as far as i understand, Mick questions the dogmas and theres no wrong with that. besides, the answers given by the religious people are based upon some assumptions that are very well organized. sorry if i'm too quick to comment on the sight of the discussion just by overlooking, but i here suppose that "none" of our ideas as to whether there's a God will lead us to any conclusion. cause, man's capacity to comprehend is limited. so is our knowledge. if Mick's questions are aiming to shape some kind of systematical and/or philosophical evidence to the absence of God, then i say there's no wrong with that but nor is any use in dealing with it. on the other hand, if the answers of the religious are aiming to prove that God exists, well i say i can never acknowledge the existence of anything/anybody (be it a god or something/someone else) because the way i live my life will never change. whether theres a God or not, i will go on breathing, eaitng and trying to meet my needs which i think all religions approve of. and personally i am just not interested in the problematic of a divine power. if that power will burn me in hell cause i didnt obey to his rules that he sent us through prophets and/or any kind of mediums, then so be it. i am not scared. nevertheless i cant resist saying that if theres a god who created this wonderful world, i dont think he would be such a narrow-minded character that he will send us to hell. just my opinions.