The argument for God here is based on the following specious and gilded assertion which almost tries to pass off our current epistemological limits for evidence of a Creator who conceals Himself: There must be a supernatural cause to our universe which remains hidden to our senses. But this is still
I'll draw an analogy to illustrate what's going on in the article ...
Imagine a team of zoologists following a trail of footprints made by some kind of prosimian. The footprints suddenly cease near a group of trees and the scientists scratch their heads. Some say the footprints are evidence of a new species of monkey that must have wings and decided to take off in flight at the point where the marks cease. But the more forensically-minded peers remonstrate such assertion to fly in the face of what truly defines evidence and reason. As they look around for real
evidence, they request that the whole team ponder upon how much one can really claim to know. 'What is the most plausible explanation?' they ask as everyone is reminded that a winged monkey has never been spotted and that many carnivorous predators which live in the woods could have devoured a conventional monkey where the footprints disappear. 'Well, you have no proof that such fate befell the creature,' the flying-monkey enthusiasts retort. 'Conclusively, no, we don't,' the flying-monkey disbelievers respond, 'But we know such is possible and we have recorded species falling prey to other species before. And by the way, look at these trees; the prosimian could have jumped
----not flown---onto those nearby branches ...'
The cause of the universe need not be an independent, complex and intelligent one---otherwise we have the same problem all over again: Who or what created a Creator that by definition has to be more complex than His creation, and who/what created the Creator's creator ad infinitum? Perhaps things exist because, naturally
, they must. Remember that it is very hard to imagine or even conceive absolute nothingness (no space and time). Real nothing can only exist subjectively as defined by something: our minds perceive nothing to be between two objects attached to each other; if both objects touch, there is no space and no time between them---no distance ... nothing! Furthermore, physicists tell us that states of nothingness at the subatomic level are so unstable and improbable that the probability for something to emerge ex nihilo
is too great: hence the Big Bang and Hubble's law of indefinite spatial expansion. No deities required.
We can assume that sages like Kapila co-authored the Vedas. The source of knowledge is not some god, it is (as we can empirically ascertain) the way in which the rest of the universe interacts with---and impacts upon---sentient beings such as ourselves. We know things because we are organisms which are naturally capable of gleaning information from our environment through sensory input and data retention. No supernatural source required! To claim that one must exist is to ignore much of what we learned about evolutionary biology and neurophysiology.
To paraphrase and expound upon what Zimmerman in Fargo said, quantum theory defines our reality as a range of particles that clash in various ways. Sometimes they appear to clash in meaningful ways; objectively, however, such impressive clashes hold as much import as any other---and this is the reason why Voltaire's Persian sage slammed the door on an impressionable Candide and his philosophical friends at the end of the novella ...