DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[pocaracas]

Makes sense, yes.


And we can also generate new facts about Scooby.
Just like the Star Wars universe is still expanding.

But, concerning gods, the information about their (supposed) fictionality is lost to time.
Sure, we can also gather knowledge about how people relate to this entity which they have no way of knowing is real. We can observe many people behaving quite nicely towards others, mostly due to their conviction that such an entity is keeping an eye out for them.
We can philosophically consider the nature of such an entity, how it could fit in with all the traditional wisdom around it, like "all-powerful", "eternal", "creator", "perfect", etc. And many such considerations can be made to appear very convincing, very flawless... thus perpetuating the belief in the (apparent) unknowable...
But, as it is with many philosophical theses, there are people who remain unconvinced, there are people who understand philosophy as a mental exercise and always require its results to be put to a reality check. And, thus far, this reality check has yielded nothing.
The deeper we probe reality, the less divine there is.
So much so that gods are now solely a non-corporeal entity, no mass, no matter, no energy (Everena! no Energy! Energy is mass, if you had a bit of education in science, you'd know). This fact of absence of Energy poses a problem, as it is apparent that everything that we might call real has or is energy. Except empty space-time, right?.... well, science has probe deep in there and has seen how empty space-time isn't really empty and it can thus randomly generate real energy and matter - clearly we haven't observed a whole Universe being generates like this, but a few particles can be measured... look up the Casimir effect.
So, if one posits the eternity of space-time, it is not too far-fetched to consider the rare, but not impossible eventuality of the random generation of enough energy that becomes a Universe.
If this is how the Universe has actually come to be, and if space-time is indeed infinite in all 4 dimensions in all directions, then the divine entities that mankind has worshiped, that philosophers have convinced themselves are real  aren't so real after all... at least, they aren't the creators and designers of reality. Their existence is limited to the same kind of existence as Scooby Doo.

I ask you, what is the greatest assumption, to consider an ever-existing divine entity, or an ever-existing space-time?

I like your thinking, so +1 in my book.

My answer to your question is that I couldn't rule out either, and I don't think I could be intellectually honest to myself if I did.

In absolute terms, you're right.
But one must be pragmatic at some point.
Otherwise, we end up getting stuck in a never-ending need to be intellectually honest and take each and every claim as if they could be true, including claims we typically assume are fictitious, like the Force, or magic, or superman, etc...

Just like we don't devote undue effort into looking for evidence of the Force nor magic, so too I think we should expend undue effort into the question of a divine creator entity.
Clearly, if there is such an entity, the information about it was conveyed to mankind in a pre-scientific era, and even pre-written-word era. If that was done, then it can and should be reproducible in a scientific era. The fact that such conveying of information has been eluding the scientific endeavor is a hint at the fictional nature of the original information regarding the divine.

  Maybe there's some balance between the two ideas even if the solution is currently being overlooked.  That's why I believe it's important to continue to explore things, but with limited bias.  If you take an atheist and a theist, and they work together to both determine and rule out things, then we further our capacity to have better human relationships.

Some balance, yes... but I'm not sure a 50/50 split is the most adequate course of action.

  To say one is greater, I would need to prescribe some type of value to both, but I don't think it's necessary.  If both exist, then there may be an agreement or relationship between the two that I would want to understand. 

Well, one can apply real-world hints and extrapolations into ascertaining that value... or one can go with intuition. Traditionally, people have gone with intuition and that has led to the growth of religions and the pervasiveness of religious belief, often to the culling of those who lack such belief.

In which case I would not only want quantitative data, but qualitative data as well.  Same thing as going into a jungle and living in a tribe of monkeys.  I could go in there and learn things, and I wouldn't have to apply any numerical value for anything, but rather observe how they treat me and how my relationship to them changes.  Maybe they adopt me as one of their own.  Maybe there's some conflict I have with the alpha.  Maybe as time goes on those relationships change.  That alpha could hate me, but conforming to him some may lead to acceptance.  So in regard to the universe or a divine entity, hopefully I can respect both, and likewise both can respect me in their own capacity.

hmm... I see your point, but... empty space-time, as far as we can tell, has no intentionality. Things just happen in their Quantum randomness (which average out to our deterministic point of view).
Without intentionality, I don't think it can respect you at all. But the people who support such a view sure can respect you, whatever your view is.