Brandon9000 wrote:The desire to know the nature of the universe in no way validates an explanation advances without evidence that it is the correct explanation.
If you use the term in reference to "validation" in the scientific sense, then I quite agree. Indeed the belief in or assumption of the existence of a creator is just that -- a belief and an assumption. I certainly do not offer it as, or consider it to be, a scientific observation or deduction.
As an "explanation" it satisfies me in terms of my own spiritual and intellectual life. That does not preclude me from revising my assessment or explanation in the very unlikely event that significant new information should arise.
Alterenatively, one could go forward with no assumptiuon and no explanation. I have no quarrel with that position. Many here appear to me to argue that the idea of a creator is somehow absurd. In the absence of an alternative explanation for our origins on their part, I note that this position is just as arbitrary and unprovable as belief in a creator and, unlike it, still leaves no answer for the question of our origins. Which is more absurd?
