Once again, your blog is irresistably thought provoking. And thankyou for giving such thorough consideration to the points I raised in my previous comments. I further elaborated, in a fourth comment, on probability.

I’m far less eloquent or methodic as you in a coherent response – so bear with me. As to Cosmic Force, bluntly put – show me your theory with the evidence and I’ll consider it. There are four primary forces; the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force and gravity. We have yet to see gravity directly but the theory of it provides such incredible prediction that it can be considered a physical entity. At the outset of the nascent universe, these forces were unified. These are the fundamental forces that I hold as cosmic. Vaccuum energy is a tantilizing phenonema that may be the cause of acceleration in cosmic expansion but no, even that, or dark matter or dark energy, would I consider the kind of Cosmic Force you allude to. Mangawitch may have a different opinion.

As to Scout’s suggestion that atheism, itself, is a belief in that it must believe god does not exist since it cannot prove its non-existance is a very weak and old argument. Although, he is correct in a limited way – but even then, it’s very weak. The range of belief from fundamental theist, deist, to agnostic, to %100 certain atheist is a spectrum. Not a 50-50 deal. I agree with Scout. Technically, I am a de facto atheist ( one for discussion sake ) as I cannot prove the non-existance of god. But any theist cannot sit on their laurels about that.
I cannot disprove the existance of god no more than I can disprove a claim that a teapot is orbiting earth or that pixies live in my garden or that god exists. That is why Scout’s argument is weak… the burden of proof lies not with me, but with those who postulate such truths without evidence and whose logic ( a priorii ) is unsound. I simply say I do not believe the claims of theists or deists or liberal agnostics because they offer no sound reasons.
This does not negate aesthetic experiences of beauty or intuitive experiences of empathy and compassion because they make no claim to truth but seek only to express what they make of their experience and in doing so, inform us of the experience of other minds.

As to free will, I disagree with both you and Mangwitch. Free will is illusory and does not exist. Free will is of the mind and as such is an extension of matter. Matter is theoretically predicable rendering our sense of free will a misperception. A necessary misperception but a misperception nevertheless.

Impressed,
god