(February 18, 2015 at 2:35 am)robvalue Wrote: If there was a creator, then we know nothing about it, except that by assumption it "created". Everything else is useless speculation, unless there is some actual scientific evidence I am unaware of.
There are some things that one might infer, depending on the nature of the thing created. For example, if a baker bakes a loaf of bread, and the loaf of bread comes out half-baked, we can infer that the baker isn't a very good baker. One does not properly blame the bread itself for being half-baked, as that is the fault of the baker, not the bread.
This can be applied to the idea of a creator of the world (which is clearly the intent in this thread). Either this is the best the creator can do, which means that the creator is not a very good creator (and probably should have left well enough alone and not created anything), or it did not care to do better, in which case it is evil, as it does not care about the enormous amount of suffering it created. And, of course, one does not properly blame the bread itself for being half-baked, as that is the fault of the baker, not the bread. Likewise, it is inappropriate to blame the creation for its flaws, since what it is was caused to be by the creator. From looking at the world as it is, there is no reasonable way one could ever conclude that the creator of it (if it had one) is anywhere near perfect. A perfect creator creates perfect things; it is a sure sign of a defective creator when what is created is defective.
But, you are right, that without specifics, one can infer very little from the mere fact of creation, without knowing what is created.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
