Barry ranted: It's just one of those arguments that God-freaks trot out to "prove" the existence of the Big Man In The Sky they believe in.
Sheesh, you're even more ignorant than Richard Dawkins. Get that Straw Man in the Sky before he gets you! The whole *point* of the thesis I proposed is that there was *never* a Creation of the universe. Take that away, that the notion of who or what "created" it becomes moot. Yes, John is saying you can't take that away, not and make any sense. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but we sure haven't seen an intelligent counterargument from you. > And my comment that one of the possibilities is the universe just happened, > that is, arose spontaneously, obviously does not allow further logical > scrutiny. We could only investigate scientifically what happened after it > began. This is the thing that I think freaks the God-freaks out so much. Clearly John isn't a God-freak, then, because it doesn't freak him out. They (or at least many of them) want to believe that the universe *didn't* just happen, that there is a purpose or meaning for it. They want to believe this, of course, because they feel it gives *their* lives and existence some kind of meaning. I've never really understood this need to feel as if there was a Plan or some kind of Intelligence behind All That Is. It's just *fine* with me if it simply Is. Smell you. What you're incapable of understanding is that your sense that "it simply is" is the same type of sense others have of an intelligence behind the universe. I don't have the latter type of sense myself, but I'm not appalled or outraged by it, and I've read enough theology to know that those who do--even if they're wrong--are by no means "feeble-minded." (Well, some are, but so are some ignorant know-it-all atheists.) I simply don't *understand* how the God-freaks can get their panties in such a twist over someone believing that their "God" is a fairy tale. No, Barry, you've got your panties in a twist because they don't believe God is a fairy tale. Are they so convinced of His/Her/Its existence that they feel "affronted" by someone not convinced of that existence, or someone like myself who has no need to even *postulate* the existence of a God? That sounds like attachment to me. No, you feel affronted by someone who is convinced of God's existence. You are quite obviously at least as attached to your idea that God doesn't exist as they are to their idea that God does exist. You are completely unable to discuss it rationally. You get hysterical every time you try. To me the universe is a source of infinite wonder and mystery. The fact that it seems to have *always* been around, and *always* been a source of wonder and mystery just makes it all more wonderful and mysterious. To me, life as we know it happening by accident is FAR more wonderful and mysterious than it happening as the result of some design or Plan. Sez you. What makes you think you're so smart you know what could be more wonderful and mysterious than life happening as a result of a design or Plan? Let's face it. Look around, for fuck's sake. If this world was Planned, then God is at best an underachiever and at worst totally incompetent. Sez you. You are so bereft of conceptual imagination. You can't even conceive of the possibility--whether or not you think it's likely--that your ideas of How the World Should Be might be faulty. The issue of whether an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, etc., God can be reconciled with the human perception of evil has been faced and discussed and debated by religious people (many of them a whole lot smarter than you, or me, for that matter) ever since there was such a concept of God. The problem here isn't that you deny the existence of God; the problem is that you're such a complete--and arrogant--ignoramus about issues of religion, and that you are so firmly attached to your ignorance. Whatever happened to Russell's "wish to find out"?
