Thoughts in a Haystack

Occam's razor.

Two things (God->Universe) vs. one thing (Universe).

Bayesian probability.

Either belief assumes the existence of that which is believed, but the existence of the Universe is self-evident and the existence of a deity is not, and the ultimate causation of either is also unknown.
 

In fairness, Occam's razor is merely a "first approximation" -- a rule for making a "best guess" -- not itself evidence. And it is notoriously hard to actually apply (what is the "simplest" proposition to explain a highly complex phenonomon such as the universe?).

Bayesian probability only works when you can actually estimate probabilities. Any attempt to assess the probabilities of the non-existence of a "designer" run afoul of the same problems as we accuse William Dembski of ignoring: it is as impossible to calculate the probabilities of the lack of a disembodied "design" of the universe as it is to do so for disembodied "design."

Concepts of God that permit the acceptance of the empiric results of science, such as those of Francisco Ayala, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ken Miller, et al., are immune to probability calculations based on science's observation of the material universe. In any event, what you find self-evident, or not, is hardly "proof."
 

In any event, what you find self-evident, or not, is hardly "proof."

It's either assume as a given the Universe exists or solipsism.

You seem to be saying that the only way out of the impasse is "proof" - but metaphysical proofs are hard to come by.

I can't give proofs, but I can give other reasons; for example, it's not truly explanatory.

If there were a need to have a Creator to explain the Universe, why is there no similar need to have a Creator's Creator to explain the Creator? Ad infinitum...

To create a God to explain the universe, but then fail to explain the God seems sophistry. The problem of ultimate origin has merely been put aside and ignored.
 

It's either assume as a given the Universe exists or solipsism.

Perhaps I was unclear. The assertion that a creator is not self evident is neither proof nor evidence. As for solipsism, while it is unworkable as a "life philosophy" (except for some eastern mystics who have a lot of help from their friends), it is a correct statement of the problem of knowledge. There are a lot of assumptions that go into any talk of "existence."

You seem to be saying that the only way out of the impasse is "proof"

First of all, I don't post these "thoughts" from other people because I necessarily agree with them (if I think they're stupid I'll indicate that) but because I think they are interesting or thought provoking. James used the word "proven," so I went with that and, in practice, he is right, I think, to use the word in the context of the clash between atheists and religionists. Whatever the origin of the belief (and, excuse me if I don't believe that any belief system held as passionately as some atheists hold theirs arises solely from reason), once a position has been adopted as a "personal identifier" ("I'm an atheist" or "I'm a Christian") , no argument short of a "proof" will usually suffice to force an admission of being wrong or even of serious doubt.

If there were a need to have a Creator to explain the Universe, why is there no similar need to have a Creator's Creator to explain the Creator? Ad infinitum...

If there is no need to explain the existence of the phenomenon called "the universe," why is there a need to explain the phenomenon that things fall to the Earth? But that's what science does! This is something that I've meant to blog on for a while (and I will get around to it, so I don't want to explain here in depth) but the cosmological argument, if nothing else, poses a nasty choice for the atheist.

Science is a search for the cause of natural phenomenon within those regularities we call "natural law." Science assumes that every natural phenomenon has a cause and, what's more, that the cause precedes the effect. Yet, when it comes to the question of the origin of the universe (or the cosmos, if you want to appeal to a multiverse), the selfsame atheists, whose most potent arguments for their position are the results of science, suddenly throw it over and, in various ways, deny that the natural universe has a cause or that such a cause precedes the effect. When it comes to the most basic natural phenomenon, the very existence of the universe, science is discarded in order to maintain their philosophy. They are like a cavalryman in the old west who, surrounded by native warriors, shoots his own horse to provide a last desperate bit of cover.

To create a God to explain the universe, but then fail to explain the God seems sophistry.

No more so than to create science to explain the universe and then to fail to use it to explain the most basic phenomenon of the universe.
 

Thank you; and may I say you make a good devil's advocate.
 

You're welcome. In my opinion, the best way to understand the positions of those you disagree with as well as your own is to seriously attempt to make your opponents' case for them.