On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:50:32 -0800, -rick- wrote:

HK wrote:

I don't have any problems with the idea of a creator. Why not a creator?
It is as good an explanation as any.

I don't think so. I see it more as unnecessary complication
presented as simplification, possible but highly improbable.

The odd thing is that the closer and closer science gets to explaining
life, the universe and everything, the more they are puzzled because
of the unique nature of - well, life, the universe and everything. :)

I was reading some material last week about a physicist at MIT who is
most definetly an atheist and one of his comments just jumped out at
me. He was discussing the science behind the search for the ultimate
particle - the base building element of the universe.

I'm paraphrasing here because I can't get the exact quote at the
moment - mainly because the book is in the living room and I'm still
sore from falling on my tushie yesterday (damn ice) and don't want to
walk that far - he said: If I didn't know any better, I'd have to
believe that somebody is playing a giant cosmic joke on us because the
closer we come, the further we are from defining ourselves and our
universal environment.

Heh... :)

I don't see a distinction between faith and non-faith. They are both
different sides of the same belief coin. It's a choice you make -
either you do or you don't. Intellectually, they both require belief.

I've always enjoyed St. Thomas Aquinas's approach. He felt that the
existence of God is neither self-evident nor beyond proof essentially
saying that arguments for the existence of God typically include
metaphysical, empirical, inductive, and subjective types and arguments
against typically include empirical, deductive, and inductive.

Works for me.