Note to the moderator asked to move this from this forum: I am trying to have a reasonable conversation/debate about the nature of this secular evidence, entirely within a secular set of conditions. This is NOT a religious discussion. Please do not move this thread from the protected venue of this forum so that it wont be trolled to death.
These are not air-tight unassailable arguments, or syllogisms, etc. These are simply some observations that I have had over the years that have strengthened my belief in the reality of a Creator.
1. The Infinite Regression Fallacy. It is widely understood that one cannot count from 1 to infinity because there is no final number that terminates the count. The Infinite Regression Fallacy is an expression that the opposite, counting down from infinity to any finite number, is also impossible because there is no initial point from which one begins. And so we cannot be here due to an infinite chain of segments of time that are of finite, non-Zero, duration. So there must be a starting point to the flow of time. That Initiator of time and space is the Creator, whatever the nature of it, it must be eternal and outside the flow of time.
2. Physics shows us that the greater the mass of an entity, the slower the flow of time is for it, similar to the increase in mass of an object approaching the speed of light. Anything entirely outside the flow of time must be infinite in mass, and therefore energy as well since they are merely different forms of the same thing.
3. In mathematics the Transfinite Number system, created and proven to be valid by Cantor, gives us a model for a 'largest infinite set' which Cantor called the Continuum. This is the set of all possible sets, and Cantor believed it proved the existence of the Creator. I am using it merely to present a rational model for an infinite eternal entity, in this particular argument. This shows the concept of an infinite Creator to be rational and not 'magic'.
4. In Cantors sets of numbers, while the numbers themselves can be null or empty, there is no negative count of elements in the sets. All sets are of a positive count or empty, no negatives exist within it. So to apply this model to the Creator it would mean that the Creator has all possible qualities that are not negative or the absence of another quality, i.e. no shadow, only light and so forth. So anything of a positive nature in our universe must also exist within this Creative Entity, such as intelligence and empathy and energy.
5. We can demonstrate the existence of a soul by observing the ability of the human mind to shift focus from one stimuli to another while nothing changes in regard to the set of stimuli given to the person at all. This is the essence of one's soul, the 'Decider' of ones being, what makes you you. Given the argument from step 4, this implies reasonably that the Creator must also have a similar quality as well.
6. While the Scientific theory of a 'Fine Tuned' universe suggests some form of intelligence behind the formation of our universe, science cannot prove it by definition as that leaves the conditions for which science works, i.e. the conditions of our universe which are natural. We have no idea how the laws of physics might operate in another universe because we cannot, yet, make any observations of them. But we can point out the very rarified conditions that allow for life that would reasonably suggest an intelligent Designer responsible for them.
So in sum, there are rational arguments for the existence of a Creative entity, the Creator, but nothing that says what the personality is like, name, etc. For that you have to discuss religious topics, and I am not going to that discussion here except to observe that whatever name we apply to the Creator due to our culture or system of faith, if we are thinking of the Creator when we speak of this entity then we are all really talking about the same thing, the Creator of the universe.
Merry Christmas.
