We have to be intellectually honest to ourselves
Yes, we do.
And in order to do so, we need to admit that a god solves nothing.
All it does is push the problems back and compound them.
This also means not just arbitrarily changing definitions to make anything your god even if it is nothing like people have presented a god.
materialistic Universe (space - time) must be unimaginably intelligent in order to be so incredibly neatly (orderly) designed by itself *(can something be designed by itself!?!?!?!?)* (fine-tuning argument) so to be able to sustain even much more complex forms of life within himself.
See, this isn't being intellectually honest.
If you were being intellectually honest, you would realise that if this applies to the universe it has to apply to your god as well.
We have already established that something can't create or cause itself.
That means your god would need a god before it to create it.
But then this god needs one as well, and so on ad infinitum.
If something as massively complex as your god can exist without cause, without being designed and created by an intelligent, then something as simple as the universe should easily be able to do so as well.
Your god LITERALLY SOLVES NOTHING!
To claim otherwise is not being intellectually honest.
The fine tuning argument makes it even worse as it is just problem after problem.
Do you know why so many things need to be fine tuned? Due to the limitations of the universe/system.
For example, if you want to make a car run efficiently in this universe, you are bound by the laws of physics and need to fine tune the car for optimal efficiency.
If you were going to make the universe, there are no restrictions. An example of this which ties back to cars are video games.
For plenty of such games, the cars are not fine tuned for efficiency, they don't even need fuel.
When you are making the system, there is no fine tuning to make it work.
And the same applies to life.
With these simulated universes there are no requirements for life, you can simply create it and have it exist.
So a god that created the universe wouldn't have fine tuned it for life, it would have simply made the universe and made life.
It is only once you have one that you can fine tune the other.
But an equally important issue (some may say bigger, some may say smaller) is that this universe is not fine tuned for life in any way, at least not life like we know.
The vast majority of the universe by volume, area or mass is inhospitable to our life. If I were to take you and place you randomly in the universe, by volume, area or mass, you would almost certainly die.
Again, games are vastly superior in their "design" for life.
That means one of the following:
There is no designer to this universe.
This universe was designed for something other than life and we are just an unintended side effect.
The designer is extremely incompetent, either due to not knowing how to design a universe for life or the life for the universe, or not being able to do (i.e. know how, but be not powerful enough to do so).
So that is yet more intellectual dishonesty.
since "big-bang" presupposes (means) BEGINNING (not TRANSFORMATION)
No it doesn't. The big bang refers to the expansion of space. It does not deal with the origin of the matter and energy.
Regardless this has nothing to do with establishing a god is real.
All you are doing is attacking one thing without considering an alternative. Even if you show the big bang is wrong, it doesn't magically make your god correct.
So, physicists basically claim that something can (and must) come out of nothing!?!?!
You judge for yourself how sensible their claim is...
And the religious claim the same.
Watchmaker analogy :
Is yet another massively flawed analogy which is in no way intellectually honest.
Again, the same arguments apply to your god.
Ultimately it can boil down to a single question:
Can complex entities exist without being created by an entity which is as complex or more complex?
If yes, there is no need for a god. If no, your god needs a creator as well.
Again, YOUR GOD SOLVES NOTHING!
As for the full analogy, notice how the watch is seen as special, distinct from everything else.
If the analogy was correct, they should be thinking EVERYTHING was created, not just the watch.
Do you know the massive difference between the watch and biological life?
The watch has no mechanism to form itself. Life does. That is because life is composed of molecules which will spontaneously react and organise into complex structures. The same applies to the universe as a whole.
No sentience is required to make it happen.
But watches are different. They are made of metals. They have nothing to make them spontaneously react.
That is why it needs a designer. Not because of the complexity of it, but because of the lack of a natural interaction which can cause it to form the way it does.
So this argument is not intellectual honest in any way.
I don't care who you wish to appeal to to try and prop it up. It will not help. If you need to appeal to their authority, you have no argument. That is yet another example of intellectual dishonesty.
That means we can't even begin to grasp his nature, the way he is, but it doesn't mean we can't conclude that He exists, better to say that He must exists.
No, it is far worse to say he must exist, especially as you admitted his existence would be indistinguishable from non-existence. That means it would be much better to say it doesn't exist.
So far all the evidence indicates gods are inventions of mankind, that they do not exist except in the minds of the believers.
things that only have partial or flawed existence indicate that they are not their own sources of existence, and so must rely on something else as the source of their existence.
Which is more special pleading and is in no way intellectually honest.
Why should things which are lesser rely upon something else but the greatest things do not?
There is no basis for it.
It is ultimately quite alike the first cause argument.
It asserts things need a cause and then dismissed it for the very being it is trying to prove.
So it is just more intellectual dishonesty.
We can't traverse the infinite, however, even though Zenon's paradoxes have some similarity to my argument, they aren't the same. So, if you want to disprove validity of my argument you have to deal with it directly and meticulously (step by step)!!! Forget Zenon's paradoxes, this is a whole new ballgame.
The whole point of bringing up Zeno's paradoxes was to show that the infinite can be traversed.
The paradoxes arise by the claim that the infinite cannot be traversed, which rules out the possibility of movement, combined with the clearly observable fact that people can move.
To hold that we cannot traverse the infinite would mean holding that we cannot move.
But I like to think of it like space. If space stretches out infinitely to the left and right, that doesn't mean we can't be here a this point in space.
Your entire argument relies upon how humans perceive time, not the nature of time itself.
Any motion presumes physical dimensions (as we know it).
And there you go with more intellectual dishonesty by contradicting yourself.
This is physical motion, even though you made it clear that that is not what you meant. (at least if by physical dimension you mean spatial, as opposed to others like energy)
Any physical dimension (as we know it) presumes motion, as well (and any motion presumes time (as we know it)), because if there would be no motion, there would be no time, and if there would be no time, there would be no physical dimension, and vice versa.
No, it doesn't.
You can have physical dimension without time. You can have time without spatial dimension Time and space can be separate.
If one wants to be intellectually honest when it comes to a god, they need to admit that there is no rational basis (i.e. from evidence or logic) to conclude a god exists and if this person believes in a god, they would admit they do so on faith, not reason.