Donal wrote:

The fact that you seem to
think that I will if I 'ask myself the questions' is arrogant.

Correct! I am arrogant.

You are a bit arrogant too, aren't you?

Am I?


I'm trying to conduct this conversation from a scientific
viewpoint.

You're kidding!

No! Why do you question me?

I don't see how the notion that god created the universe can be arrived at
by scientific means - how that can be an 'inescapable conclusion'. There is
no presentable, sharable evidence that supports the contention that god
exists, or ever has. Without evidence for god, the argument's busted - it's
no more scientific than an untested hypothesis.


You don't have any hypothesis at all, do you?
See above. See below.

There isn't much above, is there?

There was...
----------
Do you have an alternative to offer?
----------
Of course not!
----------


I already stated that I don't think we humans have
very much knowledge of the universe and that I don't think we're in a
position to go making proclamations about its origins.

I agree with that conclusion.

Is it compatible with the notion of 'god did it' being an inescapable
conclusion? If we don't have enough information to draw a conclusion other
than 'insufficient data', then how can any other conclusion be
'inescapable'?


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk