My House Did not have a Builder (or did it?)

[GrandizerII]

So we are only to assume that a thing had a maker if we have had previous experience in having observed such thing being made?

If we'e talking about something grand such as the universe or the cosmos or whatever, then there's no warranted assumption that these entities had an intelligent maker, because we only observe one local universe (or the whole cosmos) and we have no idea if it did have an intelligent maker. Do you believe God had a maker as well? No, you don't. Similarly, I don't believe the universe had a maker.

Such as, since we see a house, we know that there was an architect and builder, because there always is one. So then, we are to assume, that if we see things that exist, and have not had the experience of having observed it come into being, that that thing did not have a maker?

To be accurate, we are to assume that it did not have a maker because we lack the evidence to determine that it did.

Do we have to observe a new universe being made in order to be able to evaluate the situation, and therefore determine it if indeed had a maker, and what the nature of that maker is?

I guess so. The more universes, the better. Don't you agree this is, at least slightly, a better way to determine if this local universe had a maker than to blindly assume it did?

I agree that it is scientific to make assumptions based on observations.

But ... ?

But if the coming into being of universe has not been observed (which it has not been), how can we make any type of postulation as to its origin and call that postulation scientific?

The postulation need not be scientific in order for one to make a logical postulation. Even so, one can use the discoveries made in science to make logical inferences about things and events we can't directly observe.

There is no observation when it comes to origin, therefore there can be no science. I don't think observation has been taken out of the scientific process yet has it? So if something has to be observed in order to make scientific postulations, then origin cannot be spoken of on a scientific basis.

Science isn't just about observations. Logical inferences can be made from scientific discoveries and be considered scientific as well (e.g., the inference that the expansion of the universe had a beginning, based on the observation that the universe has been expanding and other stuff).
 

Origin can only spoken of on a basis of conjecture and belief.

Or in terms of scientific findings and/or as a part of logical arguments.

However, the belief about the origin can and should be based on observation of the things that exist.

This almost sounds like this is ... scientific.

If a belief states that evolution took place in order for the things that exist today to have come to be the way they are now, then it would make sense that that belief and statement would be based on having observed such things occur.

Evolution is not a mere belief. It is a fact of life. And it is a process that still happens to this day because it is the natural thing to do.

If nothing has ever been observed to have evolved (species to species, not adaptation within kind), then how can it be a scientific statement?

I will leave it to those well-versed in biological evolution to provide examples of observing species-to-species evolution, but assuming we haven't yet, biological evolution is still a scientific fact because of the abundance of evidence in various fields of scientific inquiry that all converge onto the same conclusion: biological evolution being a thing. Creationism (on the other hand) cannot account for all the evidence that is explainable by evolution, at least not without resorting to ad hoc arguments.

Also, "kind" is not really a scientific word in the context of biological evolution. Unlike "species". So do be careful with the conflating.

It can still be a belief. Anything can be believed. But without observation, how can a belief be said to be scientific?

The problem with your argument is that evolution is based on clear scientific observations.

Origin has not been observed, so any statement about it is a belief.

Origin of biological evolution? Do you mean abiogenesis, which is to do with the origin of life but not with what happens after that? We have made some discoveries in science to show that abiogenesis is at least plausible. So no God needed.

Evolution has not been observed, so any statement about it is also a belief.

Not true that evolution has not been observed. What you mean is that macro-evolution has probably not been observed. But even then, evolution on the macro scale is a logical extension of the observations that have been made in this context.

God having created the universe is also a belief, since none of us observed Him doing it.

Now that, I agree with.

But if anyone were to say that they don't believe God created the universe because no one observed it happen, and therefore there is no evidence for it, how could they also say that evolution is a scientific fact even though no one has observed that either?

Evolution is a scientific fact because of what I already pointed out above (so no need to repeat here). As for God creating the universe, well yeah, that's obviously not a scientific statement because we see nothing in our observations that must necessarily or likely point to such an entity.

Now in the biblical account, it is said that God made things to reproduce after their own kind, and that is what we do observe.

Duh. You don't need a Bible to know that animals reproduce after their own "kind".

Evolution requires everything to reproduce after a different kind, which no one has ever observed.

Uh, dogs evolving from wolves is a historical fact.

So based on the observable evidence, I think it is more reasonable to believe an account that can be readily observed on a daily basis all over the world in every aspect of life, than something that has never been observed by anyone in the history of mankind.

I agree. Therefore, evolution. Since we've never observed God, either directly or indirectly.

But again, either way, it is just a belief.

Yes, belief in God is just a belief.