As an aside to mystic's failed attempts to logically validate his faith, why would anyone think that, even if the premises and conclusions were demonstrably valid and sound, we would have any obligation to this "creator" entity, or that the next rational step would be to worship it? There would be no differences as far as we are concerned between this object and our nearest star, the Sun, except that one is material and knowable as our immediate creator, and the other is immaterial, unknowable, and distantly related as cause. The Sun is for all intensive purposes directly responsible for all of our experiences. It provides the energy for life to emerge and replicate, provides us with light to perceive our surroundings, and hence, conceive of all other objects in the universe, including hypothetical entities like Poseidon and Allah and unmoved movers. Without the Sun nothing in our solar system would exist. But we don't worship it... anymore. How is mystic's stance towards his incomprehensible first cause essentially any different, i.e. less irrational, than Sun worship?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
