A Rebuttal to Donald Schneider's "Proof of a Creator," by SJK (continued)
Also, advocates of this creative something have an advantage over their philosophical adversaries in that they never have to explain how. Their creator is able to use, make, change, or ignore laws of physics as he/she/it sees fit, but how does he/she/it do it? In this world, the canvas doesn’t paint itself, true, but the artist, who exists in real time, bound by our rules, uses real, physical materials to impose order on a pre-existing physical object (the canvas).
Your creator exists in magical plane and uses—what?—to impose order on a non-existing object. He/she/it is able to whip up his/her/its materials out of nothing and impose them onto nothing in order to come up with something. Again, how does he/she/it do it? (And as a side note, peripheral to this discussion, what is the creator him-/her-/itself made out of?)
It seems to me that if you’re going to postulate a creative something that is able to do all this, you ought to be required to provide some kind of explanation. After all, that’s what you require of science. Admitting that it is the “ultimate mystery” is no different than saying, “I have no idea.” If you can make that claim for your creative something, why couldn’t scientists make that claim with the Big Bang theory? “Here’s what we believe happened, but how it happened is a mystery.” All that does is stop one step short of what you are doing. In other words, your creator theory just pushes the mystery back one step, but ends with the same result: “I have no idea.”
I don’t understand Einstein’s general or special relativity well enough to make any kind of intelligent comment upon them regarding this subject. However, I do know he specifically addressed it when a rabbi wrote to him in 1939. The rabbi was preparing a lecture on “The Religious Implications of the Theory of Relativity.” This is how Einstein replied:
"I do not believe that the basic ideas of the theory of relativity can lay claim to a relationship with the religious sphere that is different from that of scientific knowledge in general. I see this connection in the fact that profound interrelationships in the objective world can be comprehended through simple logical concepts. To be sure, in the theory of relativity this is the case in particularly full measure. Click to continue: