From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:17:49 -0600, personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk wrote:   
      
   > "David Mitchell"  wrote in message   
   > news:pan.2005.01.16.09.05.56.821503@edenroad.demon.co.uk...   
   > If you can accept that "God" is eternal, that simply answers the whole   
   > thing:  an eternal existing presence / force that has no beginning and no   
   > end.   
      
   Well, obviously, I can't accept that; but I can argue the same for the   
   existence of the universe.   
      
   Hawking says that to ask what happened before the big bang is as   
   meaningless as asking what's further north than the north pole - that time   
   itself began with the universe, so to ask what came "before" makes no   
   sense.   
      
   Obviously, if you want to define God in that way, you're welcome to; but   
   such word games are a little pointless.   
      
   I find it curious that you're willing to accept the existence of an   
   "eternal god"; for which there is no evidence, but unwilling to accept the   
   idea of an eternal universe.   
      
   At least there's good evidence that the universe currently exists; which   
   is more than can be said for God.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)