[Probability] is the operative word in all scientific theories also. You presumably know that science cannot prove anything to be true, but operates on balance of probability from observed regularities.
We are going around in circles here. Do you think that god is a reasonable or logical answer to where the universe came from, operating on balance of probability from observed regularities?
Yes, of course I do, otherwise I wouldn't be arguing the point! My premises are 1) the universe exists (I reject solipsism); 2) the universe shows evidence of extreme fine-tuning without which any sort of structure, let alone life, could not exist; 3) science has not had any success in explaining (or explaining away) the fine-tuning; 4) this is not just based on current absence of evidence --there are solid reasons to believe that science will not be able to explain this in future, in particular the weak anthropic principle in science generally relies on a metaphysical belief in some version of multiverses; 5) it is a matter of logical necessity that science cannot ever explain first causes; 6) it may be that the universe has no first cause but the scientific evidence is against that; the universe is evolving, therefore the only possible eternal universe is an oscillating one which is unlikely on thermodynamic grounds; therefore it is likely on the basis of the evidence that the universe sprang into existence
ex nihilo.
I therefore find it likely, indeed almost inevitable, that the universe has a first cause. The evidence for a
rational "First Cause" is more tenuous as it relies on ideas like consciousness for this there is no very satisfying scientific definition. But I would include: 1) extremely unlikely occurrences are
a priori evidence of agency and design; 2) it is extremely difficult to apply a scientific theory of natural selection to the cosmos as a whole, as an alternative to design; 3) the universe therefore shows evidence of design; 4) designs have a purpose; 5) consciousness, in particular self-awareness, is an unexpected consequence of the emergence of structure in the universe; 6) the gap between the physical and the phenomenal or experiential -- the so-called "hard problem of consciousness" -- cannot easily be explained by science; in any case, even if consciousness can eventually be entirely explained in terms of the neural substrates, the existence of creatures capable of reasoning about the universe who themselves depend for existence on extraordinary fine tuning is highly suggestive of design. There is a lot more to this argument, but that is a flavour.
We can speculate but that's about it.
I would put that statement in the same category as "evolution is only a theory". Scientists (rightly) complain when people misunderstand the status of scientific theories. Saying that "evolution is only a theory" is usually intended to reduce it to "mere" speculation, rather than a sober assessment of the facts.
And do you think that science, even in principle, can ever provide the anwer?
I don't know and I don't know without feeling the need to put a name on my not knowing.
Well then I think you should give it some thought. It is a matter of logic that science cannot come up with a theory of first causes. Think about the nature of scientific theories. To use an example you brought up yourself, why do things fall down? Because the Earth is massive and massive things experience gravity, "down" is just a direction that we define locally with respect to the centre of the Earth (and which we now generalise based on our understanding of universal gravitation).
But what is gravity? According to the metric theory of gravity, it is a local change to the curvature of space due to the energy-momentum tensor in the presence of massive objects; objects are just following geodesics in spacetime according to Newton's second law (which we now generalise based on our new understanding of curved space time).
But what makes massive objects massive, then? According to quantum field theory they couple to the Higgs field, whose messenger particle is the recently discovered Higgs boson. Not all particles couple to this field, creating a fundamental division in the Standard Model between massive and massless particles. Other divisions include those between the fermions (the particles with anti-symmetric wave functions under particle interchange) and the bosons (particles with symmetric wave functions), which determines which particles are "solid" and why gravity doesn't make you fall through your chair. (Our understanding of all the force interactions is now generalised under the concept of quantum fields and excitations within them).
But why is there a specific number of fields and interaction strengths? Hmmm ...that's beyond the ken of science. But suppose tomorrow we came up with a theory for it which allowed us to further generalise and extend our abstractions in terms of some new "X". Do you think it's possible that "X" has literally
zero unexplained parameters, no "magic numbers" without which it would not be "X" but "Y"? Would such a concept even have any explanatory power? I would say the answer to both questions is no, as a matter of logical necessity.
But, I can hear your immediate objection -- "god" doesn't explain anything more than "X" does. And I agree with you -- the Cosmological argument only takes us so far. It argues that there there must be a first cause (lower case) as a matter of necessity. For a further investigation of god's attributes we have to consider the teleological (and other) arguments. Among other things, we have to consider whether the universe shows evidence of design.
Why do you think fairies only live at the bottom of the garden? They are magic after all and so, "logically", could live anywhere.
Fair enough, if you care to enumerate their attributes, and say what "magic" means, I'm happy to reconsider where they might live based on any evidence you provide.
Anything is logical as long as you ignore the absurdity of the premise.
Not if it entails a logical contradiction. If that's what you mean by absurdity then I agree with you. Anything that does not entail a logical contradiction is logical (but it is not illogical just because it may be
wrong -- that sort of argument from absurdity ignores how absurd it is that anything exists in the first place; I call this the fallacy of mundanity). But, great -- we're agreeing!
(
See that sounds both arrogant and presumptive.
Then you have my apologies. I shouldn't have done that.
)