[donh]

. Since then, you have posited several non-rational possibilities.

Unprovable is not the same as non-rational. Given that there isn't a hint of evidence either way, you have no qualitative basis for assuming my explanations are any more rational or irrational than yours.

[exmarine]

When I use non-rational in your case, I simply mean you are taking a leap of faith since your conjectures are merely from the mind of a man and are certainly not based on any empirical evidence. On one hand, you naturalists say there is no observable evidence for God and will not consider the possibility, yet you come up with such non-rational possibilities for the origin of the universe that have no basis in evidence whatsoever. Just what sort of evidentiary rules do you use - if any? Of course, empiricism falls flat on its face as well, so I am confused about your epistemology - just how do You know that you KNOW something?