Sorry for the format, How the heck do you embed quotes here? I don't see the gadget for doing that.
Frank Apisa wrote, (in quotes)
"My reply would be a variation on what you said:
Anyway...why not a god that always existed...and that occasionally just creates things to see what happens? One that can "create" beings incapable of comprehending a true creator."
Because that would be boring. Not the part about seeing what happens, that is interesting. Much more interesting if the beings COULD comprehend the creator. Every religion I've been exposed to tells me that I CAN'T comprehend God. I'm just not buying that story.
"Sure...one can easily hypothesize a god...and one that does not contain the kinds of things that cause people to object to some of the (seemingly) hypothesized gods currently being "worshiped."
But my question would be...why do it other than to show that guessing "there are no gods" is as unproductive as guessing "there is a god?"
Why not just accept that the existence or non-existence of gods in REALITY is an unknown...and accept it as an unknown? "
It would only be unproductive if we fail to 'find' the God that doesn't answer the existential questions that man has always asked. The mere fact that we can't seem to get away from the questions is justification enough for me. I notice that in forums like this, atheists far outnumber the theists. Even THEY can't seem to stay away from the questions. Sure, some are just in it for the entertainment value in watching 'Christians' trying to defend their delusions but that would get boring soon. There is more to the attraction than that.