Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion

Yeah you are right. I didn't respond appropriately to your question. I was being a smart butt, I apologize. To be fair, I'll give it go. Honestly I don't know of one specific scientific piece of evidence per se, it's just an inference drawn from the body of evidence in general. For example the whole concept of DNA and the cell strongly implies mind and design. Of course scientifically speaking, we can speak objectively (as best we can) about "how" a cell and DNA forms and works. But what we can not do with the same level of scientific scrutiny is tell the reason why either exist or the their purpose. Empirically speaking, we can only make inferences and draw conclusions based on the " how". Inference strictly from the "how" is a bit circular and rigid, and I think this is the part where people start assuming too much.I think a lot of times there is a tendency to confuse the "hows" with the "whys" and many people have a tendency to explain the "whys" with "how" information. Going back to the cell example, since we can explain to some degree the functioning of the cell and it's parts, it is easy to assume that the cell functions (and is a result of) the chemicals and interactions that we observe and describe. But this is actually assuming too much. We actually don't observe why (or how)the chemicals and components of the cell appeared and came together in the first place. We have not shown in steps how chemicals came together to form the cell. What we find is that if we remove certain features of the cell, it ceases the ability to function at all. Any assumption that science will someday discover how abiogenesis occurs is a matter of faith. In my original post, I mentioned the role that reasoning and control over the thought process has over manipulating materials and forces to create systems and design. Computers exist not directly from the inner workings of their parts, but directly because of the minds that fashioned them. The same is true for buildings, houses, monuments and blueprints. They are a product of mind and deliberation. Why must trees, seeds, cells, and DNA be any different? From what we can reasonably infer about the cell, it's genetic code, and it's apparent irreducibility, is that it was designed. If you apply this concept universally, it follows that the eternal source of all things is ultimately a Creator, one who can will and
reason. The structure and order of things we observe in the universe, great and small, reflect architecture and mind.At some point, the eternal "beginning" becomes an irreducible whole, a Being: a living, reasoning, conscious Creator.Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

Hi, Goldrush. This is probably because, in many cases, the answers to "how" questions make the answers to "why" questions obvious.For instance, let's ask, "How did life come to exist?"And, let's say the answer is, "Through the spontaneous formation of self-replicating molecules."Then, we also have the answer to the question, "Why does life exist?" which is, "Because some self-replicating molecules spontaneously formed in the past."You want the answers to "why" questions to be about the "motive" or "purpose" behind the process, because you believe everything has a grand purpose or point of existence; but, for processes that don't have a guiding intelligence or sentience behind them, there is no "motive" or "purpose"; so, the answer to the "why" question is just, "because the thing that answers the 'how' question happened."

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Then why can't the universe, which has a beginning like frost, also come from something?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The results of his previous surgeries, obviously. I thought we were talking about objective reality? I am a scientist and I know what the purpose of a watch is. I can empirically determine the purpose of a watch by observing people using a watch. I can also determine that the features of the watch are meant to benefit humans while not benefiting the watch itself.This is quite different for life. The features found in life are meant to benefit the species that they are found in. Even in cases of adaptations for symbiotic relationships the species still benefits. This is quite different from designed things where the designs are specifically meant to benefit something else while not benefitting the designed thing. The hands of the clock do not benefit the watch. The wings of a bird do benefit the bird. You can do many tests on watches to determine how they were designed. You can test the alloys and tensile strength to determine how hot the metal had to be when it was cast and how quickly it was cooled. You can find tool marks, striations, etc. that all point to the methods used to make the watch. Not so with life. Why do planets move about the Sun? Gravity. Why does influenza pass through a population? It is caused by a virus that is spread from person to person. Why is the sky blue? The scattering of white light.It seems science does just fine answering the why.

Based on what reasoning? You assume that there is a purpose other than life doing just what it does which is reproduce.What evidence do you have that there is an objective purpose? Before you criticize science for not finding something you should at least demonstrate that it exists first. You have not shown how they were created by a Creator. Lacking this evidence do we just assume that it had to evolve without needing to present any evidence that the cell did evolve? Why can't science use the evidence we have in the present to reconstruct the past? It is done all of the time in forensic science where evidence is used to reconstruct a crime that no one witnessed. So how about the assumption that science can not discover how abiogenesis can occur? Because they can reproduce all on their own. Computers, buildings, houses, monuments, and blueprints do not reproduce on their own. How so? You keep saying that this is inferred, but you never describe the inference. Based on what?

Hi Taq, I agree the universe came from something.That is the point I am making when I say:But it did not come from an absence of anything. It had to come from something.An absence of anything would mean:There is no thing.
No space for a thing to exist in.
No vacuum for a thing to exist in.
No imaginary time for the universe to exist in.
No branes to bump into each other or existence for them to exist in.
No existence of any kind.There would be none existence.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Symphonies are not self-reproducing organisms. You do have parents, don't you? You walk away from a logical argument when you state "without additional evidence to prove otherwise". This is known as an appeal to ignorance which is a logical fallacy. If you want to assert that there is a creator then it is incumbent on you to present evidence for this creator. A phrase that you will see often on these forums is "claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".This is the same argument that was used to explain how Thor created thunder, how Zeus threw lightning bolts, how demons spread diseases, etc. A google search for "logial fallacies" should find several sites that list formal and informal logical fallacies if you are curious as to how logic works and doesn't work.If it is your faith based belief that there is a creator that is fine. I'm not here to tell people what to believe. However, when people take a belief and present it as evidence I will point it out. This seems to be what is happening here. You may very well have arguments that convince you that this creator exists, but when the rubber meets the road these arguments are not based on what we would consider solid logic or objective reasoning. Since a creator is defined as an entity that can do anything then it is a self fulfilling prophesy that the evidence will be consistent with a creator because nothing can be inconsistent with a creator. We do have plenty of evidence that human civilization is a very recent thing in Earth's history. Prior to this there is no archaeological evidence for a reasoning species like us. We don't find 10 million year old labs or flying craft, as an example.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

So do I.Sadly, popular science programs on Discovery, History, etc. tend to really botch this. I can't remember which program it was, but they started the show explaining how the Big Bang "came from nothing". That was the intro. The rest of the show described different theories such as String Theory which describes the universe coming about through the interaction of Branes. Last I checked, Branes count as something. How they can claim that the universe came from nothing and then spend the next 59 minutes describing hypothetical somethings that created the universe is beyond me.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Hi Dr, No. If I am not mistaken the condensation is moisture that is in the air which would form on the windowpane due to the difference in the outside temperature and the inside temperature.So what does this have to do with something coming from an absence of anything? Or existence begining to exist from non existence? You seemed to be giving God human traits so you could better understand Him. Yes.So does the Hebrew word אלהים translated God.It is a masculine plural noun meaning:a) rulers, judgesb) divine onesAccording to Genesis 2:4 the LORD God created the Heaven and the Earth.The Hebrew word יהוה transliterated Yehovah means the existing one.Thus a singular existing one that has mind, body, and Spirit.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

But they are manifestly different. A house is designed and produced by an intelligent mind. A tree is produced by another tree (via a seed) without any exercise of intelligence at all. We know this; you cannot dispute it.

Hi Taq, Then what was that something?Where did it come from?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Don't know, but am very interested in finding out.

Hi Dr, Are you sure about that?The seed has DNA which contains the information to produce that specific tree. Just like the blueprint is used to build a particular house.If intelligence was required to produce the blueprint to build the house so was intelligence required to build the blueprint in the seed to construct the tree.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

And yet if I redefined "Jack Frost" to mean "whatever causes frost", then you would.But neither you nor I are capable of redefining the English language to prove a point. Nothing whatsoever. It does, however, have something to do with your attempt to redefine the creator as "whatever caused the universe to exist", which is the subject that I was actually discussing. No; but I require him to have at least one human trait, that of sentience, in order for him to qualify as God at all. If he doesn't have that, he isn't a him, he's an it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hi Taq, Well until you have verifiable reproducable evidence. that gives that answer I am going to hold on to the Existing One creating the Heaven and the Earth in the beginning.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."