Does God exist?

"That's the thing. If there is no force, there is no universe; at least, not as we know it. We'd have utter chaos, until it eventually regresses back into order again, creating the force once more. Think of it like the Discordian Hodge-Podge principle. Take out either order or the underlying chaos on the universe, and it all falls apart."

Are you saying that there are some things in the universe that do not follow precise mathematical laws? Or is this force just another name for those laws, or some epiphenomenal result of them?

"It's an intrinsically difficult idea to define, as Benja said. I'm not entirely good at conveying it. I don't think anyone can, really, though I am very sure many know this mindset."

Oh, I know the mindset too. I've experienced it first-hand, and I wasn't even raised into any religious or spiritual beliefs. It is one that comes very naturally to us, and in some form or another, it rises to prominence in just about every human culture. But that suggests to me that this mindset is an artifact of the way the human mind works (and, most likely, an evolutionary adaptation, or a side effect of one) rather than a conclusion about how the universe works that can be defined and verified. "Don't believe everything you think", as they say.

I understand that your explanation, in part, is an explanation of other experts' explanations, such as Goswami's, and I don't want to unfairly attack your arguments when the arguments are intrinsically difficult to convey. However, I believe there's a critical mistake you've made, that I will to do my best to articulate.

The universe is either deterministic or it's random. There's really is no middle ground here. There's no wiggle room for non-deterministic "nudging". If something "nudges" then it can be measured. If it can be measured, then we can find laws explaining those measurements, and those laws apply deterministically. Now, if the nudges have no pattern at all, then the nudges are, by definition, random. Therefore all possible "nudges" fit within this framework, which means that either that a "universal force" is synonymous with "the laws of physics", or if not, a "universal force" doesn't actually explain nudges at all.

Both Wittgenstein and DFW are talking about a principle that affects a person's entire attitude towards life. Given the profoundness of such a principle, they associate that principle with God, which is a word people use to convey a profound principle of life.

Using God in this way is much more than "just an emotional reaction". In a similar way, reductionists often say "love is just an chemical reaction" without taking into account the chemical reaction is one piece of a much broader phenomenon.

Under the conception of God expressed above by Wittgenstein and DFW, by saying "God does not exist" you're denying the profound principles of life they espouse. In other words, you're advocating nihilism. Now, as a fellow rationalist, do I think when you say "God does not exist" you're necessarily advocating nihilism? Absolutely not. But do I think that's exactly how a religious person will interpret you? Absolutely yes. If we care about truthfully communicating to others, then we can't ignore the way people will interpret us because we think they should be using our conceptions.

If you were to say "God embodies truth" you would accurately convey an important concept in your mind to a religious person, given the conceptual framework in their mind that they will use to interpret your statement. Furthermore, with that statement you wouldn't be compromising atheism by introducing mysterious metaphysical woo woo (in fact, that statement rules out the conceptions of God that atheists are reacting to in the first place). And by avoiding saying "God does not exist" you remove a huge barrier in terms of starting a dialog with a religious person.