I was going to leave this post be, but someone had to go and say Betelgeuse three times. The bare assertion of a true believer. If there was a creator, it's will is apparent in everything that exists. Asking about its will further than that would seem to presume it intervenes in some way, which would seem to indicate its act of creation was flawed and in need of ad hoc scaffolding. Christians definitely don't believe that, and neither do I. Aside from me never once implying anyone was "mentally retarded" (and maybe a Freudian slip to presume so), I've never jumped all over anyone for their beliefs. I've only corrected their willful misunderstanding and misuse of science. Unlike you, I don't go around demanding others "prove" what I know science cannot adjudicate either way. To the contrary, I've repeatedly said that you have every reason to be an atheist and no compelling reason to be a theist. I know, that kind of intellectual honesty baffles you. The truth of any metaphysical proposition is subject to belief. That's what distinguishes them from science. The PSR is necessary, unless you're satisfied with a contingent, infinite regress, devoid of explanatory power. Claiming anything is true, without sufficient reason, is exactly what you rail against religion for doing. There is no such thing as a "Principle of Necessity and Sufficiency". Necessity and sufficiency are requirements of a logical IFF statement, which Yaz already explained to you. Even though he was an idealist and you claim to be a realist.