[WRhine]

Fair enough. Whether or not we decide to agree on the merits of deeper theologic issues, I'm glad to knwo you at least accept a belief in an Intelligent Agent as Newton put it.

My thinking on this is that the burden of proof for Atheists to prove there is no God is far greater than the burden of proof for the believers. I mean, what is the meaning of existence at all if there is no afterlife? Or, what difference does it make if at the end of the universe, when all life is dead, that any life existed before? The idea of continuous life makes far more sense and adds meaning to our existence on earth.

[Cleburne]

The Atheist must face two massive hurtles: he must explain how matter came from nothing, on its own, using force that arrived from nothing, propelled by laws that came from nothing, and driven by nothing! He must then explain how life, complex life (there is no such thing as "simple cells") came from non-living matter. Even if he could prove organic building blocks could have originated (so far the theories on this are laughable), he can not prove nor demonstrate how life arose from these non-living molecules. So far, his efforts to explain how something came from nothing have amounted to little more than nothing! (hey that rymes!) I do not see how it will stand the face of time-it is bound to die without any greater evidence.