The question of a creator is deeply personal, yet it also intersects with philosophy, science, and human curiosity. Whether one sees it as essential or irrelevant depends on their perspective—some seek meaning through it, while others focus on understanding the natural world through empirical inquiry.
Context: This question came from a Facebook comment:
“I’m looking for simple answers, like why design experiments if there isn’t a creator? And, the absence of proof suggests that there is more to know and understand. Or that current scientific theory is wrong. I’m exploring the nature of a creator.”
Answer: In my work, I categorize all ideas as empirical, rational, or irrational. ‘Irrational’ is not a negative term but simply a category for exploring new ideas, fiction, the currently unknown, and the unknowable. In my epistemology, my feelings, desire, nor beliefs influence my truth.
Good luck on your quest to frame the question of a creator in your life. I ended up considering it an unknown and perhaps unknowable. While I am an explorative agnostic, I’ve exhausted all viewpoints on that subject and have moved on with my life. I concluded with “enjoy the journey.”
My input for your quest is that any ideas exploring the unknown should not ignore reality or conflict with our empirical observations. Scientific inquiry and the design of experiments are driven by our desire to understand the natural world, independent of whether a creator exists. They help us uncover the mechanisms behind phenomena we observe and enable us to build a coherent and testable body of knowledge.
