I agree that the existence of God and the universe operating by "natural" laws are not mutually exclusive. My point is that there's little or no evidence to support the theory that God exists and that, therefore, it is illogical to believe that one does. We are constantly reminded in our daily lives that believing things without evidence leads to many false conclusions. Why do you think that this is the one case where believing without evidence is reliable?
Do you have the right to believe in God or leprechauns? Of course. Is there evidence that they exist? Not much. You are using the origin of the universe as evidence. A few centuries ago, someone might have used rain or comets, then unexplainable, as evidence. I don't think it's very much evidence. Basically, you are believing something because it makes you feel good, and that is not a reliable way of determining truth.
To the extent that logic requires the application of proven facts, you are accurate when you say that belief in God is illogical. I think your comment about there being "little evidence" of God's existence was to avoid an absolute statement, not because you acknowledge there is some evidence of his existence, so a response that any factual evidence would make the belief logical is probably not apropos.
The question is how important is a strict adherence to logic?
We may, with frequency throughout our lives, find that conclusions absent of evidence are often false. ( I think "constantly" and on a "daily basis" very much overstates the point) This, of course, doesn't mean that the absence of evidence always leads to false conclusions, and it seems that you are lumping conclusions based on little or questionable evidence with those based on no evidence what-so-ever.
So first of all, I don't think that a belief in God is the one case where believing without factual evidence is reliable.
Secondly, while I would agree that there is no clear and unambiguous factual evidence of the existence of God, I don't think that this precludes a sound basis for the belief that he does.
I am not using the origin of the Universe as evidence of God's existence.
Neither I, nor you, know what the origin of the universe is. There is a widely accepted theory which is supported by observational evidence and works to help explain a range of phenomena, but which, as you know, cannot be called scientific fact and has several currently unresolved "problem." Still I accept this theory provides us with our most rational understanding of the origin of universe. It is not proof of God's existence and I haven't claimed it is.
I suppose it's possible to essentially shrug off the question of what initiated the Big Bang with the answer that it is an, as yet, unidentified natural process which we don't understand, but I hope and believe that scientists are still very interested in this question and are looking for answers. My expectation is that whatever theory develops to help answer this question will carry with it the same basic question: "What initiated that natural process," and I suspect that when a theory is developed to help answer that question, it too will carry with it the same question of origin. Eventually this series of questions may end with an ultimate explanation, or they may be infinite.
Infinity is a concept, not a proven fact,(at least there is no overwhelming consensus that it is) and if there is no "evidence" that it is, do you consider it illogical? (Note: I am referring to physical infinity not mathematical infinity. I confess to not fully understanding the concept of a Countable Infinity, but understand that it has been accepted by many mathematicians within a sub-branch of pure mathematics, and, interestingly enough, that theologians, rather than mathematicians were the first to accept the concept).
I'm sure the question of "What came before?" seems simplistic to some, but to me, at least, it is the essence of the questions that have formed what we call science.
This has never been about one's right to believe in anything, so your comment about God and leprechauns is gratuitous and once again is a specious attempt to equate a belief in God with a fairy tale.
I am not believing something because it makes me feel good
. I am believing something because it makes sense to me. I suppose one could argue that it feels good to make sense of things, but I don't think this is what you meant by your comment. I don't need to believe in God to enjoy my life or quell my fears. I am agnostic about the possibility of any sort of existence after death, but do not
believe there is a supernatural plane where we are reunited with all of our dead loved ones and spend eternity in unspecified but blissful activity, so my belief offers little consolation for my eventual death. I don't believe that God takes an active role in determining events on earth and if there is some underlying plan to all this, it is far too large and complex for me to ever understand, so my belief in God does not provide me, at least, with any comfort that might be brought by a sense of order and divine purpose.