I'd say they are valid theories simply by affect of not being completely absurd by "our standards". Many scientific theories have been considered absurd then ul

I'd say they are valid theories simply by affect of not being completely absurd by "our standards". Many scientific theories have been considered absurd then ultimately proven. Obviously the religious argument has been around much longer; perhaps it is just a bigger question that "what is light", or maybe it is just bunk (I'm in the latter camp, if it matters). Also, from a personal perspective, I would say that the weighting is clearly in favour of non-existence. However from a religious perspective it is the other way. That, ultimately, is the source of all disagreement over religion. How do you find a common measurements of truth/non-truth when your "markers" are entirely different. Which is invalid? Who judges? (the answer, I feel is that society judges - and currently we are in transition from pro-theist to pro-atheist, but it will be a long transition)