[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you are less troubled by having a god who always existed than by a universe that always existed. Or...

By a god that sprang into being out of nowhere, than a universe which did so. Is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes that is correct. I do find both positions troubling though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But why do you suppose an omnipotent, omniscient being is more likely? In other words, complicated things don't just pop into existence out of nowhere. Complicated things must evolve.

I'm genuinely curious, because just from your few posts I gather you are obviously a thinking person who is intelligent AND reasonable. You seem to accept evolution and logic in general. I'd like to know how we came to two different conclusions.

I agree first cause is a very perplexing issue and we may never know the answer. There might not even have been a first cause such as the big bang. Nevertheless, anything from a buildup of atoms, to multi-verses and extra dimensions seems much more reasonable to me than a supreme invisible being. So how did you arrive at a god is more likely, and me thinking almost anything else is more likely than a god (but only after seriously thinking about it)?