[tasty_freeze]

> atheism seems to require a lot more faith than theism.

There is a world of difference between thinking something caused our universe to exist and perhaps giving it the name "god", and believing in a specific god or specific claims about any god.

[TimTheTinker]

Acknowledged. Advocating for a more specific form of theism would require more specific arguments.

[meric]

1. We give capital letters to the Big Bang, certainly we can have capital letters to the word to describe the cause of the universe, God?

2. God is not part of this universe.

3. God, having been the cause of this universe, can be described as all powerful - at least in the same way Big Bang was powerful.

4. God is outside of time.

The above requires no faith at all - to me it's obvious God described in points 1-4 is true.

Now the following requires a degree of faith:

5. God is one, indivisible, at least in the same way a quantum (by definition) is indivisible.

6. God, rather than having zero consciousness, is completely conscious, having equal or more consciousness than all the consciousness in this universe.

If God is all powerful by definition of having caused the universe then I find it harder to believe the specific claim that God in fact, is not conscious, even less than a starfish. And when we are talking about God, it's more likely to be all or nothing, so my specific claim is that God is completely conscious, and being outside of time, all-knowing.