Thanks MPassey, I think you are right on several fronts, most specifically that I rely on logic and reason too much. I’m not sure that is totally true in my life as a whole, but it does appear that way in my writing. I think that is largely because my writing on Medium has been primarily my effort to square some beliefs I hold true outside of reason with my rational side. But, I’ve been thinking about this a bit, and commented on it somewhat in the discussion on Buddhism. I was asking whether we found our faith or belief systems on experience or thought, head or heart. A faith held strong is one that incorporates both, but that of course depends on the believer and which aspect of belief is more important to him or her. I think non-believers often wonder at why believers can hold to things they think are obviously false because they don’t understand that, as Pascal said, the heart has reasons of which reason knows nothing.

The one thing you said that I totally do not understand (or completely disagree with) is that the God explanation contains no beauty, no elegance, no curiosity. If physicalism is the opposite, and physicalism represents an idea that all that there is here without intention, just an accident that will end in slow entropic death without notice or meaning, I fail to see how that can provide the beauty that is missing in the God explanation. If we are here by intention, the result of creative intention called love, then beauty and our apprehension of it makes sense. What is beauty to the physicalist? An epiphenomena? A meaningless byproduct that has no purpose or meaning?

Maybe you can explain your thought more on this.