Let's be honest

[Thumpalumpacus]

We can address the confliction of perceived moral qualities later. As I'd honestly like to keep the God of the Bible and religion out of this discussion.

Yeah, that part was speaking to the Big Three religions specifically, but my objections are more general.

You mentioned a prime-mover.  For argument sake, we can call it the FSM.  An intelligent, spaceless, timeless, immaterial being if you will.  Not invoking any theology, quoiting the Bible, I believe there is sufficient evidence from science and logic to lead to the Prime Mover being VERY likely.

You'll forgive me when I write that claims of having evidence without actually presenting said evidence is usually a warning that I'm going to need a crowbar to pry it out of you. What is this evidence you have? Be specific.

 

I find it fascinating that you mention you started thinking and came to the opposite conclusion, but that may be because of the religious arguments.  

Not so. It's because a being outside of time and space would probably have a hard time living inside time and space.

To me the cosmological, teleological arguments are sufficient to lead me to this Prime Mover.  No question the universe (space, time, matter) had a beginning. 

That hasn't been resolved as a matter of fact. The Big Bang seems to have initiated this incarnation of our Universe, but there's no saying that it wasn't simply a reorganization of the same energy in a previous incarnation.

The fine tuning to make life possible is incredible.  It's not "chance and statistical probability", but design with purpose.

This is where you're taking leave of your senses. The vast, vast majority of this universe is so hostile to life that you would instantaneously die in 99.99999999999%+ of all locales. The fact that we evolved on Earth is precisely why we are adapted to its conditions, and precisely why we seem to have a harder time of it on, say, the Moon, which would just as soon kill you as to show you some "fine-tuning".

In short, this is the puddle of water marveling at how exquisitely the pothole is shaped to fit the water exactly.

 

The bottom up theory (naturalism) is incredibly flawed and those that hold to it should question if they can trust any thoughts of their own mind (Charles Darwin espoused this argument too).

Or so you say. Is this another one of those "I've got evidence but I'm not showing it" moments? How is it that a naturalistic outlook produces so many predictable effects, while blind faith produces precious little except schism and war?

Lastly, if the Cosmo/Teleo argument point to a prime mover as the most plausible cause, the mover must also be personal.  Why?  To create something is a choice, it's rational to believe the prime mover is personal.

That's a non sequitur. What if an AI program chooses to create a piece of music? Is it now a person?

In essence, you've waved away scientific knowledge with a sweeping gesture, and supplanted it with your own personal feelings. I'm unconvinced and unimpressed; this is just more of the same stuff I've been hearing from believers for thirty years, shorn of the Christian overlay in order to sound more rational.

It doesn't.

I'm not interested in discussing this any further with you unless and until you present evidence and/or rational support for your claims. Until then, have a great day.