The most common rationalization for the lack of scientific
evidence is the "God must remain hidden" argument. See for
details.
Many believers try to rationalize God's existence by saying
something like this: "The existence of the universe proves God's
existence. Something had to create the universe. Science has no
explanation for the universe's creation. Therefore, God created
it."
The way to understand that this is a rationalization is to look
back in history. Ancient people, before they had science, explained
many things that they did not understand with "gods." There have
been sun gods, thunder gods, fertility gods, rain gods, etc.
The Bible works the same way. It tries to explain many things
that its ancient authors did not understand by attributing them in
God. For example, if you read Genesis 9:12-13 you will find
this:
This is the Bible's explanation of rainbows. Of course we now
know that rainbows are a prismatic effect of raindrops. In the same
way, Genesis chapter 3 tries to explain why human childbirth is so
painful and Genesis chapter 11 tries to explain why there are so
many human languages. These are myths, nothing more.
In the same way, Genesis chapter 1 contains the Bible's creation
myth. The creation of the universe and life is attributed to God.
We already know that God had nothing to do with the creation of
life, but religious people still try to attribute the creation of
the universe to God.
The fact is, God had nothing to do with the creation of the
universe, in the same way that God has nothing to do with the sun
rising or rainbows appearing. Science does not have a complete
explanation for the universe's creation, yet. While it is
true that science does not yet know everything there is to know
about the universe, scientists will eventually figure it out. When
they do, what they will find is that nature created the universe,
not an imaginary being.
I wonder who you are responding to since I did not
appeal to the allegedly common "hidden God"
rationalisation. Anyway I shall offer some comments to your
post.
Most atheists who pride themselves as being scientifically
minded do not deny that the universe has a beginning. Do you
agree that the universe has a beginning? If yes, then you must also
logically agree that what has a beginning must also have a
cause.
You are insinuating that I am guilty of the God-of-the-gaps
argument, that because we don't know something, therefore God did
it. But here you are mistaken as well. I am not arguing from
ignorance, but from what we know about cause and effects. An effect
cannot be greater than its cause, qualitatively speaking. If you
deny that the universe has a Creator, then you must offer something
in its place that is adequate as a cause. Saying you don't know is
to appeal to ignorance, an atheism-of-the-gaps argument aka we
don't know what causes it but it sure ain't God.
You claimed to know that God had nothing to do with the creation
of life. Then pray tell what is the cause of life? Or the universe
for that matter? Do you really KNOW that God had nothing to do with
it, or you ASSUME because of your dogmatism of atheism presumption?
On what basis do you say God is an imaginary being? Have you proven
it? Or are you just merely asserting it?
Like many others you hold onto some form of scientism, the
BELIEF and FAITH that science will one day answer all questions.
Like I said, this betrays an ignorance of the nature and limitation
of science. Nature is an abstract noun, nature does not create
anything. It is as absurd as saying that chance can create
something. Nature is NOT a thing. Nature has no mind, no powers to
create anything. In fact, you are committing the fallacy of
reification here, and also deifying nature.
