(December 12, 2013 at 3:03 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: I'm defining creation, as Simon Moon commented on, as existence. I called it creation instead. The earth, sun, moon, stars, animals, plants, etc. Everything we "percieve" through our senses. I pruposed that existence (creation) points intuitively to an intelligent designer. I believe it to be far more likely things are created rather than they just happened. Simon Moon propsed that "existance is evidence of existance", that there cannot be any further deductions, conclusions, or intuitions to be drawn from that observation.
Why do you think it more likely that it was all designed by something? The something that did the designing would have to be enormously complex, capable, and have massive massive resources (at least as much 'stuff' as there is in the universe as the thing had to make it all).
We have nice, neat, natural and simple explanations for how all the things we see around us, from a blade of grass to a supernova, formed. This natural explanation is far more parsimonious that a hugely complex creator thing. (the creator thing begs the question - where did it come from and what designed it? If our universe is too complex and requires a designer, the designer will need a designer and you are no further forward)
The natural explanation is simple, verified by observation, predicts things we see every day and requires no ultra-being. It is more likely to be true and frankly a much better explanation.
