What's More Difficult to Believe?

[Zinjanthropos]

A creator god or a creator god that just popped into existence? With the Abrahamic god, I would almost think that 'just is' is the best way to avoid tackling the issue of how God got there. Tells me that perhaps explaining a god's origins defies even belief. Would a story/belief re God's origin make the primary belief(God) more unbelievable?

[Secular Sanity]

Goddidit is a logical fallacy—an appeal to ignorance.

God on the Brain Diminishes Discovery

[Syne]

A creator god or a creator god that just popped into existence? With the Abrahamic god, I would almost think that 'just is' is the best way to avoid tackling the issue of how God got there. Tells me that perhaps explaining a god's origins defies even belief. Would a story/belief re God's origin make the primary belief(God) more unbelievable?

How is an eternal god different from an eternal universe some argue to avoid a beginning altogether? Just the veneer of science?
Personally, I have no trouble seeing god's origin, like creation itself, as ex nihilo.

God on the Brain Diminishes Discovery

Yet many of the most important scientific discoveries came from religious people, including clergy.

What ignorant people always fail to realize is that religion is a step up from superstition, where the avarice of evil spirits give way to an orderly and understandable world because of the belief that it was designed to be so.

[Secular Sanity]

How is an eternal god different from an eternal universe some argue to avoid a beginning altogether? Just the veneer of science?

No. The difference is mental representation—intentionality.

[Magical Realist]

Since there is evidence of the universe but no evidence for a God, it is far easier to believe in the universe regardless of how it came to be.

[Syne]

How is an eternal god different from an eternal universe some argue to avoid a beginning altogether? Just the veneer of science?

No. The difference is mental representation—intentionality.

Yeah, using the validity of science to invoke science of the gaps. Just a more academically respectable veneer.

Since there is evidence of the universe but no evidence for a God, it is far easier to believe in the universe regardless of how it came to be.

Thanks for proving my point. You're just as fine with saying the universe "just is" as a theist justifying god.

[Zinjanthropos]

How is an eternal god different from an eternal universe some argue to avoid a beginning altogether? Just the veneer of science? 
Personally, I have no trouble seeing god's origin, like creation itself, as ex nihilo. 

I have no problem with that since many people tend to think everything (that would include us) came from nothing. I have trouble with coming from nothing fully equipped and omni everything. What wonderful and fantastic process could have occurred for that to happen?

[Magical Realist]

Thanks for proving my point. You're just as fine with saying the universe "just is" as a theist justifying god.

Yeah..reality just is. What a radical concept.

[C C]

A creator god or a creator god that just popped into existence? With the Abrahamic god, I would almost think that 'just is' is the best way to avoid tackling the issue of how God got there. Tells me that perhaps explaining a god's origins defies even belief. Would a story/belief re God's origin make the primary belief(God) more unbelievable?

There's classification error probably transpiring in some popular folk philosophy questions, where "cause" or "provenance" -- or whatever term is applicable -- is treated as more fundamental than the existence concept. (The classic "why is there something rather than nothing?" seems to be among the fruit of the error.)

Presentism also either contributes to such or is the very source of it. What with its temporal view of one global state of all be-ing receiving annihilation as it gets replaced by a slightly altered state of either the cosmos or mega-cosmos in a milliseconds interval. (The discriminations of human awareness speciously becoming the yardstick rather than what would be the actual and even more ephemeral instant of the "quickest" subatomic event [yoctosecond or less]). That spontaneous annihilation and creation cycle repeatedly occurring while consistency is magically maintained throughout the changes over billions of years. (I.e., "the process and its maintained coherence just brutely happens" without another level of mechanism or hidden apparatus to provide the regulation and stability.)

- - -

[Syne]

How is an eternal god different from an eternal universe some argue to avoid a beginning altogether? Just the veneer of science? 
Personally, I have no trouble seeing god's origin, like creation itself, as ex nihilo. 

I have no problem with that since many people tend to think everything (that would include us) came from nothing. I have trouble with coming from nothing fully equipped and omni everything. What wonderful and fantastic process could have occurred for that to happen?

The exact same process Guth (the father of inflationary cosmology) describes as the "ultimate free lunch". If you can get a whole universe from nothing, why not something similarly as grand? Granted, a more nuanced description of god may be more conducive.

Thanks for proving my point. You're just as fine with saying the universe "just is" as a theist justifying god.

Yeah..reality just is. What a radical concept.

Of course it is, but the point is that you are just as unconcerned about its origin as Christians are the origin of god.

Don't worry, you're in good company. Lot's of very well-meaning people.