[quote author=“frankr”]I can claim (and do) that the universe points to a creator. The creator is outside the universe but his/her/its stamp is seen throughout the universe. The creator is outside the universe but his/her/its stamp is seen throughout the universe. I could never gather empirical proof of the creator because he/she/it lies outside the scope of the natural sciences.
You say you could never gather empirical proof of the creator yet you also say its stamp is seen throughout the universe. You can’t have it both ways frankr. Any evidence of something happening that cannot be explained through natural processes would be sufficient to justify your belief. The problem is, no one has been able to produce any.
If the universe was created as you claim, then there are only three possible explanations for whatever created it.
1. The creator has always existed: Besides the fact that it doesn’t explain anything, how is this any different than saying the universe has always existed?
2. The creator evolved through natural processes: If this is the case, then couldn’t the same natural processes have produced us?
3. Something else created the creator: Besides the infinite regression problem, wouldn’t each previous creator have to be more complex than the next? That means the next creator (maybe us?) would do an even worse job than the last. At least this theory doesn’t violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Every argument ever presented for God presupposes the existence of God. It is this type of logic that we’re calling irrational.