Assumptions

No evidence is needed huh? Oh. So now the need for parentage is based on the evidence that things have parents.Look - If rabbits and cows and aardvaarks etc. were blinking into existence fully formed ex-nihilo all the time the evidence would suggest that they don't need parents and your common sense notions that they do wouldn't be worth a pile of squirrel poo. So, whether you realise it or not your whole "parent" argument is actually derived from some notion of evidence. Having arrived at your "parent" argument on the basis of some notion of evidence (despite originally claiming that no evidence was involved) you are now seeking to extrapolate it in, I suspect, silly ways.Complex living organisms certainly have parents. But if you are going to claim that everything has parents you are going to need to tell us what exactly you mean by the term "parent". Do you effectively mean "cause"....? If you are talking about "first cause" of some sort perhaps you could explain how you get round this problem you seem to be setting up for yourself. It is worth noting that any talk of "eternity" here will A) Almost inevitably contravene the second law of thermodynamics and B) Be as un-evidenced as the un-parented things you are so fond of talking about. Then why do you keep using the word "evidence"....? That complex living organisms have parents isn't really in dispute. It is the silly extrapolations you make that are going to be your downfall here.

So the long and short of your pet theory is that everything has a cause and that this is simple common sense. As should be obvious this "common sense" approach leads to an infinite regress of causes.So much for common sense as the be-all-and-end-all of problem solving. I have two questions:1) How do you suggest we release ourselves from the infinite regress of causes that your common sense argument results in?2) What makes you think that cause and effect isn't an internal property of our universe?