I find myself, as in my last post, delineating between 'universe' (the set including everything) and 'cosmos' (what we know of the current contents of the universe). Which do you mean when you say 'universe'?
When I speak of “the Universe” I am referring to the space-time continuum that we occupy, which began expanding some 13.72 billion years ago according to the Big Bang Theory.
My point is, we have not established that the universe had a beginning, so one should avoid building on that premise. That is what you appear to be doing.
There is a scientific consensus amongst cosmologists that the Universe did in fact have a finite beginning. Until new scientific data presents itself that seriously challenges this I am justified to build on such premise.
The term 'god' comes with a lot of baggage and presumptions.
Indeed, the term ‘god’ does come with many presumptions, this is why I choose not to use such term.
What if whatever created the universe (or the instantiation of the cosmos) was no more complex or intelligent than say, a toaster oven?
Then so be it. I am interested in uncovering reality, not dictating it.
Or it may just be the *appearance* of some creative intelligence at work, given the demonstrable predilection for humans to see patterns where there may be none.
Are you suggesting that patterns in nature are circumstantial evidence of a creative intelligence? It appears you are too me.
According to science the Universe is loaded with patterns. We aren’t so great at seeking them out either, even when they are right under our noses and all around us. We used to think that many things in nature were randomly arranged until Mandelbrot showed us otherwise in the mid 1970’s with his discovery of fractal and the property of self-similarity. Out of what appeared to be chaos an intricate order revealed itself.
I think of agnostic as 'it may be unknowable, or cannot be knowable' - it is not a fence-sitting position.
There is a distinction between knowledge and belief. I would never say I ‘believe’ in my sister because I 'know' her.
I don't claim to 'know' the cause of the Universe so in a sense I am agnostic. I do however maintain a weak belief that a creative intelligence played a role in bringing it about.
Depends. What do you do with this 'god' that you believe exists? Does it offer any more explanatory power than theories or hypothesis that do not evoke deities?
In my view, design (intention) provides greater explanatory power than chance (non-intention) for the nature of the Universe. The Universe exhibits profound order, harmony and regularity. Our experience of the cause and effect structure of the Universe suggests that these attributes are far better explained by design than chance.