I believe in a supreme creator because I think random chance is less logical for such complex lifeforms to exist. Is it not possible that while everything in the universe, including those elements vital for life as we know it, were condensed into a small ball of energy a supreme being was created that helped form the earth into a life giving planet?
No. I say "No" because what you propose is infinitely more complex than just a set of chemicals turning into life. It is so difficult to understand that people can't understand it and then say "It involves magic." The creator would have to have more information that the universe could contain to create a universe, and then there is the difficulty of where he got the stuff from to make the universe.
Perhaps you can explain that?
We know enough about extremely dense matter to know what happened from far less than 1 second from the beginning of the universe, and we know, by observing other stars, etc, how planetary systems develop. And out planet did the same.
I just enjoy the conversation; the challenge.
But you are not rising to the challenge, are you? All you do is say, "God did it." and, as I explain, that is no answer at all - we want to know how he did it.
You hit the nail on the head by golly! That's the point I've been trying to make. You can not prove perspective. You can explain it, you can illustrate it sometimes, but you can not prove it.
We do not need to prove perspective, but if we do, it is very easy as LPA (and I) said: Perspective can be seen (hence proven) by asking two people about one idea.
There have been many experiments along these lines, Noam Chomsky did a few and "proved" perspective.
However, it may be that you are using the word "prove" in a different sense to the rest of us... If so, you might like to explain what you mean by "You can not prove perspective."
Perspective: a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.
So how can we "prove" that? It seems like you are asking us to "prove an apple."
How does one measure the credibility of another's objectivity w/o the same brain and life experiences?
It is not that difficult: You say you perceive a unicorn in your garden; I come round with a few friends, none of us see it - your perception is faulty.
You say some god poofed the unicorn into existence, and then made it invisible. We ask, "How did he do that then?" You say, "It's a mystery." We all dismiss your perspective because it outside all experience and all probable experience.
You say, "I've got beer for everyone in the house." We all go in and there are cans of beer on the table - we accept your perspective.
You tell us that it was a gift from the gods and it just appeared, but we see the Wal-Mart labels - Your perspective is out.
We all get drunk and think it is funny to put your dog up the tree - our perspective is out.
We judge other's perspective by a very broad set of criteria - some people agree with the death penalty, others don't - all are reasonable lines of though. Some people think that torturing kittens is fun - most of us don't, so the torturer's perspective is out.
But when it comes to gods, there is, like the unicorn, nobody there.
Perspective is just an individual way of seeing things that is informed, as we have said by experiences. Nobody has the same, but when we average all the "perspectives" out we have "normality".