Wouldn’t a “creator” or “designer” had to have arisen from nothing at some point? Or did he/she themselves have a creator - if so, where did he/she come from? And if one argues that a “designer” is timeless and had no beginning, you are admitting there are eternal things, so why not save a step and say the universe itself (certainly less complex than whoever “designed” it) is itself eternal and didn’t require designing? The easiest answer to all this mess: most people desperately want there to be a higher intellegence (mostly because they want to survive death), and look for ways to justify it. Which is fine and good - but it’s not science.
I didn’t say it was science. My point is that the “scientific” explanation for the beginning of the universe is not science either. The scheme you just elaborated essentially assumes that the “universe” is, in one way or another, God.
Some people choose to put their faith into the idea that the origin of matter is random and, by consequence, everything that we think, say, and do is of no consequence at all. Others choose to believe that this life - our lives - have a purpose. What you believe is up to you.
Neither is what *science* is doing in regards to origins actually science. All *scientists* are doing is stopping at the first unknown. It's no different. It's just a matter of how far back you go.
Saying that creationists have to explain where God came from to validate their position yet not feeling obligated to explain where the universe came from is hypocritical. That's putting a burden of proof on creationists that scientists are not willing to put on themselves.
I take a sinful pleasure in pointing out the intellectual deficiencies of atheists.
You say:
“The easiest answer to all this mess: most people desperately want there to be a higher intellegence (mostly because they want to survive death)”
...which shows that you haven’t reached the next step along that line of thinking: atheists make their conclusion about divine existence in order to avoid the appearance, whether to themselves or to others, of being afraid of death. (And afraid of death they remain in the end, so it’s nothing but a waste of time for them.)
Atheists claim the need to avoid fear of death is what motivates the faithful. But why do they not acknowledge the motivation to love goodness? Logic dictates that love of goodness is at least as plausible an explanation as fear of death. In truth, it’s a far more prevalent motivation.
I wonder whether we can infer anything about the thinking of atheists, from their silence on this point.
“so why not save a step and say the universe itself (certainly less complex than whoever “designed” it) is itself eternal and didn’t require designing?”
That would seem to violate the very science non-believers use to claim a creator doesn’t exists, that through natural forces there’s a cause and effect for everything, a beginning and an end.