>>Not impossible. Just unplausible. When there's no proof of existence, you can say that the nonexistence is plausible.
>
>Try turning that around. When there's no proof of non-existence, you can say that existence isn't implausible. :-)

Which makes both assertions equally (im)plausible. Now apply Occam's razor to this.

>>>He wasn't created. He is eternal.
>>
>>And the Universe isn't?
>
>Is it? I thought the Big Bang was supposed to be the beginning. Oh, but some say the Universe oscillates. Yeah, that's certainly more believable.

The nice thing with the Universe is that it won't vanish if you don't believe in it.

I know for a fact that the science will still have to say more about the beginning of the Universe as we know it. Because we will know it in a different manner, as new knowledge becomes available. So let's say the Big Bang is the currently holding theory of the present Universe, until a better one comes to be.

>How could one think otherwise. :-)

By using brains?

>>How about this: it's the Universe that has no creator. We're in it all the time.
>
>Yeah, one where matter can neither be created nor destroyed. And so, if there's no creator, do I really have these "inalienable" rights that the Declaration of Independence says I have?

What was the purpose of "we hold these"...? To state the logical ramification of the sentence - it's assuming that whatever else follows in the sentence is upheld by its author(s) as self-evident. They didn't want to go into proving them, with a good reason.

So you have your creator, or Creator, documented but not proven.