Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion

Thats fine, lets get down to it then! Considering the stream of replies you already have I will keep it brief. All of that is quite astute; the scientific method is a procedure developed by humans as a way to come to correct conclusions about the world. It has no monopoly on truth, but it does have a proven track record of superiority provided we have data. Whoops, now thats quite a jump into Begging the Question. The term "created" is usually used, especially in the context of this type of debate, to mean "to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes." To equate human origin as a natural emergent property of the particular unguided interactions of the universe with "creation" is at the very least a gross misuse of terminology.So your first "barometer of truth" amounts to semantic slight-of-hand into Begging the Question. Not a great start. Now hold on here, "whatever or whomever one envisions"? When did imagination become some sort of defining aspect of truth? At the very most one might be able to argue that whatever you envisioned is the Creator by "definition", but there is certainly no reason to say that you would be correct in your definition.Furthermore there isn't any reason to say that just because something is first to exist that it is the "creator" of anything. That first something presumably began to exist not based on the actions of another existent thing (due to there not being one of course). Therefore there is no reason to conclude that other things couldn't continue to come into existence in a similar way, independent of the first thing. Its unreasonable to claim a monopoly on creation for the first thing to exist. Whaaat? Things don't become real by virtue of "the sense of being uncreated, eternal, and everlasting". That doesn't make sense; a robot unicorn doesn't "become real in the sense of being orgasmically beautiful and mechanically eternal". Assigning qualities to something through definition does not make that something real in any way.At the very least I would have hoped that an attempt to define something into reality would include trying to attach the quality of existence to a concept simply through definition. It would still be wrong of course, but it would at least vaguely make sense.As for "the Source, the Existence, the highest of the high", I'm going to assume that those are meaningless rhetoric and ignore them. It would help if you could keep such pollution to a minimum but I accept the handicaps of each individual.Now onto your deduction of a hypothetical creator's ability to reason! Well that settles it then. You asked a hypothetical question and answered it yourself with a simple statement without any exposition on your reasoning or support of your conclusion. Who could disagree?Oh wait, that wasn't an appropriate answer to the question "How can it be deduced that the Creator has this ability?" was it? There wasn't any deduction involved at all, simply a flat statement of your position. Also it was based on the False Dichotomy of assuming that rejection of the ability to reason evolving from the inability to reason must inevitably lead to acceptance of a reasoning creator!You would have to prove that those are the only two possible options before disproving one would lead to acceptance of the other. But you put even less effort into establishing that point as you did by simply firmly stating your position as a substitute for reasoned deduction.The rest of your post continues based on these two deeply flawed supports for your argument so I'm going to completely discard it as well. So far it appears your case for a creator is completely valueless and unsupported, but feel free to surprise me.

Your entire argument hinges upon this statement. It is how you try to deduce the existence of a causative force, which you then for whatever reason morph into a reasoning creative being. But before we dissect that tortured transition you need to support the original statement.Describe a known mechanism through which something can be brought into existence, presumably by another existent thing. Then, establish that no other mechanism of bringing things into existence can possibly be exercised. Then, prove that the known method/s of bringing things into existence cannot be performed by something which does not exist.Can you do *any* of that? Have you even tried? Or are you just going to grit your teeth and push out another word salad liberally speckled with undigested scripture?

You also don't know of any known mechanism whereby something can be brought into existence from the presence of something. In fact lets paint with a wider brush here: You don't know a goddamn thing about mechanisms of bringing *anything* into existence.You don't understand how something could come into existence from nothing. You don't understand how something could come into existence from something. You don't understand one iota of how something could come into existence in any way whatsoever.So where do you get off making sweeping proclamations of how it couldn't have happened or how it did?

No, thats existing material being rearranged. There was no new material created. Try again.