I am curious about the thoughts behind the common atheist/agnostic statement "There is no evidence for a Creator". As I see it, evidence for a creator is abundant and clear, although not strictly "scientific" by definition. Two barometers of truth show solid evidence for the existence of a reasoning Creator. The 1st one is objectivity. Much of the objectivity contested upon in atheistic/theistic debates comes through the scientific method and matters of science. But, the scientific method is a human construct, and is bound by empirical observation and human limitations. It does not form the basis of all truth or all reality; it can't. Science cannot contain all reality. Science should not be expected to deal with any truths or concepts higher than it, or outside of it. True objectivity (or reality) predates both science and humanity and lies outside of them. Humanity is but a product of reality. Human methods do not define reality, for we are mere creations. Reality is the Creator.
Now let's deal with a 2nd barometer of truth: Reason. Whatever or whomever one envisions as existing before all other things is the "Creator" by default. The Creator is real in the sense of being uncreated, eternal, and everlasting. The Creator is the Source, the Existence, the highest of the high, and evidently has the ability to reason. How can it be deduced that the Creator has this ability?
Think about it. Whenever we apply ourselves to create a functioning system (or design) such as a computer, the system's functioning is only an INdirect result of the physical components or forces at work within it. The system's functioning (and existence) directly results from the fact that someone has applied their reasoning and manipulative powers to the organization of material and forces and control of their thought process, or whatever. Now consider the alternative to a reasoning Creator: the ability to reason evolving from the inability to reason. Is it logical to make the leap from unreasoning (inanimate and unconscious) to reasoning (animate and conscious) through evolution? No it is not. It is not logical to conclude that reasoning ability had to have evolved from ANY force lacking the ability to reason and think. Yet this is the conclusion that (I believe) inflated views of the (limited) scientific method have led many to revere. Many times people forget that science, by definition, is not intended or required to explain all things. Sure science may attempt to explain all natural (observable) phenomena in physical and empirical terms, but it cannot concern itself with what is not observable to people in the first place (but may still be wholly natural and real). As far as science is concerned, anything that can't be pin-pointed tangibly, (or at least inferred/implied through empiricism) does not exist. But the key words here are "as far as science is concerned".
To me, strict adherence to science and empiricism is like a group of blind mice scientists insisting that color and vision do not exist. No amount of studying the world through their existing senses and methods will ever enlighten these mice to the fact that sight and color vision do exist- they are born blind with no concept of sight. Important big-picture, guiding and unifying (non-physical) principles can be missed or ignored when focusing one's life too closely under the microscope of science. Don't get me wrong, I have respect for scientists and science in general. It's just that reason convinces me that something, rather Someone, much higher than science exists.
Anyway, the logical conclusion is that reasoning ability was granted from the Source- the Creator, who has always had the ability to reason. The power of reason and the ability to apply logic is something that was handed down. The power of reason was not handed up through a (mindless) chain of events and chemical interactions, and evolution. Such a claim is not even scientific, though many adherents to science believe that it is. We reason because our Source, our Creator, does. The Creator has given humanity its existence and all its capacities. All order and existence in the universe is ultimately irreducible to a fully functional Creator, not simply an unreasoning force, energy, or matter. There are no infinite creators, only one Creator who is eternal. If we are honest, the very least any of us could do is acknowledge that such a Creator exists.
The deduction of a personal, reasoning Creator, although not empirical, is rational. The conclusion that (all) those who acknowledge such a Creator are simply too blinded by religious dogma to know any better is incorrect. I have shared my thoughts on the topic, what are yours? Is science like a way of thinking for all areas in life for you atheists and agnostics? If so, why? Does what you believe about science determine your disbelief in God?
Edited by goldrush, : For clarity, I hope : )
Edited by goldrush, : For clarity, I hope.
Edited by goldrush, : Break up message into paragraphs
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : clarity and form
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2