(March 12, 2015 at 1:37 pm)Norman Humann Wrote: I just don't get what it is about the idea of a creator that feels probable. It creates the parallel problem of who or what created the creator. If you have no problem assuming the creator always existed, why do you have a problem with the universe always existing without the creator?
And why is saying "I don't know" so difficult for some people?
What makes a creator seem probable is the fact that we can't explain a cosmos that always existed. Natural science has no means to deal with it. We tend to assume that something that has always existed would possess qualities that are beyond the natural. If there was simply nothing and all of a sudden there was something, then that is also something that natural science can't explain. Either we assume that there is a natural explanation and have to live without knowing, or we open up to the possibility that there may exist something that is not part of our natural world. Using science to prove the existence of the supernatural is like using mathematics to prove evolution. Math doesn't have the capabilities to do that.
Some people will keep looking for a way that materials came together and began to live, even though we don't know, and say this is reasonable. At the same time, they will refuse to acknowledge the possibility that something outside of nature caused that life to enter into those materials. To me, a creator is no more unbelievable than energy or matter that has always existed and never was created. Which is more believable than the other?
