[Donald Schneider]

Dear Paul,

I maintain that I logically prove that our reality could not have always just existed by arguing from currently accepted scientific theories. One needs to refute my proof in order to constitute a basis for making it logically tenable to position our universe not having had a creator of some kind, in order to maintain such an argument as tenable.

When I say "need," I am not trying to appear arrogant. The word applies to those individuals who sufficiently care about such matters, and who have read my proof and feel as though it has sufficient merit to at least consider, discuss and contemplate. You are apparently one of those people, for which I thank you and am appreciative.

You have attempted to refute my proof, which I am not prepared to concede you have yet done. Anyone reading here who is also sufficiently interested in such matters may read our discourse and come to his or her own conclusions.

In regard to your second point, I concede at the tail end of my proof that I cannot escape an infinite regress of creators except by speculating that in the original creator's dimension of realty, the logic is so dissimilar to that of our own reality that his, her or its existence is logically and scientifically explainable without the need of a creator.

However lame this might sound, it has no bearing on the point of my proof. That is, that our reality must have had a creator, existent or once so.

Don