Current Poll (Religion)

[Gubbins]

Quoting Haunted from 10:28, 5th Sep 2007
Current understanding of human psyche suggests that religion is inevitable. People apparently need something of that ilk. Probably evolved as a way of making sure everyone behaved as they were supposed to (god is watching, sinners will be punished etc). Plus theres the obvious social consequences of being the only one in the village who skips church.

Under the assumption the entire thing is fiction, I find the development of religion an intriguing concept. Why did people decide there was/were god(s)? How did all the various practices and rituals of religions form? What part of it has uses outside of religion?

Why is the flood any less likely?
Yes it is intuitively so but we have the same against the flood as we have against microscopic entropy adjustments, there is no proof. In order to accept the flood you must produce significant evidence that cannot be explained by any other mechanism, exactly as you would do with the entropy thing.

The flood is less likely as we have actively ruled it out: it was a specific event that occurred in a well-defined time frame, we see active evidence this is not the case. When it comes to refuting a god, we have only passive evidence that a god does not exist: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Interesting factoid: Only one paper in Nature has ever been published without being peer reviewed, "A structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid". The structure proposed by Crick and Watson was so elegant and perfect it was thought no reviewer would be able to keep quiet about it.

Interesting indeed! I did hear relatively recently of one paper (not mentioning any names) that was intentionally ignored by the referee as they were working on their own paper with similar conclusions. Though on the whole, the system works well.

Well I'm a little surprised he wasn't admonished by anyone and indeed is still allowed to hold a position of government. This suggests there is some sympathy for such ideas, which is really frightening.

Sympathy, apathy, or just not wanting to stir up further trouble.

Imaginery numbers are just shortcuts, as far as I understand them.

I'm not sure I'd use the word shortcuts - they're mathematical explanations for complex phenomena, yes.

Then I would say we are in agreement. Though which is better, a false negative or a false positive? Is it better to deny evolution or support intelligent design?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Arguably, of the two choices it's better to support intelligent design, as evolution clearly works (so should not be denied), intelligent design is merely an addition to it, suggesting a guiding influence (thus showing support for it means one is not denying evolution).

I cannot imagine what form such 'pro-active' evidence would take. If you are mining for gold what more evidence do you need apart from "we can't find any". Must you keep digging until all the Earth has been mined?

I cannot imagine either, but it may exist, so we should keep looking.

As for gold, I have moved around a lot, and every burn, stream or drain we have had, we have always looked for gold in - just in case.

Yes but still you cannot claim that the FSM worshippers are false, "FSM is just testing you by placing all that evidence on the internet that it was a human creation". Perhaps it's rival worshippers acting to descredit the idea of the one true god? what is the difference between FSM and YHWH?

The difference is that of the nature of the evidence against them, and as such I'll revert to my earlier terminology: The FSM has "active" evidence against it - we have evidence of the idea's creation. This is not absolute proof, which we know is unattainable, but it actively rules against it as a theory.
As an idea, YHWH has only "passive" evidence against it, as we have nothing but supposition with which to decide anything. We have no evidence against, we only do not have evidence for it.

As Bertrand Russel said:
"...[that quote about teapots again.]"

The quote is, of course, very true. One would also consider you a madman if you came up with something like the seven choirs of heaven and fish on Friday, had it not been heard before. However, I am saying that we are not talking about a teapot, as we are not talking about handing down the Ten (15?) Commandments or whatever: we are talking about the creation of the Universe (and possible ascension of Man) as envisaged and/or influenced by a conscious being. This is not analogous to the teapot, merely analogous to anything floating around somewhere that cannot be explained by 'natural' phenomena.

They are the same thing.

And since you are (I assume) an A-fairyist what does that make you with regard to god?

I'm not sure you caught my point. You have taken two different concepts and given them the same physical characteristics. By asking do I believe in fairies tidying my garden, you are effectively asking whether I believe God tidies my garden - the answer to both of which is no. For one thing, I have no garden, and for another, if I did, I doubt it would be very tidy.

(Edited for tags again)

[Haunted]

Quoting Gubbins from 01:21, 6th Sep 2007
Under the assumption the entire thing is fiction

Naturally

I find the development of religion an intriguing concept. Why did people decide there was/were god(s)? How did all the various practices and rituals of religions form? What part of it has uses outside of religion?

Well, speculating of course, I would imagine that once you have some concept of worship and divine justice it wouldn't take long before there is an authority on the matter, a priest or a witchdoctor, watchever. Such a position would be one of great power (who is evil, sacrifices, tributes etc) and so one would actively work to maintain it. Some rituals may come from those who actively believe in the whole thing and have some kind of dream (or whatever) that tells them to do something (say use sunday as a day of rest and worship). It is not unlikely that something terrible would happen to someone who worked on a sunday once, it would have to happen once to stir up strong feelings of belief and the practice would soon become doctrine. Again, speculation, but feasible I reckon.

Why is the flood any less likely?
Yes it is intuitively so but we have the same against the flood as we have against microscopic entropy adjustments, there is no proof. In order to accept the flood you must produce significant evidence that cannot be explained by any other mechanism, exactly as you would do with the entropy thing.

The flood is less likely as we have actively ruled it out: it was a specific event that occurred in a well-defined time frame, we see active evidence this is not the case. When it comes to refuting a god, we have only passive evidence that a god does not exist: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
[/quote]

Right, well we're going to have to have definitions of 'active' and 'passive' to continue here. As far as I am aware, geologic evidence does not suggest a flood and the only reason we rule it out is because it is so utterly ridiculous (which, incidentally, is why I rule out the entropy thing).

Sympathy, apathy, or just not wanting to stir up further trouble.

Well, it is not a good thing, perhaps we can agree?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Arguably, of the two choices it's better to support intelligent design, as evolution clearly works (so should not be denied), intelligent design is merely an addition to it, suggesting a guiding influence (thus showing support for it means one is not denying evolution).

What I am asking is, is it better to promote a wrong thing to fact or a right thing to false? You seem to suggest that the bigger crime is promoting the right thing to false. Perhaps my evo/ID example was a bad choice (one is not science, and I feel a bit silly for trying to stack it up evenly next to such). Ok then, is it better to say dark matter is false and then have it confirmed? Or true, and then be wrong?

As for gold, I have moved around a lot, and every burn, stream or drain we have had, we have always looked for gold in - just in case.

As the slogan goes: Maybe, just maybe.

The difference is that of the nature of the evidence against them, and as such I'll revert to my earlier terminology: The FSM has "active" evidence against it - we have evidence of the idea's creation. This is not absolute proof, which we know is unattainable, but it actively rules against it as a theory.
As an idea, YHWH has only "passive" evidence against it, as we have nothing but supposition with which to decide anything. We have no evidence against, we only do not have evidence for it.

Again, what is the difference between active evidence and passive evidence?

we are talking about the creation of the Universe (and possible ascension of Man) as envisaged and/or influenced by a conscious being.

Whilst such questions are good ones, the point remains. Purporting something that has no proof (god) is the same as purporting something that has no proof (teapot). Yes you can draw superficial differences, but the ultimate logic of it remains.

I'm not sure you caught my point. You have taken two different concepts and given them the same physical characteristics. By asking do I believe in fairies tidying my garden, you are effectively asking whether I believe God tidies my garden - the answer to both of which is no. For one thing, I have no garden, and for another, if I did, I doubt it would be very tidy.

The only physical characteristic that is the same is that you can never see them (or maybe you can, if you believe enough!). They could be there, all the time just outside of your vision (by invisible I didn't necessarily mean it literally). You cannot disprove them.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Gubbins]

Apologies for not replying sooner.

Quoting Haunted from 11:43, 6th Sep 2007
Well, speculating of course, I would imagine that once you have some concept of worship and divine justice it wouldn't take long before there is an authority on the matter, a priest or a witchdoctor, watchever. Such a position would be one of great power (who is evil, sacrifices, tributes etc) and so one would actively work to maintain it. Some rituals may come from those who actively believe in the whole thing and have some kind of dream (or whatever) that tells them to do something (say use sunday as a day of rest and worship). It is not unlikely that something terrible would happen to someone who worked on a sunday once, it would have to happen once to stir up strong feelings of belief and the practice would soon become doctrine. Again, speculation, but feasible I reckon.

Now this is interesting. In my thoughts on the matter, I had never thought much about the human politics of the situation.

I had always considered it most likely that, given its prevalence throughout the world, that a conscious creator must be (in the absence of current knowledge) a logical explanation for the existence of the world around us: that once the theory was created, the nature of oral tradition transformed it into fact, whereupon ceremony and tradition were incorporated and we ended up with religion.

Why is the flood any less likely?
Yes it is intuitively so but we have the same against the flood as we have against microscopic entropy adjustments, there is no proof. In order to accept the flood you must produce significant evidence that cannot be explained by any other mechanism, exactly as you would do with the entropy thing.

The flood is less likely as we have actively ruled it out: it was a specific event that occurred in a well-defined time frame, we see active evidence this is not the case. When it comes to refuting a god, we have only passive evidence that a god does not exist: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Right, well we're going to have to have definitions of 'active' and 'passive' to continue here. As far as I am aware, geologic evidence does not suggest a flood and the only reason we rule it out is because it is so utterly ridiculous (which, incidentally, is why I rule out the entropy thing).[/quote]
Yes, I introduced these words through lack of anything better: I would define 'active' evidence as that which directly supports a theory as being incorrect (e.g. finding a yellow frog refutes the statement "all frogs are green"), whereas 'passive' evidence would be that which supports an alternative theory (e.g. finding a yellow toad does not refute "all frogs are green", but suggests that non-green frogs can exist).

Sympathy, apathy, or just not wanting to stir up further trouble.

Well, it is not a good thing, perhaps we can agree?

No, it's not a good thing. I merely don't take it as cause for concern, as I doubt a gaff on this scale is unprecedented.

What I am asking is, is it better to promote a wrong thing to fact or a right thing to false? You seem to suggest that the bigger crime is promoting the right thing to false. Perhaps my evo/ID example was a bad choice (one is not science, and I feel a bit silly for trying to stack it up evenly next to such). Ok then, is it better to say dark matter is false and then have it confirmed? Or true, and then be wrong?

Now this is an interesting conundrum. Ideally, one would do neither, but taking your choice: if one advocates dark matter, and it is later proved false, then one risks theories and data being analysed on the basis that there is dark matter. However, if one denies dark matter, then one risks it being forgotten as a possible theory when it comes to be confirmed. Difficult.

However, this is neither my stance, nor my aim. I then put it to you: is it better to rule dark matter out completely on the basis that it appears not to make sense and we have not detected a suitable dark matter candidate, despite searching; or is it better to keep dark matter as a theory in the expectation that it is wrong?

we are talking about the creation of the Universe (and possible ascension of Man) as envisaged and/or influenced by a conscious being.

Whilst such questions are good ones, the point remains. Purporting something that has no proof (god) is the same as purporting something that has no proof (teapot). Yes you can draw superficial differences, but the ultimate logic of it remains.

For "proof", I presume I should read "evidence" in the above statement? I have already argued there is evidence for a God, though I admit I have yet to find the time to search for present literature on the matter.

Furthermore, your statement is correct, were it true, but the crux of the matter lies (as it does with any analogy) in whether the differences are indeed superficial. One can consider the teapot: an idea created by a man to prove a point, against that of a self-conscious creator, which has survived millenia of reasoning, which has a variety of semi-independent historical accounts, which has been found in one form or another in cultures separated by half a world and up to 60000 years. One cannot call it merely a scaled-up teapot if it has been thought of by so many races independently.

You have taken two different concepts and given them the same physical characteristics.

The only physical characteristic that is the same is that you can never see them (or maybe you can, if you believe enough!). They could be there, all the time just outside of your vision (by invisible I didn't necessarily mean it literally). You cannot disprove them.[/quote]
Then what physical (or indeed unphysical) characteristics differ? I cannot disprove the undetectable - I can merely prove their existence through their actions.

Fairies are generally considered fictitious now as we understand the processes of nature. Is God destined to suffer the same fate, unless we can prove him detectable? Perhaps. But should we dismiss the possibility altogether merely because a god shares the same hallmarks? Or should we consider the case in isolation?

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[Haunted]

Quoting Gubbins from 22:51, 9th Sep 2007
Now this is interesting. In my thoughts on the matter, I had never thought much about the human politics of the situation.

I had always considered it most likely that, given its prevalence throughout the world, that a conscious creator must be (in the absence of current knowledge) a logical explanation for the existence of the world around us: that once the theory was created, the nature of oral tradition transformed it into fact, whereupon ceremony and tradition were incorporated and we ended up with religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance

You can imagine that it was more useful for prehistoric man to view everything from the intentional point of view. One does not need to know the physics of the tigers mind or even the design aspect of its legs and teeth to know that one should run. You see the intent of the tiger.
As man starts to awaken consciously you can imagine him looking at the world around him.
There is food in the forest for him, there is sun to warm him, there are caves for him to shelter in. The world seems as if it is almost designed for him.
And then he makes the mistake of viewing it through the intentional stance, and he asks "if this world is meant for me, who made it?".
It is human nature (through a side effect of evolution) to see intent where there is truly none. Why do we hit computers and curse at our cars? We see intent behind all things.

From this it quicly follows that man invents a creator and invents intent for him. So he makes offerings/sacrifices to please him and expects reward in return. Another great facet to humanity is our sense of fairness, as if somehow there is a divine fairness to life.

Dan Dennett has written some good books, I recommend "Freedom Evolves".

Yes, I introduced these words through lack of anything better: I would define 'active' evidence as that which directly supports a theory as being incorrect (e.g. finding a yellow frog refutes the statement "all frogs are green"), whereas 'passive' evidence would be that which supports an alternative theory (e.g. finding a yellow toad does not refute "all frogs are green", but suggests that non-green frogs can exist).

I see what you are saying but I'm not sure we have any precisely yellow frogs in reality, they may appear a slight shade of yellow but some may say it is simply a light green. do you see what I mean? The statement "there was a flood" cannot be ruled out 100%. Even the statement "the universe was created yesterday" cannot be ruled out 100%. Yes we're back to that old chestnut. We can only say to a certain extent how unlikely they are (they have no supporting evidence). With the entropy thing, it has no supporting evidence, it is entirely natural and as unpredictable the laws allow it to be, there is no evidence of any intent.

Now this is an interesting conundrum. Ideally, one would do neither, but taking your choice: if one advocates dark matter, and it is later proved false, then one risks theories and data being analysed on the basis that there is dark matter. However, if one denies dark matter, then one risks it being forgotten as a possible theory when it comes to be confirmed. Difficult.

However, this is neither my stance, nor my aim. I then put it to you: is it better to rule dark matter out completely on the basis that it appears not to make sense and we have not detected a suitable dark matter candidate, despite searching; or is it better to keep dark matter as a theory in the expectation that it is wrong?

Personally, since we don't have much evidence to swing us either way (all we know is that something is amiss) I am in favour of keeping dark matter at the table, it is a simple way of explaining the observations. But until we get some solid evidence to swing us in one direction we must remain skeptical.

For "proof", I presume I should read "evidence" in the above statement? I have already argued there is evidence for a God, though I admit I have yet to find the time to search for present literature on the matter.

Furthermore, your statement is correct, were it true, but the crux of the matter lies (as it does with any analogy) in whether the differences are indeed superficial. One can consider the teapot: an idea created by a man to prove a point, against that of a self-conscious creator, which has survived millenia of reasoning, which has a variety of semi-independent historical accounts, which has been found in one form or another in cultures separated by half a world and up to 60000 years. One cannot call it merely a scaled-up teapot if it has been thought of by so many races independently.

Man has also invented containers of water, language and weapons independently. Just like his god, they are different in shape and colour but essentially the same. The point is, why believe in the first place? Other than a strong desire to know the explanation/intent/meaning for everything (even when there may be none) there is no reason to invent a god (let alone go through all that baggage handling). People think the teapot analogy fails because a floating teapot doesn't explain anything (it has no intent you see) and it is 'obviously' riducuslous that anyone would worship it. An idea like god, does have intent though, and it explains everything, no wonder it is more acceptable. But the basis for believing in either is the same.

Fairies are generally considered fictitious now as we understand the processes of nature.

My point precisely.

Is God destined to suffer the same fate, unless we can prove him detectable? Perhaps. But should we dismiss the possibility altogether merely because a god shares the same hallmarks? Or should we consider the case in isolation?

The universe is part of nature, the more we understand it the less we need a god to fill in the gaps. If you dismiss the supernatural then you must dismiss the idea of a god. Fairies are indeed in the same league as god, they were both invented to explain that which we do not understand (try to ignore all the inconsequential baggage that one has gathered over the millenia and instead just look at the raw idea). Why does the god idea exist? to explain the universe, because currently the universe still has alot of mysteries for science to catch up with.


[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Gubbins]

Quoting Haunted from 00:27, 10th Sep 2007
You can imagine that it was more useful for prehistoric man to view everything from the intentional point of view. [...] As man starts to awaken consciously you can imagine him looking at the world around him. [...] The world seems as if it is almost designed for him.
And then he makes the mistake of viewing it through the intentional stance, and he asks "if this world is meant for me, who made it?". [...]
From this it quicly follows that man invents a creator and invents intent for him. So he makes offerings/sacrifices to please him and expects reward in return. Another great facet to humanity is our sense of fairness, as if somehow there is a divine fairness to life.

Yes, that approach does indeed make a lot of sense, and I agree that this is a likely evolutionary route. Curious, though, how most of the ancient religions are actually polytheistic. Why such a prevalence?

Incidentally, I've skim-read half the New Scientist article (while discussing the finer points of dwarf novae and trying not to let my biscuit disintegrate into my coffee). Interesting stuff, though I've not come across anything new yet. Hopefully I'll come back to a couple of the issues raised there.

Yes, I introduced these words through lack of anything better: I would define 'active' evidence as that which directly supports a theory as being incorrect (e.g. finding a yellow frog refutes the statement "all frogs are green"), whereas 'passive' evidence would be that which supports an alternative theory (e.g. finding a yellow toad does not refute "all frogs are green", but suggests that non-green frogs can exist).

do you see what I mean? The statement "there was a flood" cannot be ruled out 100%. Even the statement "the universe was created yesterday" cannot be ruled out 100%. Yes we're back to that old chestnut. We can only say to a certain extent how unlikely they are (they have no supporting evidence). With the entropy thing, it has no supporting evidence, it is entirely natural and as unpredictable the laws allow it to be, there is no evidence of any intent.

Ok, different example: the statements "there are no green humans" and "green humans cannot exist". We have 'active' evidence that there are no green humans (as we would surely have heard about them if there were), but we only have 'passive' evidence that they cannot exist - it may be possible to create them using, for example, genetic engineering.

Concerning the Biblical flood and related theories, we have solid evidence for an alternative version of events. We do not in the case of the creation of the Universe, or the underlying mechanism for QM (remember the Uncertainty Principle only describes, it does not explain... or at least I don't think it does).

Personally, since we don't have much evidence to swing us either way (all we know is that something is amiss) I am in favour of keeping dark matter at the table, it is a simple way of explaining the observations. But until we get some solid evidence to swing us in one direction we must remain skeptical.

Likewise. Following this argument, I am merely suggesting the same should be true of religion. I don't accept that that evidence should be unattainable.

Man has also invented containers of water, language and weapons independently. Just like his god, they are different in shape and colour but essentially the same. The point is, why believe in the first place?

This implies that belief in god(s) is (was) necessary for survival. I think I should read the rest of the New Scientist article before commenting further.

I would also be interested to know the basics of the belief system of these remote Amazonian / Papua New Guinean tribes that occasionally pop up on our social intellectual radar. How do they compare to more widely-spread religions?

People think the teapot analogy fails because a floating teapot doesn't explain anything (it has no intent you see) and it is 'obviously' riducuslous that anyone would worship it. An idea like god, does have intent though, and it explains everything, no wonder it is more acceptable. But the basis for believing in either is the same.

Sounds to me like that boils down to a cause-and-effect argument.

The universe is part of nature, the more we understand it the less we need a god to fill in the gaps. If you dismiss the supernatural then you must dismiss the idea of a god. Fairies are indeed in the same league as god, they were both invented to explain that which we do not understand (try to ignore all the inconsequential baggage that one has gathered over the millenia and instead just look at the raw idea). Why does the god idea exist? to explain the universe, because currently the universe still has alot of mysteries for science to catch up with.

I'm afraid the fairy analogy still doesn't sit well with me - without a better definition of what separates a fairy from a god, any argument against the analogy is trying to prove that x != x. I agree that it is entirely possible (even likely, from my viewpoint) that both were invented for similar purposes, but that does not mean they are the same thing.

Furthermore, what is a theory except an explanation for that which we don't understand? They don't have to be right, but one would be a fool to say that all theories are wrong.

The reason people (at least those who have considered their position) believe in a god (or gods) is that we have no better idea of what fundamentally governs the Universe. Until we catch up with that mystery, God will still exist, and exist as a valid, unrefuted explanation. That is what must be worked on if it is to be proved that God does not exist.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[Haunted]

Quoting Gubbins from 00:04, 12th Sep 2007
Yes, that approach does indeed make a lot of sense, and I agree that this is a likely evolutionary route. Curious, though, how most of the ancient religions are actually polytheistic. Why such a prevalence?

Well I imagine it fits quite poetically. For example a thunderstorm could be interpreted as a battle between the god of the sky and the god of the land. Makes for interesting culture.

Ok, different example: the statements "there are no green humans" and "green humans cannot exist". We have 'active' evidence that there are no green humans (as we would surely have heard about them if there were), but we only have 'passive' evidence that they cannot exist - it may be possible to create them using, for example, genetic engineering.

I get what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that such absolutes do not exist in reality.

Concerning the Biblical flood and related theories, we have solid evidence for an alternative version of events. We do not in the case of the creation of the Universe, or the underlying mechanism for QM (remember the Uncertainty Principle only describes, it does not explain... or at least I don't think it does).

We have a good stack of evidence about how the geology of the earth works and we can explain it all without a flood. Though, absence of evidence...

Regarding QM, I think your trying to ask why it is how it is? Which I think is a treacherous question because why implies intent. The explanation of they are that way because they are is hardly reassuring though I admit.

Likewise. Following this argument, I am merely suggesting the same should be true of religion. I don't accept that that evidence should be unattainable.

Well while that sounds fair at first one only has to look a little further to see the fallacy. With dark matter we are trying to get our theory of gravitation to match our observations (or whatever) and we are trying to propose models which work for a known gap in our knowledge. God explains nothing. It is not testable nor observable (except observing the total absence of course). Occams razor is also quite handy at cutting down complex ideas to explain simple, natural things. Make a testable prediction with the god idea.
We should not be quick to insert god to fill a gap when throughout all of history he has been usurped by real science and knowledge every single time.

This implies that belief in god(s) is (was) necessary for survival. I think I should read the rest of the New Scientist article before commenting further.

I wouldn't go as far as "necessary for survival" but there is some truth that supernaturalism was inevitable in human populations. We certainly don't need it now, whatever purpose it served is either not necessary or has been taken over by a superior mechanism (police to keep our behaviour in check for example).

I would also be interested to know the basics of the belief system of these remote Amazonian / Papua New Guinean tribes that occasionally pop up on our social intellectual radar. How do they compare to more widely-spread religions?

You'd probably have to ask an anthropologist.
While your reading you may as well try looking up "cargo cults".

Sounds to me like that boils down to a cause-and-effect argument.

I don't follow

I'm afraid the fairy analogy still doesn't sit well with me - without a better definition of what separates a fairy from a god, any argument against the analogy is trying to prove that x != x. I agree that it is entirely possible (even likely, from my viewpoint) that both were invented for similar purposes, but that does not mean they are the same thing.

Well I'm not sure I can explain it any better. I have presented you with a theory of why my garden is kept tidy (fairies) and we have dismissed it as ridiculous (why?). God is a theory of why the universe exists, which should be equally dismissed as ridiculous because it is the same vein. The mistake here (and an entirely forgivable one) is asking 'why' in the first place. 'Why' is a very human concept that applies only to entities capable of intent. 'How' or 'what's going on' are probably better suited for the purposes of investigating the natural (intentless) world.

Furthermore, what is a theory except an explanation for that which we don't understand? They don't have to be right, but one would be a fool to say that all theories are wrong.

'God did it' is not a theory, it is a cop out. It explains nothing and leaves us even more ignorant of the real mystery.

The reason people (at least those who have considered their position) believe in a god (or gods) is that we have no better idea of what fundamentally governs the Universe.

Well I have to disagree, we know that the universe is governed by the laws of physics, we are just trying to describe those laws as best we can using mathematics.
I think your half right about why people choose to believe in the supernatural. Again I think it comes from a deeply ingrained feeling of seeing intent in all things (and the very human concept of ultimate fairness).

Until we catch up with that mystery, God will still exist, and exist as a valid, unrefuted explanation. That is what must be worked on if it is to be proved that God does not exist.

You should've said unrefutable. It is impossible to prove a negative, you cannot prove that I don't have an elephant in my car (are you sure? It was hiding when you looked just then I swear). The burden lies in proving the postive. You would not believe I had an elephant in my car unless I showed it to you. Just as you should not believe in supernatural mumbo jumbo until such time as it is proven.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn


EDIT:
This is a good read
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm
Uses a lot of the points I've been making. Bit lengthy I'm afraid