I'm conflicted after reading the comments and the article. On the one hand I hate wasting time dissecting the article but I like the HN discussion and I feel the need to express myself about the article and some of the comments. I admire those willing to pursue big ideas, mysteries, etc but this article...let's just say I'm glad I don't pay for the WSJ.

I read the whole article but I read less than half of the article before checking who wrote it and was surprised. I thought it was written by someone who was not in a 'science' field.

(clipped from article) "Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental test,in other words, modern science." (Whose "we"?)

"Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that..." (Why are "we" being told what Einstein meant?)

"..latest advances in cosmology explain why.." (I thought science explained how?)

"Many improbable occurrences conspired to create.." (why the choice of such terms?)

"We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close (to the sun), it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze." (who is his audience?)

"The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned." (more odd terminology..laws form? And luck forms laws? I understand his meaning, but perplexed by the choice of words to convey a non-Creator position)

"..the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing." (so, "laws that allow" existed before "nothing"?)

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." (spontaneity occurs when life exists..how can anything spontaneous occur prior to existence? And spontaneous creation is the reason why we exist? Again, what happened to how? Back to the drawing board as far as articulating to John Q Public, no?)

In regards to comments:
+ I like this question: "Why do multiple instances of intelligent life and mostly consistent laws of physics mean that there is no Creator?"
+ "..the notion of a creator is a proxy for our lack of knowledge rather than a positive demonstrable." It's interesting to think about what the notion of a Creator could be from someone who thinks there is no Creator?" A "no-Creator-notion" :)
Basing a conversation on that notion limits the conversation...even sucks the life out it.

+ People saying proof of God tells me that both those who think there is a God and those who do not think there is a God can provide an identity for God and therefore know when particular information becomes proof...this to me seems like pre-knowledge of God claimed by those claiming there is no God (?). Proof..what is it good for? A court of law comes to mind; a dispute; something is at stake in a court dispute and an outcome will occur when "proof" sides with the victor...or does the victor side with proof (?). How do we identify proof? Proof is conjured up to confront someone...a set of criteria is demanded (how limiting or fair is the criteria?).

+ "small minds talk about people, medium minds events, and great minds ideas" (society needs people dealing with all of these issues...a collective perspective..but yes, if persons are mono-manic about one of those issues, watch out)

Sorry if many of you think I've posted excess.