"John Husvar" wrote in message
...

I've been following this thread with considerable interest and
amusement. Looks like you all are having a lot of fun. As well, many
intriguing points have been raised.

Howsomever, there's really no resolution to the issue for: One who
believes requires no proof and one who does not believe will accept no
proof.

It seems to me the debate admits of no scientific or logical proof
either way. No one can incontrovertibly negate the existence of a god,
God, or gods. Neither can any one prove the existence of a being or
beings that supposedly transcend experiential reality.

Ocham's Razor, still shaves fine. Do not unnecessarily multiply
entities. If a god, First Cause, etc. is unnecessary to a proof or
theory, leave it out. If it is necessary to a proof or theory, the
theory is fundamentally incomplete as it's character requires something
that, in itself, cannot be proven -- and may not be possible for a
finite mind to know.

Sir Arthur Eddington said: Not only is the Universe stranger than we
imagine, it is stranger than we _can_ imagine.

I find that somehow comforting. A little mystery makes things so much
more exciting when that mystery is pushed back a little more, made a bit
more explicit.

And, anyway, far too soon for most of us, we will know with absolute
scientific certainty one day -- or we will know nothing at all because
there will be no we to know.

It shouldn't be an issue up there, John. There's no way that God would ever
make it up to the UP. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress