>>>> If you walk in a room and see a child sitting in the floor with a glass of milk spilled in front of them, isn't it reasonable to believe they knocked it over? Particularly, if there aren't any other people or animals around.
>>>
>>>Wrong comparison - in case of the Universe you assume you're seeing an entity which willed things into happening. I rather see it as "we don't see anyone around, so isn't it reasonable to believe that it had an internal cause"?
>>
>>
>>No, the analogy is correct. I'm just saying creation demands a creator, just as an act requires an actor.
>
>Again, you're assuming it's a creation, i.e. something that was designed and materialized by an act of a separate entity. Occam's razor says that new entities should not be introduced in the explanation if there's an explanation without them.
>
>IOW, the analogy is correct within your coordinate set, where anything that happened has an initial creator. I say there's a viable explanation which doesn't require introduction of an external actor into the game.
>
>I have no problem with the idea that we're here by accident. It may as well be the 9856th repetition of Big Bang - giB gnaB cycle, doesn't matter to me.


Ooooh, now that's one I've never been able to accept. Take all the parts for a finely tuned Swiss watch, throw them in a bag and shake vigorously. After n number of times, you will reproduce the Rolex - NOT. It's never been demonstrated. Things tend toward atrophy, not the other way around, which is another BIG problem with evolution.

John