Agreed that all other things being equal, an explanation that does not refer
to God's action (or any particular thing) is preferable. If (as it typical)
other things are not held equal, then it's a non sequitur again.
And your question "Who created God?" actually does -not- require an answer
on traditional views of God. More precisely, the answer is that God is the
ultimate reality, and so has no creator.
Of course, atheists can claim that about nature. It's just that seems to
most people to be more arbitrary and intuitively unsatisfactory. Nature
(certainly as we understand it today) seems too explanatorily and
metaphysically inadequate and too contingent to be the ultimate reality.
(On the other hand, referring to nature can offer much more specific
explanations [hence science]; but this isn't a problem for the theist, since
the theist believes in nature too.)
These are notoriously tricky issues, though, obviously. Different
understandings and experiences (or lacks) of God, religion, and science can
all come into play. So I don't mean at all that I find you irrational or
something.
--John
-----Original Message-----
From: evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu
[mailto:evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Pim van Meurs
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 1998 9:03 AM
To: evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: Putting evolution to work on the assembly line
Ron:
I'm curious. Why do you think Occam's Razor supports atheism?>>
If given the choice of a God and no God, the explanation which does not
involve a God is far simpler. For instance when invoking a God it requires
one to answer, who created God ? And so on...