Yes, I'm with you on plausible :) The basic issue, I suppose, is what constitutes plausible. For me, when I consider the universe, I see order, complexity, consciousness, morality. Then there's the idea that all these visible "effects" surely demand a cause.

Zilch, I'm sure you've heard all this a thousand times, but those are some of the reasons which make God "plausible" to me. The notion that no such "first cause" exists demands a leap of faith that I can't bring myself to make.

Yes, I can see that simply believing that "no-one made God" is consistent- but there are any number of explanations that are "consistent". I want explanations that are also "plausible", and the unexplained preexistence of intelligent beings is less plausible to me that the preexistence (or whatever unimaginable timelessness) of some kind of primordial law or order.

Greetings from rain-sodden London :)

I think your frustration on that last point ("Now you know how we atheists feel about theistic answers to the question 'Who made God?'") is inevitable. For a theist to say "No-one made God" may not be satisfying to you. But I hope you can see that - to someone persuaded of God's existence - it is at least consistent.

The script does at least have the intelligence to recognize that the discovery of the Engineers only poses a larger question, namely, "Who made the Engineers?" Characteristically for Prometheus, however, the answer is something of a disappointment.

Now you know how we atheists feel about theistic answers to the question "Who made God?"

cheers from cloudy Vienna, zilch