You wrote:
"And so the ‘closest’ I will come to theism is the anthropic view that we are the ‘children’ of this non-sentient "God"-universe, born quite literally of its stardust..."

My Response:
If we follow the logic of the above statement then it follows that we too are accused of being of the same nature (i.e. non-sentient).

I disagree with the logic of the above statement because: ... The creator must be of a different nature from the things created because, if the creator is of the same nature as they are, the creator will have to be temporal and therefore need a maker. It follows that "nothing is like the creator." If the creator/maker is not temporal then the creator/maker must be eternal. But if the creator/maker is eternal, the creator/maker can not be caused, and if nothing causes the creator/maker to come in to existence, nothing causes the creator/maker to continue to exist, which means that the creator/maker must be self sufficient. And, if the creator/maker dose not depend on anything for continuance of the same creator's/maker's existence, then that existence can have no end: The creator is therefore eternal and everlasting: "The Creator is therefore the first and the last."

Would you please take a look at this previous posted topic and give me your response?

Topic:
There are only three ways of how life came to be:

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/9468.shtml?base=90


Best Regards

Jisbond