Christianity

"If you could prove or disprove the existence of God"
See Can science prove or disprove the existence of God?

"This world says that this is all there is yet I believe the one who says there's a life after this."
See Is there life after death?

"How much more open can my mind be?"
See Are people who reject theories as unscientific closed minded?

"The 'wall' between scripture and science is based upon a flawed premise. The two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, when viewed with true objectivity, the two are quite complimentary."
See Are the core truths of science and religion complementary?.

No. The existence of God really doesn't make sense if you hold it to ordinary standards of belief. And I do, for better or for worse, think in terms of evidence and reason; that is my language, as a scientist, and it's the only standard my mind will now accept.

Sometimes I still ask for God's forgiveness in case I'm being a fool.

If to say about any entity that it exists should make any sense then it must refer to this entity's power to affect other existing entities. Those effects should then be observable. Therfore if such an entity as god existed we would have to be able to distinguish the universe as it existed from a hypothetical universe without god's existence. Since we can't god doesn't.

"The atheist viewpoint is far easier to take and establish."

Indeed, atheism is not "utterly incomprehensible".

"But since these laws are fairly chaotic (or ruthlessly deterministic, depending on your point of view), their nature is basically never understood."

I don't think their nature depends on anyone's point of view. They were working the same way billions of years before there was anyone to have a point of view on anything.

I just find it unnecessarily confusing to identify the laws of the universe as "God", even more so to identify as "God" our lack of perfect understanding of the universe. Once something is promoted to Sacred Mystery status, the idea of investigating and eventually understanding it seems a lot less appealing (a lot less permissible, even), and in science, that will not do. (Thus spake Yudkowsky: "To worship a phenomenon because it seems so wonderfully mysterious, is to worship your own ignorance.")

"Precise mathematical laws can't define everything. That's where the randomness factor kicks in."

What is an example of something that does not follow the laws of physics?
Even random quantum events (which are only truly random if something like the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, which I'd bet against) are systematically, predictably random, and quantum effects tend to average out once you get to the level of molecules anyway.

I'd say it is basically a name for the result of universal laws on, well, the universe. But since these laws are fairly chaotic (or ruthlessly deterministic, depending on your point of view), their nature is basically never understood. So what I am saying is not to believe in some invisible Abrahamic omnipotent God, but rather in the way the universal laws relate and create the mishmash we look at now. Precise mathematical laws can't define everything. That's where the randomness factor kicks in.

What I propose is that maybe it is not randomness; rather, there is a purpose, a goal behind the fact that they are utterly incomprehensible, not because of a Creator but rather to keep everything in place.

Hell, if you think about it, the Universe could just be a multi-galactic game of the Sims. Both science and religion can't agree on anything universal.

It's a really tough question to argument, from my viewpoint at least. The atheist viewpoint is far easier to take and establish.

"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.

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.

The thing is that we as a scientific community look at things as disjointed random coincidences. Once you string them together toward something (whatever this may be: a goal, etc.), then you start to notice how the universe "nudges" you toward a particular path. It's an odd view to consider once you've already reached your sort of level of atheism-isolationism.

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.

For that idea to be in harmony with science, it needs to be testable in some way; it has to anticipate some observations and prohibit others. Regardless of whether you can formally define it, how would the universe be different if this "force creating universal order" were absent?

Physically, God does not exist.
Or he/she is hiding too well ;-).
If he/she is hiding, there are next to nothing chances that he/she will show up ever.

Mentally, God does exist as image/impression/concept in too many people's brains.

Semantically, it depends.
You can give specific meaning to word 'God' and can show that God exists or it does not.
You can play with words and meanings for whole of your age.
Some examples:
what if God is taken to mean Universe itself?
what if God is taken to mean some guy living in space, punishes us for our sins?
what if God is taken to mean something beyond human's comprehension?
what if God is taken to mean consciousness?

This sums it up well, I think.

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.

P.P.G. Bateson said:

"Say what you mean, even if it takes longer, rather than use a word that carries so many different connotations."

Interestingly, I can't actually think of a word with more connotations than "God". Perhaps this is a function of the fact that:

1) All definitions of "God" agree that "God" is the most important thing.
2) There is nothing more disagreeable than what is the most important thing.