If there is a creator, so what?

[Norman Humann]

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.

There are things science can't explain yet. Can you explain why do you take a leap to the supernatural? Why assume there is something "more" than we could possibly observe? And why is living without knowing so terrifiying or inconvenient that you lean towards supernatural claims?

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?

An argument from ignorance, then.

But as I said, why is the creator always existing more probable than the universe always existing, for example?

Look at it this way: if there is a creator, he had to always exist, because he couldn't have created himself, right? So why is the eternal existence of a disembodied mind more probable than the eternal existence of matter? What makes it so much more believable?