there are lots of other metaphysical question which the presence of God provides possible answers for, which are not answered by your assumption of no creater.
Furthermore, and I think even more damning, is your epistemological selection bias. Let me try to explain what I mean like this: in the world of economics we have a concept called "price transparency" that describes the degree to which we can see and understand the myriad complex phenomena that jointly determine the price of a security. Apply the same concept to belief systems. We all have excellent transparancy on the existence of vast quantities of stuff, such as anything we can see or touch. Belief systems for the vast majority of things we believe in are empirical. Why? Because of the extreme transparency of the evidence. As evidence becomes less transparent, human beings become more willing to believe in all kinds of bizarre things. But the degree of transparancy of the evidence ought to have no logical bearing whatsoever on the truth value of a proposition.
Where does the standard of human morality come from for example? What defines me as an individual thinking being, with independent action, rather than merely some collection of particles which have had their actions defined by the initial conditions 14 billion years ago?
What "defines" you? Short-answer: complexity. At least, that is generally the answer when people who desire to believe in God ask this question. This is an inherently subjective question with inherently subjective answers that will tell us nothing about the objective existence or non-existence of God.
It is somewhat subjective, but I do not feel the existence of God is a harder thing to grasp than no God at all, and I personally find it more aesthetically pleasing.
Comment