posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:38 PM
It should be pointed out, given the Creator vs. no Creator debate, that a scientific explanation for the beginning of biological lifeforms does not
really make a Creator impractical or impossible. Any logical person would have to concede that if there were a Creator, this designer could have
brought about the creation of life in whatever manner they wished. It actually makes some sense that if there were an intelligent designer they would
have worked within whatever constraints they established in the first place. Meaning that if the universe was the first thing that was created, and
this universe was created with specific laws in place, then the subsequent creation or evolution of anything within that universe would be dependent
upon those specific laws. This is why even evolution does not make the idea of a Creator impossible. The truth of the matter is that it is impossible
to prove a Creator, just as it is impossible to prove there is no Creator, for the reason I've given above.
This says nothing about whether a Creator could limit their own abilities, because they wouldn't have needed to. If a Creator exists, and is
all-knowing and all-powerful, then it must be conceded that the only necessary intervention for the creation of "anything" was a single initial act.
From that initial act, let's say the creation of the universe, everything else would fall into place in some preconceived way. Just because we have
detected a certain randomness or probability-driven behavior in particles does not mean that a Creator is limited to the degree that we are, and that
they could still "see" exactly what would occur from the creation of the universe until the end of it. That is the thing about being
Now perhaps such a scenario would pose a problem for specific religions, but those who argue against Creation are not arguing against a specific
religion, but are arguing against the notion of a Creator itself. Such a view is illogical in my opinion. Of course we cannot prove the existence of a
Creator, but anyone who claims to be an objective person must concede that it is at the very least possible. So I can understand someone saying they
do not believe in a Creator, but to say that it is impossible for a Creator to exist is not only arrogant, but just plain illogical, given that as a
species we are by no means "advanced." We have barely scratched the surface, yet some wish to maintain that we know enough about things that we
cannot even scientifically address at present to make far-reaching claims about the existence or non-existence of that very thing we cannot
scientifically address. Or to put it another way, we cannot scientifically test the idea of God, therefore how can it be maintained that God has been
disproven by science? The idea of God is not falsifiable anyway, meaning you can never disprove a Creator.