> The argument says that there will always be some pre-existence, which you could call 'God' if you liked. The story did. I explained why I would not (God is s

> The argument says that there will always be some pre-existence, which you could call 'God' if you liked. The story did. I explained why I would not (God is superfluous). Beyond that, any notion of "pre-existence" is as circular as a notion of "beginning". To present God as a part of this story only serves to present the unkown as "settled", which I find absurd.