The characteristics necessary to even be a creator should limit the number of options significantly. If it is a divine being that is the creator, you can have almost an infinite number of different "gods" that could fit the bill but I would think all of those would fall under the category of theism. Regardless, you then have to move on to other evidences to see if the list narrows any.

quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "uphold" here? So, I can't answer. But, I will say creating a universe doesn't, by default, mean omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent

The universe is so vast and complex I'm not sure a being that isn't omnipotent could create such a thing, but in terms of upholding it, I'm talking about keeping it orderly instead of chaotic. Ensuring that all the laws of nature continue to act in a uniform and consistent way throughout time. If the universe is an accident, we shouldn't expect there to be any sort of uniformity or consistency in how the universe functions. In order to preserve this unity, I would think a creator would also need to be able to keep things running smoothly, which would require not only unlimited power but also unlimited knowledge and even presence.

quote:
Two things. 1. I said nothing about them not being created by something else. Hell, I'll even let you go with them being created by an omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent being. Alas, if that being created the beings that later created us, then being "religious" about it would be kinda silly.

I'll concede that you didn't mention those advanced being being created. I assumed that based on an evolutionary worldview that would require all beings to have been produced (created) out of the cosmos instead of having an infinite existence outside of it like many views of God hold to.

That said, if you trace all things caused back to a first cause, that first cause would have to lack a cause, itself. The only way imaginable that could happen is to have a first cause that is outside of the created order of the universe that is not constrained by the laws in the universe.

I would agree that just because a god or being exists that created us or created the thing(s) that created us, religious expression is not necessary by default. Additional characteristics would be needed by that sort of being/deity that would require us to worship it with religion, such as some sort of moral standard that it imposes on us that says it is good to worship it and bad not to and enforcement of that standard that would compel us to worship or suffer detrimental consequences for not doing so.

quote:
False. Even if you 100% accept that there had to be a God to "begin" everything, that could be entirely unrelated to OUR universe. Hell, it could have occurred trillions of years before our universe. We could be like a 100th hand creation by the 100th super advanced race to sprout from the original creation. And, there's no saying that the ORIGINAL creator only did it once. Dude could've done it millions of times. We could be the 100th hand creation within ONE of millions of original creations that are all being ignored as the God moves on to the next one. Hell, we could be his billionth failed experiment in a line of billions.

You see the problem yet?

No, because even in this, you are accepting the premise that a God began everything, which is ultimately the point of saying that the universe is evidence there is a God. Even if the universe is the result of a lesser, created being, that being would need to be created by that first cause God known as God. Whether it is one step removed or a billion, it goes back to the necessity of a single source that we would call "God".

quote:
Well now we've completely leapt from evidence back to pure faith.

You'll note that at no point am I insulting here. I'm not THAT atheist.

Faith is necessary regardless of facts because there is always something that we have to put trust in, even if it is that our senses are accurate and we are interpreting the facts appropriately. But that aside, I'm not talking just about faith.

What I am saying by taking all the evidences as a whole rather than one individually is that there is a bigger picture that can be obtained by examining smaller pieces of evidence. Just like in court cases where a whole body of evidence is considered, we have to look at all of the evidences available in order to help us determine what we believe to be true about God. Going back to that analogy I made previously about an eye-witness describing a perp: the eye-witness testimony may not be sufficient to convict by itself, but if there are a dozen other pieces of evidences that narrow the crime's target down to a singular individual, then the whole body of the evidence is helpful for making that determination where a singular piece won't work by itself.

quote:
Absolutely correct.

BUT. If you say, "Hey, based on that evidence, I know it was JOHN, I'm going to point out to you that you know no such thing".

Agreed. I'm not saying that the Christian/Biblical God can be fully known with all His characteristics by looking at the stars. I'm just saying that the universe supports the belief in the Christian/Biblical God and that there is ample evidence that supports that belief, even if that evidence doesn't convince everyone or hold the same weight with everyone. Different people have different thresholds of what it takes to believe something.