@Brokeback, ehh, the infinite universe thing where there are infinite you's and me's is more philosophy than science. If you rewound the clock on evolution, would it come out the same way? If it doesn't, then how are there infinite you's and me's?
Intelligent design thought.
It is all fictional and there is no proof merely speculation.
The math of infinities drove some mathematicians over the edge or suicide. you might find this interesting:
Does it argue for a creator, or does it argue for a cause?
I am satisfied that it is possible to have simply the right conditions for an ur-cause to exist,
I favor the view of a creator over a mere cause, for the extravagance in nature. If efficiency were the driving force, we would not have the ornamentation we see, the paper thin (10 m) rings of saturn, plumage of the peacock, the 10 in the bode law. all done by law.
Laws are the product of a certain intelligence. even if it is an ass'.
To those that point to perceived cruelty, misdesign in nature. I say: visit a slaughterhouse and see how much cruelty is imposed on lesser beings to feed you, or your offspring.
Limited use design seems to be a feature of the past.
I suppose that juries have convicted men for simply having the right conditions to commit the charged crime, but juries have also demanded more evidence, and even reassessed cases like this.
Who says efficiency is really the driving force? Does it have to be? It's true that nature is extravagant, but isn't it enough to appreciate a garden without also having to believe there fairies at the bottom of it?
Are natural laws the product of an intelligent force, or an effect themselves? If you have two apples, and I give you two more apples, you will then have a number of apples equal to the sum of 2 and 2 which we call 4 but could have been called anything. The names and observations might be laid down by an intelligent person, but the effect being observed, hardly so.
How is man's cruelty proof of God?
"Limited use design seems to be a feature of the past." I don't know what you mean by the last line or how it relates to the discussion, but Lao-Tze was talking about seeing other uses for things a long time ago.
Don't think I'm attacking you either, prologos. This is an interesting discussion.
Schnell, Even the extravagance of the peacock display has an evolutionary explanation, a male, that not only has the extra energy and genetic mobility to produce and refine such display, and then is able to defy and evade predators with that handicap, should rightfully merit the females' invitation to fertilize her eggs.
The "creator all the way to the bottom" argument for me is moot, because conditions prior to the pre-big bang point in time can somehow be discerned, and do not preclude the possibility of a creator ( not like fairies that contribute nothing). What processes led to the particular laws that govern our universe, can we ever detect the lawmaking process? the genius in creation is though, that the amazing structures developed that way. far superior to the hand-on clay model of the bible. Speculation of different -law-constants multiverses? I feel small enough the way it is, looking at apod nightly. .
If a creator is the cause. . . Where is the creator? What is the creator? Does it ever have at least one position in the physical universe? Is the creator beyond or outside the physical universe? Is it or does it have anything at all to do with any supernatural deity humans have ever named or worshiped in history? What's its mechanism for any kind of contact with humans if anything? Does any of this matter at all?
And then the classic: Does it know everything? Can it do everything? Is it everywhere?
I see in nature, even inanimate, an irresistible pressure to create novelty, to evolve.
Does any of this matter at all?,
Where? in the same timeframe he was before we emerged from the point in time, moving outward. what is the creator? I do not know. He has no position in the spatial universe. would he need to? He was outside the universe when it was at plank size and he still is, but if you think of "him" as a large female, we would be embraced by him. --semblance to human constructs of the divine now or in the past? no. uninformed feeble misguided attempts. No mechanism for contact have been detected, I imagine there should be a flow of gratitude though. --No, It does not know everything, by choice, not even the future, as we develop it, but even we can predict mechanical events ( August 21, 2017 10 am. ) An eternal creator would already be in the far future, but that does not mean he can or would want to know what we are going to be up to, after all, here are far more interesting possibilities right?
Does it matter? well, my parents matter to me, and I hope I will matter to my children, ---one day.
So, if I have it figured right, you are a faithful deist whose arguments seem to suggest a potential slide towards agnosticism, as you admit that this creator has essentially no connection with us or our goings on. You simply want to believe, and you don't quite want to go over that slide.
While it's true that we don't know everything, we do know plenty, and we learn more all the time. As the place for God in our philosophy becomes smaller and smaller, why is it necessary at all?