“if it does exist, I reject that it has any effect on the natural world”
Ah. But that’s a position of faith. You don’t know it to be true, you just prefer to believe that to the alternative, which is to either admit the possibility or at least be agnostic about it and say “I don’t know”.
“This tells me that people are hardwired to seek supernatural explanations for what they cannot comprehend, and from that I draw the conclusion that man creates the god or gods that will fit a needed social construct”
Perhaps, but I could say “Scientists have constructed thousands of hypotheses, many which contradict each other. This leads me to believe that humans are hardwired to seek natural explanations, etc”. It’s not a very strong argument, I think, since you can apply it to nearly any human pursuit; thousands of ideas on how to form a government, or run a business, or raise a child, etc. The existence of differing opinions doesn’t mean that there isn’t an underlying truth or mean that one of those opinions might not actually be correct.
“just as I cannot prove the combination of natural forces that created existence”
Ah, but even this speculation is a scientific impossibility. “Natural” forces could not create existence, since they would be a part of that same existence. A thing cannot create itself.
“I rest my ‘plausability’ on the belief that no social conscience guides the earth in its daily jaunt around the sun, the searing harshness of the natural world convinces me of that...”
That’s just anthropomorphism. If there were a deity, there’s no reason to assume it would think or act like you would expect it to, so a real skeptic shouldn’t jump to such conclusions.
“Ah, but even this speculation is a scientific impossibility. “Natural” forces could not create existence, since they would be a part of that same existence. A thing cannot create itself.”
What did God do before he created out Universe? Did God create our Universe out of nothing?
‘But that’s a position of faith.’
I stated it a a belief; all beliefs rely on internal impulses for philosophical support, otherwise there would be no abstract thought at all...your statement is a non sequetur...
‘The existence of differing opinions doesn’t mean that there isn’t an underlying truth or mean that one of those opinions might not actually be correct’
I explicitly stated that my plausability does not derive from certainty; I cannot explain existence, either from a religious view or natural...I said nothing whatsoever about being ‘correct...’
‘A thing cannot create itself.’
except your god, apparantly; if you believe that God is a thing, than how do you explain it’s existence, if not created by some other thing as per your viewpoint...you might answer that God is eternal, I can answer likewise with natural forces...
‘If there were a deity, there’s no reason to assume it would think or act like you would expect it to’
does that statement not negate the entire validity of divining a god in the first place, that of seeking to bring order, harmony and meaning to life...? the Bible expends thousands of words in telling us what God thinks and does and how He expects us to act; do you think the authors thought God would not react to their actions as they would have expected him to in return...?