Or...they pop in and out of our ability to observe
Perhaps. But they you can attribute any quality of the universe you want to just something we can't observe.
...Also, are we to believe these particles pop in and out of existence in such a randomly perfect manner that is necessary to support this known (classical physics) universe with no guidance or predetermined pattern whatsoever?
There's nothing about it that suggests they pop in and out of existence at just the perfect manner to support the universe.
But yes, we are to believe there is no guidance or predetermined patterns because there is not a shred of evidence for either
Are you suggesting the universe is an ongoing, moment-by-moment series of the same accident over and over again? Yet, the math (the new Holy Grail but we'll go with it) suggests that the odds are horribly against (meaning beyond reason to accept) such an idea - that this same randomness can keep occurring, moment-moment, over the course of billions of years in a uniform manner. Which is why men from Einstein to Susskind invoke something greater than our universe is beyond the veil.
What perfect pattern do you mean? Either way, you can't use probability in reverse like that. The probability of me seeing license plate number ADHR 274 today out of all the license plates in the world was infinitely small. So small in fact to be statistically impossible. But since we can't use probabilities in reverse that way, it's irrelevant.
(Einstein didn't believe in something greater. His god was metaphorical)
Well - if we didn't question why there wouldn't even be a field like Quantum Mechanics or Philosophy or Theology. We are human - it is in our essence to question why Just like Dr. Susskind asked, "Why all this stuff?"
Oh, no, no. I wasn't suggesting we shouldn't ask questions. Rather, I was suggesting we should sometimes recognize that some questions are meaningless (ie what is the meaning of life?). I will concede asking questions about the behavior of quantum particles is well worth exploring, but it's completely within reason that at some base layer in the onion, things
just are.
Well, perhaps you are right. But I was an Ayn Rand atheist before I read Plato - so, my filters aren't so strong that I can't change my mind in the face of a compelling/enlightening idea. An all-powerful, all-loving eternal God is a compelling/enlightening idea.
I'm sure different people have different scales with which they apply preconceptions. I have no doubt you'd be reasonable enough to change your mind when presented with something compelling (as evidenced by your willingness to push the veil (and thus, god?) further back in light of new understandings). But like you mentioned to be in another thread, I'm not here to convert you; I'm just here to share my views and listen to others
Found some quotes that might add to the discussion.
Sagan's god was also more of a metaphor. When he speaks of spirituality, he isn't talking about supernatural spirituality. More of the contemplate-the-vastness-of-the-Universe awe (You can probably, on occasion, add
smoke-a-joint-and to the beginning of that string). Harris, Dawkins, Krauss, etc also talk about this kind of spirituality. I experience it myself and believe it's even more fulfilling than anything supernatural because it doesn't require a leap of faith and the inkling of doubt that certainly must creep in