Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion

The very things you criticize science for are the very things that make up objectivity. The idea behind objectivity is to verify you ideas by pointing to something real and tangible that is the same for everyone. It is necessarily limited by our own limitations. It seems to me that you want to be able to point to something that can't be verified and still call it objective. It doesn't work that way. You never explain why this is not logical. Why can't an organism capable or reasoning come from a natural process with no intelligence behind it? That is a strange analogy to use given the fact that science has allowed us to "see" wavelengths of light that our eyes can not directly detect. Science has allowed us to see galaxies that can not be seen by the naked eye, bacteria that are too small to be seen, and deconstruct the very atoms that make up matter. On top of that, science has allowed us to cure blindness. Examples? Why isn't it scientific? The only argument you have put forth for this is an argument based on incredulity. That is, your inability to accept the idea that nature can produce a species capable of reasoning. From this inability you then proceed to assert the existence of an entity for which there is zero evidence. This is very poor logic. Based on what evidence? Ask yourself why you don't believe that Thor uses a great hammer to create thunder and you will have the answer.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Elaborate, please.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

And that logic would be . . . ?

So what you are describing is a belief that is projected onto reality which is not objective. The idea behind objectivity is that there is a reality which is independent of our beliefs and minds. By making reality conform to your beliefs you are proposing a subjective view of reality.

One of the problems in the OP is that it proposes objectivity as a "barometer of truth". The OP complains about empiricism but never proposes a different method. Even worse, "True objectivity" is not defined as a method but as reality itself.So we are left with the complaint that empiricism is limited. That is true of ALL objective methods. All are limited. If they were no line then objective and subjective would be one in the same. What the OP seems to be arguing for is Kant's Rationalism which is further exemplified in the argument that a reasoning entity must be created by another entity capable of reasoning. If anything, the OP seems to be arguing against objectivity as a "barometer of truth".

When we are attempting to be objective we try NOT to do this. We design methods that try to ferret out sources of subjectivity. We are swayed by our own beliefs and subjective opinions, I won't argue otherwise. However, we do try an limit it as much as possible when we use objectivity as a "barometer of truth" as the OP puts it. The whole purpose of the scientific method is to remove subjective beliefs, or at least as many beliefs as possible, from the conclusion.What you propose is to just give up and include subjective beliefs. I don't see the utility in that.

Then would you also say that Jack Frost is condensation and cold? If frost did not exist before but does exist now does that mean the frost came from nothing? Does the frost also require a creator deity?

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?

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.

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

All of which are different than DNA. If you throw a blueprint onto a pile of building materials does a house appear? No. If you throw DNA into a cell is something built from that DNA? Yes. Obviously, there is something very different between a blueprint and DNA.

Then why use the analogy? In the same way that hydrogen and oxygen contain the instructions for how to build water. How did you determine that a designer specified anything in any genome?