Creator

That that is is that that is not is not that that is is not that that is not that that is not is not that that is is that not it it is

So the question is... Is it logical for there to be some kind of creator?

If there is evidence, then it would be highly logical.

I'd guess the more vague one's definition of a creator gets, the more logical it would become.

It would seem that all creations imply creators, that agents are necessarily behind all actions. But this is just the logic of our grammar, a cultural imperative. When there is rain we say IT (agent) is raining. When there is thinking we assume there is an I who is doing the thinking. Nietzsche put it that grammar is the metaphysics of the masses.

Thomas Aquinas worked out that there was logically a creator; I've no idea if people worked that up before him. I fell for it for some years.

I have seen this question raised a number of times, and I myself subscribe to the reasoning. I don't feel though that it is rebuttled well by claiming it is poor grammar, nor by ignoring the question and responding with your own. Essentially, my reasons for finding logic in a creator is quite simple. I see evidence in his works. A gimmick perhaps, but I cannot see logic in the "incredible accident" theory. I see building blocks, I see design, I see balance and structure in its laws. I see creativity, and attention to detail.

The issue is that evidence is relative to the onlooker. I see it illogical to assume the universe an accident, many will assume it illogical that it was not.

Furthermore, the laws of thermodynamics and the kiss prepuce conclude that:

If ifs and ands were pots and pans there'd be no call for tinkers.

Thats a circular piece of reasoning, so I gotta reject it.

Said another way. "A creator exists because "evidence of his works" is proof to me".

So now you boil it down to"works" . In what way are things evidence of works by a Creator without first assuming that a Creator exists.

Osso, I fell for it too. It seemed only logical until I came to realize that logic is not the end-all of discovery (except perhaps for mathematic research); it's mainly a prophylactic mechanism rather than an instrument of discovery. For me discovery comes from observing and, frankly, intuition. Logic is principally a way of avoiding contradictions in relationship statements regarding observations. Something like that.

Observing requires the identification of patterns, and the identification of patterns requires the ability of making sense of data, or conecting the dots...in turn intuition consists in making a generalization departing from a particular example, which amounts to inductive thinking, of course it all requires a certain amount of logical association even if normally deduction is its most natural instrument...so how come you deny the common use of Logic? Aren 't you for a start making use of the rules of grammar even to write the stuff that you right in English? Ironically rarelly is the ocasion in which one can escape logic...although there are of course greater and lesser degrees on its control...

Perhaps I should have stated myself better.I may have read you wrong. I was not talking of Gods deeds, for I could put the fact that dinner was cooked to perfection today down to Gods mysical workings if I wanted to, but Im pretty sure my dear wifey did that on her own. The works I speak of are what I call creation. I see engineering at its best.

The program within a cell that divides, I understand is in the DNA, that is a pretty complex program. I cant see it as an accident. I do boil it down to intelligent engineering, rather than an accident, yes. I cannot in my mind take the programming and structure of the universe and say nope, that just happened. I was recently studying the biology within a single cell down to its minute functions, and I could not get my head round how that could not have been put together. It is the intelligence in everything that is, that makes me believe that it was designed by an intelligent form.

I respect however that not everyone takes the same perspective that I do, It is a trial of evidence. I convict the accused, God of putting the earth together. You having seen the same evidence decide there is no defendant... ok this illustration doesnt work as well as I planned it... but you get the point.

FA, we are getting ourselves confused here. My earlier reference to the trap of "grammar" was not a call for being ungrammatical; grammar's an ineluctably useful tool--for some purposes. Nietzsche's reference to grammar as the metaphysics of the masses, referred to our inability to see what's happening because of our cultural bias toward thinking in terms of a dualistic subject-object axiom. We see one thing but think another. And THAT'S a contradiction in experience.

FA, we are getting ourselves confused here. My earlier reference to the trap of "grammar" was not a call for being ungrammatical; grammar's an ineluctably useful tool--for some purposes. Nietzsche's reference to grammar as the metaphysics of the masses, referred to our inability to see what's happening because of our cultural bias toward thinking in terms of a dualistic subject-object axiom. We see one thing but think another. And THAT'S a contradiction in experience.

I understand your view. Its just that , I dont share it . Weve not been able to really find the undeniable "irreducible complexity" or the point, beneath which, lies some place of intervention of a creator.

Recent work on double cell "like" walls that lead to evagination (the [process by which an organism "turns itself inside out" to define a gut, or to act as a reaction site, can be "created in the lab" by taking reactive organics and exposing them to fluids in the presence of a strong reducing environment (like wed see in the caldera of a volcano and along the muddy travertine deposits of hot fumaroles).
Lets assume that in order for self assembly to take place, there would need a special "reaction cauldron", and we find one (or several ) in nature. Does that mean that this creator is also responsible for creating the cauldron and reaction place as well as the reaction? Also, because the history of life has been so hit and miss (with the vast majority of organisms just going extinct, I have to question the competence of a creator if its been said that the cretor is all knowing)
I see how easily we can accept natural phenomena without batting an eye, yet we seem to want to evince a creator by making it hang onto or direct all the many reaction cauldrons that exist in the world since time began.
(We have good geological evidence of mud fumaroles, paleogeysers, calderas, basalt fields, black smokers, travertine pools with algae mats all over) . I think that, to be fair, you must "pair up" all this evidence rather than just looking at cell walls mitochondria, DNA/RNA, etc. as unknown phenomena or "miracles of reation" > I see them as inevitable consequences of where chemistry/biology/ meets the environment.
Why did life proceed, ever so slowly up a slope from verry simple forms through several billion years and then, as processes became more routine (and geological evidence supports all these simple "baby steps"), more rapid and complex jumps of evolution began and continued through today. I see all these dependent reactions and developments manifesting how biology works in tune with environments that occasionally present themselves.

http://www.sultan.org/articles/QScience.html

This here is one example of the thousands of scientific stantements in the Qu'ran (A book from the creator)
If i were to create (design a car) i would leave a manual and this would proove that the car was infact intelligently desighned by me if i were to say in this manual that it was. (not well worded but i hope you get the point)
So likewise the Qu'ran seems to be a manual from the intelligent designer of the universe. Is this fair logic of a creator?

I stress that there are thouasands of scientific examples in the Qu'ran so this wont be the best example.

How many double negatives does it take before a sentence becomes convoluted?

The fact that energy can not be destroyed doesn't imply any sort of creator what so ever. The problem here is in the definitions, and with the word "destroy". The meaning of destroy is relative. Like if you have a cup, the definition for the cup is when it is in a state that can be identified as a cup, but if you were to smash that cup and shatter it into pieces, one person might claim you "destroyed" the cup, but someone else could say the cup was never destroyed, you just changed it's state. Technically you could pick up the pieces and glue them back together and use it as a cup again, so what was really destroyed?

If you can follow my poor metaphor, the point with energy is that it is not something that can be destroyed, because it is just a state, and to butcher a definition of energy, I would say that energy is a state of matter.

But trying to tie energy into something "special" because it can't be destroyed is a huge stretch to what we mean when we say it can't be destroyed. Therefore it does not imply any god at all and to do so is more of a ploy to squeeze in the concept of god not because there is one, but because the person making the claim finds it necessary to do so, without anything substantial to back it up.