I do not use the false reasoning: "argumentum ad hominem," such as, saying my statements are naive.
Theodore Schick Jr. wrote “The 'Big Bang' Argument for the Existence of God (1998*). [..] My understanding of modern physics indicates that Einstein’s general theory of relativity says there is no gravity. [..] The theory states that mass curves space. Therefore postulating “gravity” is unnecessary or wrong. I bring this up to note that Schick also does not agree with current science.
Schick's statement that "the force of gravity" causes stars to contract in fact agrees with current science. To say that "there is no gravity" is either misleading or false. General Relativity indeed treats gravity as geometry instead of a force, but GR has yet to be unified with quantum theory, and I wouldn't rule out a reconciliation that posits gravity as a traditional force (with e.g. gravitons as its mediating boson).
Schick does indeed make other mistakes, like not distinguishing between necessary and sufficient cause, and defining the supernatural out of existence.
The fact that some uncaused events occur, e.g.: a singularity, does not mean that all events are uncaused.
I never said it did. But don't repeat Schick's mistake: while it indeed appears that some events lack a sufficient cause, we don't know that any event has ever lacked a necessary cause.
But, my argument for the existence of god is more psychological than cosmological. I am an Idealist. By that I mean the world is nothing but ideas. You are an idea to me. Chairs, fear, and hunger, etc., are also ideas.
Ah. I'm a Conceptualist, so we are going to have significant problems communicating. See http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#RelationsofMind for how I describe this disagreement.
God is an idea. One idea of God is something that created the universe and controls it. Cause and effect is a good description of this “God.”
Actually, it's not, as I demonstrated by citing the relevant lexicographic evidence. One description of a Dog is an animal with fur and four legs. Cats meet this description, but that doesn't make them dogs.
Trees believe in cause and effect because they produce leaves to make food.
Even though I agree that Dennett's intentional stance is invaluable in analyzing such phenomena, we should remember that trees don't have beliefs.
In subjective thought, and I am a subjectivist, perception is reality. Also, believing something is so makes it so. I create my own world and live in it,
This explains a lot. :-) As both a subjectivist and a realist, you are a rare breed. I agree with the subjectivist critique of absolute objectivism, but I think the most valid position is closer to objectivism than to your radical subjectivism.
as I believe every organism does. God exists for those who believe God exists and behave as if God exists. Cause and effect is a good description of this god.
Just because a principle -- like causality or parsimony or non-contradiction -- is essential to a worldview does not make it a "god" of that worldview. It may be fun to play the village atheist, but are you really willing to construe anything as a 'god' just for more chances to reprise that role?
These facts remain: