is eternal, that it just poofed into being from nothingness, or that it is the deliberate result of an unknown source that transcends the limitations that create and define it."
He presented a fourth logical possibility. "A fourth: That there are fixed laws and constants, of unknown origin, and that the universe we see is the natural and unguided unfolding of these."
If you want to argue that this is included in one of the three proposed, you can do that, but it won't be an evidenced argument, just pure reason.
Really not to argue, but I do wonder if you believe/think it is possible there are things we cannot see but exist and we may never see them with our physical/natural eyes, yet they exist?
Many have answered you already before I saw your question, so I don't think you need to read another form of a yes answer. What intrigues me is why you asked this question. You must know the answer before you asked. Much of reality is invisible to the unaided senses. You've (likely) never seen a virus without a microscope, and you know that you haven't, so why ask that question? Or maybe you don't believe viruses exist because you can't see one with the unaided eye.
No scientist has ever seen the beginning of the universe.
Correct.
Generally, when a creationist makes a comment like that, it's to make an argument of the form, "If there are no pictures, it didn't happen." Is that your reason for posting that? Hopefully, you had a reason, know what it was, and can articulate it.
it's logical that there is a God that transcends the universe
It is not logical to believe that. It is logical to consider it a possibility.
Incidentally, "a God" is kind of an awkward phrase. Capital-G "God" often refers to a specific god, which is most commonly the god of Abraham given the dominance of Christianity and Islam in the world. When referring to gods in the generic sense, small-g "gods" is the right way to spell that.
If I understand correctly they're "seen" perhaps by electronic devices.
Yes, which in turn generate signals that are evident to the senses - maybe an image through a telescope or microscope, or sound on a Geiger counter, or a cloud chamber graphic.
This is just empty gibberish that says nothing.
You hold yourself up as qualified to make such judgments, but your own writing is replete with gibberish.
Or like trying to comprehend 'God' (the transcendence of both something and nothing).
There was some now
I don't play the kangaroo court game.
Critical thinkers call it critical analysis. Judging is what minds do, and the better they do it, the better their lives.
For all we know energy is 'God's will'. But no atheist is ever going to accept that possibility.
If you could articulate unambiguously what that means, then we could hold "kangaroo court" and give you a judgment. Maybe that's some expression of pantheism or panentheism. If so, sure, that's a logical possibility.
Oh look - I just falsified your claim! Imagine that - you making false claims about atheists.
All we can do is speculate, and assess those speculations logically ... It's not about knowing. It's about embracing the possibilities.
Yes, but how long does that take? We can come to the end of any analysis, which may include a list of logical possibilities none of which can be ruled in or out, but perhaps they can be ordered according to the parsimony principle. At that point, further dwelling on the matter is fruitless.
It's not about being comfortable. It's about being curious. Being human.
Disagree. Many curious human beings don't need a god belief or a religion, and it's obviously because unlike those who do gravitate toward such "answers," they do nothing for him. They meet no need and answer no questions.
When I left Christianity, it was quite uncomfortable for a year. I found myself praying to a god that I no longer believed in, or rather, was in the process of weaning myself from. Initially, I would pray, "Jesus, if you're there, if I'm wrong, give me a sign." If that angst had never resolved itself, I'd have gone back to the religion for comfort, to relieve the anxiety caused by uncertainty. Fortunately, that "addiction" waned, just as it did when quitting cigarettes - a remarkably similar and equally difficult process.
Your foolish worship of science is stopping you from even understanding the question at hand. You can keep throwing your science turds around if you want, but so far you haven't even entered the conversation. Because it's a philosophical discussion/debate. Not science.
This is you representing again as seeing further, your chief conceit. Others just can't keep up with you, right? They're mired in scientism, whereas you've been liberated from that human failing and have discovered secret other ways of knowing, right? But you never seem to notice that your "insights" can't be articulated, and that your special way of thinking causes you to dwell on the irrelevant.
His thinking is disciplined. Yours is not, and somehow, that gets you into a pique. That's when you revert to this angry "scientism" mode. Somebody has offended you just by being cool and rational. There is no rational reason for you to have an emotional reaction. Maybe you've noticed that the people that you argue with rarely do that, or if they do, it's for an obvious reason, measured, and brief. You fly off the handle ("foolish," "idiotic," "turd") at zero provocation and for no apparent reason.