To: Solon who wrote (9207 ) 3/21/2001 6:13:21 AM From: thames_sider Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 82486 Solon, my thanks for that... quite superb to read. And although I could never write with such elegance, like you I find both my own questions and doubts, and from them the same answers - and, delightfully, precisely the same chain of logic on the sources of religion. This rebuttal I love... I couldn't express the logic gap here before:You know the watch argument was Paley's greatest effort. A man finds a watch and it is so wonderful that he concludes that it must have had a maker. He finds the maker and he is so much more wonderful than the watch that he says he must have had a maker. Then he finds God, the maker of the man, and he is so much more wonderful than the man that he could not have had a maker. This is what the lawyers call a departure in pleading. According to Paley there can be no design without a designer -- but there can be a designer without a design. The wonder of the watch suggested the watchmaker, and the wonder of the watchmaker, suggested the creator, and the wonder of the creator demonstrated that he was not created -- but was uncaused and eternal. Wonder what he'd say now, with bio-engineering,and computer algorithms which simulate life and growth without control... I suppose the only universal is reason, then...I do not know -- but I do not believe. I believe that the natural is supreme -- that from the infinite chain no link can be lost or broken -- that there is no supernatural power that can answer prayer -- no power that worship can persuade or change -- no power that cares for man. ... Man must protect himself. He cannot depend upon the supernatural -- upon an imaginary father in the skies. There endeth the lesson...