The only answer I can come up with is that he has always existed and he is infinate. That doesn't really satisfy me to be honest. But the chemistry Powner was talking about satisfies me that there is a Creator.
Yep, that's the answer you always get to when thinking about the beginning of god, and I agree that's not especially satisfying. I'd be just as satisfied to assume that some basic form of life has always existed and has been spreading through panspermia.
I'll agree that it seems that the chemistry is incredibly complex, and maybe even extremely unlikely to happen by chance. However, every few years there's some discovery that seems to point to it being slightly easier and more likely to happen than previously believed. Just the other day there was a thread on here about the discovery of metabolism without cell walls. At this point, I'd say we're just a few missing steps from linking properly non-living matter to life, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that the trend won't continue.
However, even if it does turn out that life is so incredibly unlikely to happen by chance, I still don't see an absolute need for a creator. Current cosmology suggests that it's possible, even likely that there are an infinite number of other universes out there. So, no matter how unlikely, it stands to reason that anything that is possible to happen, would have happened in one of those universes. It's only in the universe where life somehow formed by chance and evolved into intelligent, sentient beings that we can wonder about how this incredibly unlikely event ever happened.
This was one of the very first thoughts that I found I couldn't fully rationalize away as a JW. I was always something of a lover of math/science, and whenever the talks about the origin of life were given I could never understand why the apparent perfection of the earth and the laws of physics to support life was evidence of a creator. I always saw it as neutral evidence at best and at worst as somewhat discounting the idea of a creator. Sort of the same argument as above - if life is so unlikely to happen as is suggested, then wouldn't it make sense that it would only happen by chance in a place that is perfectly suitable for it to happen? It would be greater evidence of a creator if we lived somewhere that was extremly inhospitible to life, as such an environment would be more likely to require intervention in order to create and maintain living matter.
I don't know if you can tell, but you've hit on a topic that I love discussing, and since I have no outlet for that it comes out whenever there's an oppurtunity.
