The problem with this however is that, in one way or another, all of this would seem to be intertwined in the explanation – the explanation – for why something exist rather than nothing at all. And why this something and not another something instead.
To imagine that somehow we can extricate “practical truth” from “ontological truth” seems absurd to me.
And, when God and religion become intertwined in speculations of this sort, that brings us to the possibility of a “teleological truth” in turn.
In fact it might be reasonably argued that the invention of religion itself revolves in large part around a “self-conscious” species of animal able to wonder how day to day existence is intertwined in existence itself is intertwined in the meaning of it all.
But: what are the odds that what you or I think we know about all of this here and now, can in fact be demonstrated to reflect that which all rational men and women are obligated to think in turn?
And then the part where some argue that morality is sync with rationality.
Again: What on earth does this pertain to? How on earth would you go about demonstrating that this is a legitimate view of God? Why on earth would those who insist that they are rational accept it as true?
Until you can reconfigure this into something substantive, something that goes beyond a “frame of mind”, you are asking others to simply believe that it is true because “in your head” here and now you believe that it is.
I merely suggest that you believe that this is true because in part it comforts and consoles you [psychologically] to believe that it is true.
In other words, religion as a defense mechanism.
But, admittedly, I am not myself able to demonstrate that this is the case. Then it all comes down to the part where it is incumbent upon those who believe in God to bring this God down to earth such that all reasonable men and women are in fact obligated to believe in a God, the God, my God in turn.
Really, what else is there but faith?