> If I were to lean in the direction of an soft (indirect) proof of God, I think I'd prefer Aquinas' Cosmological argument. How does it go? Let me see... Aquinas suggested that whenever nature is observed, it is seen to follow certain laws, sequences, and predictable events. These laws and sequences must have been ordained since the beginning as part of the structure of the universe. Every thing and every event each appears to have a cause, always. So if ordinary natural events are all traced back to the beginning of time, then most likely there must have been one First Cause or "Prime Mover," a.k.a. something like God. Therefore, studying the natural world and universe is a way in which we can understand something of the mind/nature of God.
>
> This is good news for scientists because it means that science inherently is NOT a heretical or apostatical activity. Q.E.D.

Basically, a causal proof. Otherwise, you have to deal with infinite regression. (Some religions, BTW, have no problem with this.) And Infinite regression, no beginning; no beginning, nothing happens.

> Wolf "Of course you can kick holes the size of a barn door in Aquinas' argument; you could argue that it supports not only a theistic but a pantheistic view of the Deity as well, and in equal measure. At any rate, I think logic based on observable causation is a better place to start than in the vagarities of inspirational but rather subjectively-interpreted wordplay." spirit

Nyper"...yeah"old