Just a weird thought to roll around in your mind... Suppose for a moment, in the spirit of certain out-there physical theories, that parallel universes exist. Suppose more specifically that for every possible permutation of matter and energy in the universe, there exist corresponding parallel universes. As I understand it, the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics essentially espouses this view (not down to the last detail, but I believe they are essentially equivalent). Anyway, let's be a little bolder. Let's suppose that time is a 4th physical dimension linking each of these parallel universes. That would make each universe timeless, essentially a snapshot describing a particular permutation of matter and energy in a 3-dimensional space; the 'flow' of time would actually be movement in the 4th dimension from one snapshot 3D universe to another. The laws of physics, then, would not describe the changes in matter and energy in a dynamic world so much as they would describe the particular motion along the 4th dimension from one snapshot universe to the next that we human consciousnesses seem to be following. As far out as this sounds, I seem to recall reading that it was essentially the worldview of a relatively prominent physicist (if anyone can substantiate this, if it's correct at all, it would be appreciated). So... if the above were an accurate ontological description, wouldn't we drastically have to redefine our notions of cause and effect? The idea of cause and effect that we commonly hold would merely be an illusion generated by the particular path we are riding through a series of static 3D universes. So long as we suppose that this multi-universe space is interconnected with alternate traversable paths (which from our point of view would correspond to a dynamic universe with different physical laws, or perhaps with nothing resembling laws at all), there is nothing that makes our particular path anything special-- and therefore conclusions that we derive from it and hold to be absolute (eg cause and effect) are actually relative, and do not hold for the entire ontology of existence. Of course, to even consider this speculation requires abandoning some conventional ideas of cause and effect (eg that all existing things need a cause-- what 'caused' each permutation of the universe to 'exist'?). But the above paragraph goes further-- it calls into question the validity of our entire notion of the cause/effect relationship. We take it as a given, above all reproach, but even such a foundational concept is not necessarily foolproof. So what? Well, it's just a little shot of humility I guess. As an added bonus, you can pretty much summarily chop down any 'proofs' for or against the existence of God, since no assumption is above reproach beyond the limited scope of self-evident, subjective phenomena (eg "I am seeing the color I call blue right now" or "I think therefore I am").