the planets arranged
in accordance with what you call a plan. That does not prove that
they were created. It may prove that they are governed, but it
certainly does not prove that they were created. Is it consistent
to say that a design cannot exist without a designer, but that a
designer can? Does not a designer need a design as much as a design
needs a designer? Does not a Creator need a Creator as much as
the thing we think has been created? In other words, is not this
simply a circle of human ignorance? Why not say that the universe
has existed from eternity, as well as to say that a Creator has
existed from eternity? And do you not thus avoid at least one
absurdity by saying that the universe has existed from eternity,
instead of saying that it was created by a Creator who existed from
eternity? Because if your Creator existed from eternity, and
created the universe, there was a time when he commenced; and back
of that, according to Shelley, is "an eternity of idleness."

Some people say that God existed from eternity, and has created
eternity. It is impossible to conceive of an act co-equal with
eternity. If you say that God has existed forever, and has always
acted, then you make the universe eternal, and you make the universe
as old as God; and if the universe be as old as God, he certainly
did not create it.

These questions of origin and destiny--of infinite gods--are beyond
the powers of the human mind. They cannot be solved. We might as
well try to travel fast enough to get beyond the horizon. It is
like a man trying to run away from his girdle. Consequently, I
believe in turning our attention to things of importance--to
questions that may by some possibility be solved. It is of no
importance to me whether God exists or not. I exist, and it is
important to me to be happy while I exist. Therefore I had better
turn my attention to finding out the secret of happiness, instead
of trying to ascertain the secret of the universe.

I say with regard to God, I do not know; and therefore I am accused
of being arrogant and egotistic. Religious papers say that I do
know, because Webster told me. They use Webster as a witness to
prove the divinity of Christ. They say that Webster was on the
God side, and therefore I ought to be. I can hardly afford to take
Webster's ideas of another world, when his ideas about this were
so bad. When bloodhounds were pursuing a woman through the tangled
swamps