I suppose what's confusing me about this line of thinking is that a "default position" is not necessarily a well reasoned position, it could simply be one based on one's own presuppositions and biases. What exactly does a default position prove about anything? Or was it just your own personal exploration of other's default positions out of curiosity?
I admit I'm bastardizing the utility of the default position, since a default position is always trumped or proven by scientific evidence, but in the absence of scientific evidence, then all we have to go on is the default position. Since I've found no scientific evidence for or against the existence of Deity of any form, then I'm left with developing a default position on the subject. As pointed out previously, default positions are subjective, and so this post is my fulfilling my curiosity about the basis for default positions other than my own.
The usual utility of the default position is to establish an 'assumed' result of an experiment when there is no factual or evidential basis to have an actual scientific prediction. For instance, before the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was conceived, the default position on the state of an object without observation would be that the object would have the same state as the state you find it in after observation, in other words, if I have a cat in a box, the cat is already either dead or alive, and my observation by opening the box merely confirms this. However, the default position of the copenhagen interpretation changes this to say that the cat exists in both states simultaneously, thereby providing a new default position on the subject of the cat's state of life or death. So, whatever your preferred theory to describe the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is, is what defines what you assume to be the default state of an unobserved particle. The Copenhagen interpretation has a lot of problems, but it solves others, therefore it's still in contention, but it may not be for too much longer, a 'weak' method of observation is under experimentation that could break the heisenberg uncertainty principle. I can try to find the paper on this if you'd like.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
Furthermore...
1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
A cause needs a causer. Only someone/thing outside of time and space can cause time and space to begin.
I can agree with all of this, it does not, however, require that God exist. I think it's more likely that a non-intelligent agent is the cause of the universe's inception than an intelligent agent, much like when two rocks in space collide (defining the system as the interaction between the two rocks), it's more likely that neither rock was thrown by an intelligent hand then it is that they're space debris put in their current trajectories by gravitational forces. The actual forces that made the system possible by setting the vector of the rocks are not a part of the system (thereby making this an open system), but the forces are not intelligent.
Pushing the scope of view on this further incurs the same logical problem with both a God process and a natural process: Both rely on an infinite string of processes to create a universe (In one, God is infinite in power, scope, and existence, in another, successive naturalistic processes are required). This is an area that needs much more research, and we're working on it.
I've heard it argued that omniscience, though helpful, is not necessary. This is not a stance I take, but anyhow... And I disagree that God must need to align the universe to mask his existence. In fact, I'd argue that the universe reveals his existence, and that he has also revealed himself through his Son.
This is two fold. The omniscience is a requirement of being able to mask his existence from us in terms of scientific inquiry. If it could be proven that God exists, then God need not be omniscient, but if no scientific proof exists to prove God's existence, then God must be omniscient to have set that up. Unfortunately I'm possessed of a very empirical mind, for the universe to reveal God's existence to me would require some form of scientific proof of his existence, in the absence of this, the universe does not reveal the existence of God. Jesus being the son of God is a topic in contention- we'd start talking about Jews, Muslims, etc, if we went here and so it's not proof of God either (even if you can validate his existence, which is a possibility- Jesus may very well exist, but his having lived is not proof of his half-divinity).
If the naturalist assumes that there are laws that have not yet been comprehended then it seems to me that this would possibly include the supernatural. I agree that there is no necessity to assume anything, but it's a bit closed minded if you ask me.
This is absolutely true, and it can be backed up. Lightning was once the domain of the supernatural... a Zeus's wrath striking down from the heavens, but it is now explained using scientific reasoning and proof. The supernatural is only supernatural as long as we can't explain it using known laws of nature. Taking this further (and off topic) I give you this thought set:
Anything defined by science, can be used in technology, like quantum processors, neural nets, lightning (electricity), and light (lasers)
Anything useable in technology can be used by humans to effect goals
Anything supernatural can eventually be defined using science, thereby making it no longer supernatural.
God's power uses the supernatural to effect powerful changes to reality
So, if we can define the supernatural to make it science in the future, and use science in technology to achieve our goals, and God's power is supernatural, then through science we can achieve the power of God for ourselves. If we can achieve the power of God in our future, are we then God's, or was God not truly a God to begin with?
This line of logic breaks if the supernatural cannot all be defined by science, but then, if not all supernatural can be defined by science, then that's one really big assumption without a backing of proof.