[pravka]

Indeed, creativity is the inevitable conclusion I come to when I read diatribes like this. I could expend countless hours wondering, plotting, and diagramming any number of potential (non-scientific) explanations for life as we know it, as well as our eventual, mutual destination.

These explanations would also be creative; the primary reason I don't do this is because I have far more interesting and important things with which I choose to concern myself.

[vezzy-fnord]

To be fair, I do respect him for his adeptness at being able to think abstractly, but his presenting these ideas to scorn on atheists as if they're somehow in the absolute wrong because of not considering the more esoteric Aquinas ideas of God, is disingenuous. In all honesty, he would be rightfully dismissed by most atheists as begging the question.

As I said, theological noncognitivism - it's not worth debating God because there is no definition of him/her/it. Classical theist, pantheist, pandeist, panentheist, henotheist, deist, pandeist, maltheist, personal God... at any given point in a debate people will start backtracking on different interpretations with radically different consequences if they are valid, yet still somehow conclude Christianity must be true after all of them.