Righto, please explain how the scientific method could prove the existence of the Creator.
And the evidence for your assertions are…?
I think you’re trying to skew this discussion down a different path, sorry.
We have a MASSIVE, OVERWHELMING amount of evidence. Genetics. Anatomy. Fossils. And so on, and on, and on. You have exactly zero evidence for your “inference”. It’s not at all the same.
So why is it being invoked, or even mentioned, in a discussion about the possible existence of a Creator?
Step #1. Evidence for the existence of your “creator” would be gathered up and studied, then…
Well, shit-we seem to be stuck on step #1.
Which assertions? That we haven’t observed humans and chimps evolving from a common ancestor? That we don’t have the complete fossil record showing the change between the two?
There is no need to show evidence on “assertions” that both parties safely agree on.
I’d take this one, folks, but it’s too damn easy.
This is a re-statement of the inference. What do you see that NECESSITATES such an inference.
Once again, you’re showing a lack of knowledge. We DO, in fact have direct evidence that chimps and humans have a common ancestor, and it’s not from the fossil record (which is more complete than you seem to think it is), but from genetic evidence.
In that case, direct your complaint to the others who want me to show the evidence that the Creator exists in a non-physical state.
Apologies, I confused you with Q.E.D. for a moment there, when he said “That is, we don’t understand what an electron is”.
Regardless, we don’t fully understand matter anyway. And even if we did, what would that prove? Does completely understanding how a paintbrush works prove there is no painter? Remember, it’s the functionality and complexity that I am suggesting is the evidence, not the ability to understand it.
Since there isn’t one, it can’t. If there was actual evidence, it could do so the same way it proves the existence of anything else.
You tried to claim I was just “making an assertion”; I asked you for an example of my “assertion” being wrong.
Talk about missing the point. He was making the obvious point that the scientific method is useless for discovering the “Creator” for the same reason it’s useless for discovering Thor or the Easter Bunny - they are all equally fictional. There’s zero evidence for any of them.
But I don’t exist in the non-physical world, it’s something unseen. The existence of it is inferred if you accept a particular starting premise. And again, to respond by saying you disagree with the starting premise, is to miss the point.
Ah, you’re right. My bad. A discussion in which the OP begins by example of the atom requiring a creator clearly isn’t the place for science, facts, or logic.
I’m done adding to this.
Perhaps in a world where unbacked assertions equal an argument, but I don’t think that’s how it works here.
“Not composed of matter” would be a start.
“Unseen” because it doesn’t exist.
Hardly; this is a thread about whether the existence of a Creator is “more sensical” or not. Which means that you can’t just postulate that you Creator actually exists as part of your argument.
In fact, claiming that if the Creator exists he must be something impossible - which is what you are doing - is evidence AGAINST it existing.
That’s not what I am saying at all.
If the scientific method, by your own set of definitions, is by its very nature, incapable of detecting a intelligent creator (if one exists), then why would you even mention it?
You may not be aware of this, but you’re the one trying to claim that a creator god can be inferred from empirical observations (i.e. from scientific method).
Don’t know. I’ve never seen or experienced such an existence.
Composed of what, then?