> I'd like to believe that is what most atheists are missing because it's what > I felt I was missing for so long when trying to decide if I was one. I've > seen the argument that not believing in a god makes more 'sense' because you > lack any proof for it's existence therefore the default is 'no god' have you > thought that it is actually just as rational to believe exactly the > opposite? That God exists unless I am given some good reason for his > incapability to exist? How would you explain reality? Here's the big part > Can you prove it?! That is (kinda like this whole thread:) a circular argument. My position states that, being as how Man created God (in a sense, and in my opinion), I am inclined to feel that his (Ha!:) incapability to exist is just as valid as his capability to exist. It's a flip of the coin. Neither argument can be proven, and so we're left with a philosophical discussion (which is how I take all of these threads and discussions. They're fun!!:) One person feels that, without proof, god doesn't exist. Another feels that, without proof, god must exist. And, though it makes for good conversation and interesting reading, that's about all that can really be proven. Or I'm just starting to get tired and need to go home... <grin> Chris