[betty boop]

...for an atheist to deny God, he cannot permit a final cause in his Second Reality — and he must have the plenitude argument (anything that can happen, did) because whatever is can only be the result of accidents just as you say.

Such a worldview strikes me as profoundly irrational. In such a world, meaning becomes impossible; for a series of accidents — even an "eternal" one — does not furnish universal criteria for distinguishing and judging. Human language could not have evolved under such conditions. Science itself would be impossible.

To me, the atheist worldview is profoundly false for these reasons among others.

Yet if a man wants to live in a Second Reality like this, it is his right to do so as matter of private conscience.

The public problem is: There are ideologists of this type who will not rest until their preferred Second Reality becomes mandatory for the rest of us.

Just some thoughts, dearest sister in Christ, FWTW. Thank you ever so much for writing, and for your kind words of support!

[Alamo-Girl]

Such a worldview strikes me as profoundly irrational.

A perfect word choice (ratio>irrational) since that worldview is self justified, i.e. there is no thing and no One against which it accepts comparison.

Thank you so much for all of your insights, dearest sister in Christ!