Why is a \"designer\" so compelling? (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by David Turell , Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 23:25 (5397 days ago) @ xeno6696

If we invoke a creator, there isn't really anything we can say or do or study about it. We just invoke it. It's also unfalsifiable, which is one of my criterion for accepting something--anything--as truth.
 
 
I have my own answer to your assertion. - 
From an earlier post:
> I prefer to call my line of reasoning rational philosophy, using findings in nature to decide whether there is a God on not. I am not a theologian by any means. - Adler, in "How to think about God", defines " 'rational philosophic inquiry' ...as a persistent effort to explain what needs to be explained and cannot be explained by scientific investigation, or by any other form of inquiry that employs as its means perceptual observations and reflective or analytic thought. (Pg. 148) He concludes his argument for God: "I am persuaded that God exists, either beyond reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of reasons in favor of that conclusions over reasons against it." (Pg. 150) - He then discusses the fact that philosophical theology can carry one only to the edge of a chasm, quoting Pascal, " that separates the 'God of the philosophers' from "the God of 'Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,' and of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed." To cross the chasm, there is no bridge, but a leap of faith, which leaves philosophy behind. - And here, for me, what is not needed is Karl Popper and falsification. That is full reductionism materialism science approach, and that is fine if the individual wants to proceed that way, but I haven't. I am an autodidact. I started my studies in this area over 50 years ago, with NO preconceived conclusion. I came to my current conclusion about twenty years ago based on the findings in cosmology and particle physics. Then I took on Darwin and evolution; Darwin starts when life is present. His theory does account for life itself, and there is still no evidence for macroevolution, only microevolution. And yes, no question, evolution occurred. As I have stated before, we are still uncovering the full mechanism. Natural selection IS passive. The competition IS active, but the opponents of the battle for survival arrive by chance, from a purposeless progression if one is to believe today's Darwin proponents. The driving force providing the players in the game of evolution is passive. - And so I am across the chasm, having faith in my ability to judge my conclusion and accept it. Only, I don't believe in Adler's God, who is 'a personage like no other person.' I don't think religions help. They don't know any more than I do. The sacred texts are somewhat historical and fanciful. I feel there is a universal consciousness and intelligence, of which I am a tiny part. And that is where I stand, with full faith that what I feel is correct, and faith that I can relate to that universal intelligence and gain support from it by believing in it. This is a paraphrase of "there is a world of difference in believing that God exists and believing in God." (Jose' Ortega y Gasset) This last sentence is from Adler.