>>60
no it doesn't. It's more like he chose between two unprovable options because one was less stressful. Its like if you ate some nasty tasting puddling. One person tells you it that some beef gravy fell into it and made it taste nasty. Someone else told you that the lunch lady puked into it. Both seem to have an equal amount of prove for their claim (or lack thereof). So you choose to believe it was gravy because thinking otherwise would be disgusting and you cannot prove either story anyways.

>>59
What makes you so sure that there has to be a reason for us being here. You are basically saying, " The fruit basket is here, the blender is here, therefore we must be in a juicebar."
The conclusion does not follow the premise.
We very well could just be here without a reason. Why cant the universe be pointless. Furthermore, if in order for the universe to not be pointless god has to exist, then who created him and what is his purpose. If his creator didn;t exist and he is just there, then he created us for the lulz and neither the universe nor god has any reason other than just because. Which takes you back to square one.