I am not sure you've shown the existence of the Creator in a way that doesn't require us to first assume that Creator's existence; take the following:
If we can't show how a cell and DNA form from purely chemical processes (with lack of purpose, design or deliberation) we have no reason, (scientific or otherwise) to conclude that "how" a cell and DNA functions is the same as "why" it functions.
There seems no reason to conclude that there
must be a 'why' (i.e., an intentfull Creator's will) given the fact that a simple 'how' is perfectly adequate for explaining the phenomena we observe. Doesn't assuming otherwise force you to posit the existence of the very thing you wish to prove: the Creator?
It's like claiming a computer functions as a direct result of its parts, when in reality, a computer functions as a direct result of it being designed to work and perform certain tasks.
Certainly, though, had a computer been designed in the same fashion but for serving the purpose of a cup-holder, it would still be capable of all its present operations. When humans set to design something, they often have a purpose in mind, and create their device to serve this purpose, but this is by no means a necessity; indeed, many inventions come from the happenstance realization that something intended for one purpose can actually function quite well for another. That something performs a task well does not mean it was
designed to perform that task; if we assume this, then we are guilty of presupposing the very thing we wish to address: the existence of the Creator.
The most convincing proof of abiogenesis would be observation in nature, not anything "formulated" in the laboratory, b/c then you could never technically remove the mind and deliberation aspect from the process. Any assumption that science will someday discover with certainty that such abiogenesis occurred is a matter of faith.
Of course, if we do not assume a Creator (and you've still given no reason why we should), then the evidence tells us that at one time there was no life, today there
is life, and so somewhere in between life begani.e, abiogenesis took place. So once again, attempting to reason to your conclusion using your argument requires us to assume the very thing in question: the existence of the Creator.
The fact that we as humans have the will and ability to reason ... should behoove us to appreciate that the systems and mechanisms we observe in nature are also a result of knowledge, will, mind, and design.
Who is to say that our reasoning isn't simply our brain's way of categorizing and making sense of the world around us? If such is the case, then we would be very likely to see what we call 'reasoning' to fall well in line with the processes of nature, since the latter begets in us the former. To accept that 'reasoning' created nature, however, requires that we once again assume the existence of the very thing in question: the Creator.
The universe can ultimately be explained simply by an original "knowing" existence, a Being, an eternal source, a self-existing, uncreated Creator.
Of course it
can be explained in this way; but compatibility is not corroboration: that your theory is compatible with what we observe does not mean it is proven by what we observe. The only reason to accept your theory at this point is if we assume the very thing we wish to question: the existence of the Creator.
The universe doesn't begin with pure scratch, raw materials, potential, and lack of knowledge.
Again, this theory requires that we accept 'knowledge' as one of the requirements for bringing about a universe, and thus forces us to assume the very thing you are to prove: the existence of the Creator.
Given these circumstances, I must ask: can you show the existence of the Creator in a way that doesn't require us to first assume that Creator's existence?
Jon
Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
™ Version 4.2
(1)