@ Phemox: So then, between you and me at least.. the concensus seems to be that

1- There is not, never was, and never will be a "God".. because "God"..being defined as an all powerful divninity who has it all and can do it all with nothing more than the tip of a finger.. makes no sense in the physical universe in which everything else.. whether or not we understand it all...does.

and

2- It also stands to reason, though it isn't fact.. it just makes alot of sense... that SOME.. kind of DELIBERATED.. and therefore INTELLIGENT.. and.. far SUPERIOR..(DUE TO HAVING OR ACQUIRING IN HIS/HER/ITS' LIFETIME.. FAR SUPERIOUR INTELLECT, WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE).. being.. is very likely the one who got the bowling ball rolling. Not a special, magic being.. just one far more powerful.. (perhaps close to all powerful) through knowledge and wisdom.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems we might have accidentally come to the same pages on those two thoughts.

So.. if we agree on that.. then maybe I might pose another question to you.

What do you think said creator was like? Some people have argued that we can't know the gender.. or if it was in fact an individual's responsibility.. as opposed to a whole race's.

I think, that too can be inferred, logically.

So here's my thoughts.. and this I guess is where my totally arbitrary opinion starts but.. now that we seem to have a general agreement, let's go from there to mroe specific speculation It'll be fun.

So.. I think... said creator.. was an individual.. on the basis that.. groups, crowd, races of people.. we don't agree on anything.. not readily.. and not enouhg to create a sensible whole.

Think back to your school projects.. usually it took ages when you worked in groups.. to come to a agreed whole ..and when you did.. you could always see the elements of each person in the final product.

If it was ever done quickly or smoothly, or to a fluid design, it's because the one agreement you did come to was to let the one or two smartest in the group do all the work .

There is no such thing as total harmony within a group unless they are malleable and gullible.. and you can't be wise enough for such creation as the universe, even if you have all the knowledge.. if you are gullible and malleable. You might be capable of great things.. just not that. Groups and societies have politics.. they have agendas.. bottom line being that all of this would've kept thme in a constant state of dissagreement about what to use the knowledge for.. and how it should be.

Forthermore.. I think it was either asexual.. or female. Male's have too
strong an inclination toward violence and destruction.. and not forthwith enough an inclination toward creation and beauty. About the only reason you dont know about any female painters from Van Gogh to now is most likely because females were barred from alot of contribution to society.. in just about every society.. until fairly recently. Were they not barred and prohibited by male dominant societies, you would certainly find that there were more female (and more talented) artists and inventors than the males we acknowledge into history.


The famale of any species is put here with the task of creation and nurture. This is what she has done for ages since the begigning of sexual distinction for animal life. This is why she is better than us at giving life, teaching life, and taking care of life. Females are capable of more compassion and tenderness than any male.. their instincts are much stronger, and that seems to be why they are the mothers .

Given this knowledge, the first thing most women would do is create.. be it a child or.. something else mobile and with beauty. For a male.. it would be maybe the second, after we realize there's nothing to blow up with it. This is a difference in our basic instincts.. one which we dont always abide to but this is why overall, the female is the mother, and so forth.

In houses where there is just the mother, like mine growing up, you'll notice they do alot better, because a single mother is alot more steadfast and dedicated and selfless than the average single father. Not that single fathers are bad, but they do not have the instinctual devotion to do the job as well. More often than not, it's more dutiful than extention of their own life for a male. That reflects in the quality of the child.

So.. this is why I believe ..well I dont want to use the G word because we just got out of that monkeycrapfling... our creator..was either more feminine.. or female alltogether.. and was a single person.