News:

Nitpicky? Hell yes.

Main Menu

Questions about Humanism

Started by drfreemlizard, June 12, 2018, 03:59:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Arturo

All you can do is hope what you are doing is right and that your actions will have good outcomes.
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Dave

Quote from: Davin on June 18, 2018, 03:26:53 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 06:44:22 AM
If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism?  It sounds like that is the argument being made.
You have to separate things. If both grandparents perform the same actions, then they are the same. The difference will be what exists beyond the actions. As implied by atheist and theist grandparents, there is an extra thing with the the theist. That doesn't mean that there is no extra thing with the atheist, just that in the given scenario there is not indication of any. If the theist grandparent did nothing extra at all, including never declaring themselves a theist, then there would be no difference in the grand children. But there would still be a net negative effect for the grandparent, in that what they are expecting, they will not be getting. It would be like putting bit of money into a furnace every month expecting to be able to use that money later. Investing in religions is like making a bad investment of money, time, and effort. All theists agree that it's a bad investment for every religion but the one they so happen to agree with, even though there is no reliable evidence for any of them.

Now in the real world, we know that theists do not just keep their religion to themselves, they find ways to introduce their religion in various ways. So if there is an effect from the grandparent that helps to convince the grandchildren to also waste their time, money, and/or effort by investing in religion as well, then that is a net negative. At least with all else being equal.
Some interesting ideas in that, Davin.

Problem is both theists and atheists come in wide ranges of all kinds of things. Theists vary from "casual" liberals to strict, even raving, fundamentalists. Atheists, strictly, might range from the thoughtful, more or less moral type (such as us!) to the "I don't give a shit what the kid wants, put the TV on and give me  a beer" brigade (I have met them.)

Humanists are very much in the thoughful, aspiring to be moral, section of the atheist range, their "belief set" keeps them there. Without that "belief set" they are not humanists, just atheists. Any humanist who forces their beliefs on their kids is not normally viewed kindly by other humanists, atheists may be prwised for saving their kids from any possibility of theist contamination.

Some atheists are humanists but do not like to be labeled as such  :grin:

I am trying to visualise some Venn diagrams. In strict terms "All humanists are atheists,"  but another is needed to indicate that the true humanist must share qualities and values with theists. Perhaps, in reality, those qualities and values cannot be owned by any one group - human nature goes from extreme to exreme but things like compassion, morality etc are still in there to be shared by all.

It is not only godless atheists that plumb the depths of violence and depravity. Nor is it only theists who provide support and charity to those in need.

However, I will reiterate that, even as a humanist, I remain against any right to impress belief systems on impressionable kids. Objective value systems certainly, definitely, but not beleif systems - offer them all on equal terms and let the kid decide which to adopt when they feel they feel are ready to do do.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

drfreemlizard



Quote from: Tank on June 18, 2018, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
...

A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."


And this is why humans dreamed up gods. So they could cope in a hostile universe that gives not one shit about our existence. I accept reality and an existence in a hostile universe, you do not, you delude yourself that you matter. You do not. You are just a meat tube here to make more meat tubes and if you haven't made any new meat tubes you are essentially a failure. There is no reason for life to exist at all, none at all. Biology is just a by product of chemistry in the the right environment over sufficient time. And as far as we can tell based on recent findings while microbial life may exist in niche environments multicellular life may be vanishingly rare. None of which makes any difference to me whatsoever.

Actually, to take your argument a bit further, I'm not even here to make more meat tubes, as that would be a purpose assigned by another.

So to sum up your argument as I understand it from pure rationalism: The universe began to exist, we know not how, but assuredly we know that there is no why. It happens, purely by chance, that there is one planet in this universe that supports the development of organic life, and by chance, on this planet, the things(we aren't sure what they are) needed to generate organic life came together in exactly the right ratios at exactly the right time. From these completely unremarkable building blocks of life came, by pure chance, an ordered system able to work in opposition to one of the basic, testable laws of nature, the second law of thermodynamics, and not only that, it could replicate itself, further imposing order in a universe whose basic principles of being are a constant tend to maximum randomness. From this randomly conglomerated initial strand of, let us say for the sake of our discussion , RNA, came eventually the first single cell organism, never mind where the blueprint for the rest of the cell's parts came from.

With time, this single cell reproduced itself, and it's progeny underwent various mutations, ignoring the overwhelmingly negative effects of most mutations, to bring about variety of life. With more time, the single cell organisms became, at least some of them, multi cellular, for no apparent reason. Again ignoring negative consequences of mutations, and the likelihood of the correct mutations in the correct order, higher (subjectively) life evolved, further working against the second law of thermodynamics (why don't I just say entropy after this?).

At some point, reproduction in many organisms changed from asexual by way of cell division to sexual by way of fertilization of one organism by a compatible organism of the opposite gender. This frankly both flies in the face of efficiency and assumes the evolution of complementary sexual characteristics of two compatible organisms at the same time. But no matter, we can take that as a given since we're here so it obviously happened that way.

From this, with further mutations and violations of entropy, life adapted to its surroundings. Why some remained single  cell, others became plants, and others became primary and secondary consumers is uncertain, as natural selection really should have everything vying for top of the food chain.

In the middle of this appears the first primate. Or pair of primates because again, sexual reproduction. From these basic prototypes evolved man, although the fossil record uncovered so far lacks much in the way of transitional forms either for this or any other evolutionary process.

Man then evolved the extra brain capacity to ask such existential questions as "Why am I here?" "What does life mean?" "What does it mean to be human?" despite those questions having no purpose or benefit, and actually being a detriment.

Pardon me, please, if I find this view begs coincidence too often, and asserts absolute negations while at the same time confessing its ignorance.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk


Davin

Quote from: Arturo on June 18, 2018, 04:13:12 PM
All you can do is hope what you are doing is right and that your actions will have good outcomes.
There is a lot more that you can do. You can look at available information in order to make better decisions. You can look at the consequences of your actions to see if they play out well. You can listen to the people that you're affecting and see if they think you're doing well or not. You can correct things once it's known that the effects are bad. There are even more things that can be done.

Nothing is going be absolutely certain, but there is more than can be done than act and hope.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Dave

Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 18, 2018, 04:55:06 PM


Quote from: Tank on June 18, 2018, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
...

A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."


And this is why humans dreamed up gods. So they could cope in a hostile universe that gives not one shit about our existence. I accept reality and an existence in a hostile universe, you do not, you delude yourself that you matter. You do not. You are just a meat tube here to make more meat tubes and if you haven't made any new meat tubes you are essentially a failure. There is no reason for life to exist at all, none at all. Biology is just a by product of chemistry in the the right environment over sufficient time. And as far as we can tell based on recent findings while microbial life may exist in niche environments multicellular life may be vanishingly rare. None of which makes any difference to me whatsoever.

Actually, to take your argument a bit further, I'm not even here to make more meat tubes, as that would be a purpose assigned by another.

So to sum up your argument as I understand it from pure rationalism: The universe began to exist, we know not how, but assuredly we know that there is no why. It happens, purely by chance, that there is one planet in this universe that supports the development of organic life, and by chance, on this planet, the things(we aren't sure what they are) needed to generate organic life came together in exactly the right ratios at exactly the right time. From these completely unremarkable building blocks of life came, by pure chance, an ordered system able to work in opposition to one of the basic, testable laws of nature, the second law of thermodynamics, and not only that, it could replicate itself, further imposing order in a universe whose basic principles of being are a constant tend to maximum randomness. From this randomly conglomerated initial strand of, let us say for the sake of our discussion , RNA, came eventually the first single cell organism, never mind where the blueprint for the rest of the cell's parts came from.

With time, this single cell reproduced itself, and it's progeny underwent various mutations, ignoring the overwhelmingly negative effects of most mutations, to bring about variety of life. With more time, the single cell organisms became, at least some of them, multi cellular, for no apparent reason. Again ignoring negative consequences of mutations, and the likelihood of the correct mutations in the correct order, higher (subjectively) life evolved, further working against the second law of thermodynamics (why don't I just say entropy after this?).

At some point, reproduction in many organisms changed from asexual by way of cell division to sexual by way of fertilization of one organism by a compatible organism of the opposite gender. This frankly both flies in the face of efficiency and assumes the evolution of complementary sexual characteristics of two compatible organisms at the same time. But no matter, we can take that as a given since we're here so it obviously happened that way.

From this, with further mutations and violations of entropy, life adapted to its surroundings. Why some remained single  cell, others became plants, and others became primary and secondary consumers is uncertain, as natural selection really should have everything vying for top of the food chain.

In the middle of this appears the first primate. Or pair of primates because again, sexual reproduction. From these basic prototypes evolved man, although the fossil record uncovered so far lacks much in the way of transitional forms either for this or any other evolutionary process.

Man then evolved the extra brain capacity to ask such existential questions as "Why am I here?" "What does life mean?" "What does it mean to be human?" despite those questions having no purpose or benefit, and actually being a detriment.

Pardon me, please, if I find this view begs coincidence too often, and asserts absolute negations while at the same time confessing its ignorance.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

On Entropy and Evolution.

QuoteTo claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also grounded in a misunderstanding of where the law applies. Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog. The kinds of systems that can be analyzed with the second law are much simpler.

A living organism is not so much a unified whole as it is a collection of subsystems. In the development of life, for example, a major leap occurred when cells mutated in such a way that they clumped together so that multicellular life was possible. A simple mutation allowing one cell to stick to other cells enabled a larger and more complex life form. However, such a transformation does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than superglue violates the law when it sticks your fingers to the kitchen counter.
https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/evolution-and-the-second-law

QuoteThe second law of thermodynamics (the law of increase of entropy) is sometimes used as an argument against evolution. Evolution, the argument goes, is a decrease of entropy, because it involves things getting more organized over time, while the second law says that things get more disordered over time. So evolution violates the second law.There are many things wrong with this argument, and it has been discussed ad infinitum.
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

QuoteThe second law of thermodynamics is sometimes (too succinctly) stated as "disorder increases over time".  That statement seems to hold true, what with mountains wearing down, machines breaking, and the inevitable, crushing march of time.  But living things seem to be an exception.  Plants can turn dirt (disordered) into more plants (order), and on a larger scale life has evolved from individual cells (fairly ordered) to big complicated critters (very ordered).

However, there are a couple things missing from the statement "disorder increases over time", such as a solid definition of "disorder" (it's entropy) and the often-dropped stipulation that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/

There are a lot more like this out there, Dfr, how many would you like? Or are they all talking rubbish in your understanding of the Universe?

Entropy will certainly eventuality stop evolution, as it will stop almost everything that goes into creating reactions, no radiation, no chemical energy gradients etc etc. Maybe some mechanical movement until gravity clumps all matter together. So, in the ultimate energy death of the Universe what the creationists etc say is true. Dead, neutral matter will be left, unilluminated by any stars. No life as we know it can exist without energy.

So long as there is radiation and other forms of energy, chemistry, mechanical action etc combining elements and splitting compounds apart then change happens. Uncountable compoundings and changes over billions of years might lead to anything. Including self repropucing molecules that get ever more mixed and complex. Sex is the really difficult bit . . .

But, all will fade.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Arturo

Quote from: Davin on June 18, 2018, 04:55:36 PM
Quote from: Arturo on June 18, 2018, 04:13:12 PM
All you can do is hope what you are doing is right and that your actions will have good outcomes.
There is a lot more that you can do. You can look at available information in order to make better decisions. You can look at the consequences of your actions to see if they play out well. You can listen to the people that you're affecting and see if they think you're doing well or not. You can correct things once it's known that the effects are bad. There are even more things that can be done.

Nothing is going be absolutely certain, but there is more than can be done than act and hope.

Of course there is but there comes a time when you have to make decisions. And researching and whatever else you just said won't help but will only serve as a distraction to the decision you have to make. So in the moment of making the decision, the best mentality to have is the hope that what you are doing is right and that what you do has good outcomes. The stuff you mentioned doesn't occur while you are making the decision. There is a time and a place for that, and while you have to make a decision, that is not the time for it.
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Davin

There's a bunch in there before the quoted bit. The only thing I'll add to that is that I think it is possible for a theist to be a humanist and that I think there are some. And I'm there are some hybrids, like those who agree with, "god helps those that help themselves."

Quote from: Dave on June 18, 2018, 04:49:31 PMHowever, I will reiterate that, even as a humanist, I remain against any right to impress belief systems on impressionable kids. Objective value systems certainly, definitely, but not beleif systems - offer them all on equal terms and let the kid decide which to adopt when they feel they feel are ready to do do.
I'm against using fallacious and dishonest tactics, especially when used on children. If people refrained from that, then no religious beliefs would qualify. At least not under the guise of being real.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Davin

Quote from: Arturo on June 18, 2018, 05:55:32 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 18, 2018, 04:55:36 PM
Quote from: Arturo on June 18, 2018, 04:13:12 PM
All you can do is hope what you are doing is right and that your actions will have good outcomes.
There is a lot more that you can do. You can look at available information in order to make better decisions. You can look at the consequences of your actions to see if they play out well. You can listen to the people that you're affecting and see if they think you're doing well or not. You can correct things once it's known that the effects are bad. There are even more things that can be done.

Nothing is going be absolutely certain, but there is more than can be done than act and hope.

Of course there is but there comes a time when you have to make decisions. And researching and whatever else you just said won't help but will only serve as a distraction to the decision you have to make. So in the moment of making the decision, the best mentality to have is the hope that what you are doing is right and that what you do has good outcomes. The stuff you mentioned doesn't occur while you are making the decision. There is a time and a place for that, and while you have to make a decision, that is not the time for it.
I don't know about that. When I make decisions I often consider those things. The more important the decision, the more that should be considered.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Sandra Craft

Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 18, 2018, 04:55:06 PM

Pardon me, please, if I find this view begs coincidence too often, and asserts absolute negations while at the same time confessing its ignorance.


That's an awful lot of assumptions in one place, which I'm guessing may be causing your difficulty in understanding.
Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 18, 2018, 11:27:25 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 18, 2018, 04:55:06 PM

Pardon me, please, if I find this view begs coincidence too often, and asserts absolute negations while at the same time confessing its ignorance.


That's an awful lot of assumptions in one place, which I'm guessing may be causing your difficulty in understanding.

I think so too. I only offer the wise little green man's words to dfl:


Because what you have learnt is wrong.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Sandra Craft

Maybe this can be a start on that unlearning: 25 Stupid Arguments Xtians Should Avoid, part 1

Part 1 only covers the first four stupid arguments, but one's already been offered here so it seemed pertinent.
Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

Dave

I am wondering if Dfr has given up on us godless ones or were our arguments begining to nibble away at his faith?

Or maybe he is just too busy to give us time . . .

Whatever, missing the discussion.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

drfreemlizard

My apologies for taking so long to reply, Dave! It's been a busy few days. And I did want to think about your post before I responded.

On Entropy and Evolution.

QuoteTo claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also grounded in a misunderstanding of where the law applies. Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog.

I believe the slow breakdown we refer to as old age, and then death, are entropy at work. Otherwise, why does death occur even without a particular mishap such as a vehicular accident, etc?

A living organism is not so much a unified whole as it is a collection of subsystems.

So, who is writing this?

In the development of life, for example, a major leap occurred when cells mutated in such a way that they clumped together so that multicellular life was possible. A simple mutation allowing one cell to stick to other cells enabled a larger and more complex life form. However, such a transformation does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than superglue violates the law when it sticks your fingers to the kitchen counter.

The difference being that superglue didn't just appear one day as random molecules stacked up over millenia in the shape of a nice, airtight, drip proof bottle of the stuff. It had a maker.

QuoteThe second law of thermodynamics (the law of increase of entropy) is sometimes used as an argument against evolution. Evolution, the argument goes, is a decrease of entropy, because it involves things getting more organized over time, while the second law says that things get more disordered over time. So evolution violates the second law.There are many things wrong with this argument, and it has been discussed ad infinitum.

This is less an argument of rebuttal and more just stating I'm wrong, with no actual points being made.

QuoteThe second law of thermodynamics is sometimes (too succinctly) stated as "disorder increases over time".  That statement seems to hold true, what with mountains wearing down, machines breaking, and the inevitable, crushing march of time.  But living things seem to be an exception.  Plants can turn dirt (disordered) into more plants (order), and on a larger scale life has evolved from individual cells (fairly ordered) to big complicated critters (very ordered).

This is a re-statement of the issue.

However, there are a couple things missing from the statement "disorder increases over time", such as a solid definition of "disorder" (it's entropy) and the often-dropped stipulation that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.

Which is what science says earth is: https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/how-was-proven-that-nature-closed-system-497699

And I called it entropy.


Entropy will certainly eventuality stop evolution, as it will stop almost everything that goes into creating reactions, no radiation, no chemical energy gradients etc etc. Maybe some mechanical movement until gravity clumps all matter together. So, in the ultimate energy death of the Universe what the creationists etc say is true. Dead, neutral matter will be left, unilluminated by any stars. No life as we know it can exist without energy.

So long as there is radiation and other forms of energy, chemistry, mechanical action etc combining elements and splitting compounds apart then change happens. Uncountable compoundings and changes over billions of years might lead to anything. Including self repropucing molecules that get ever more mixed and complex. Sex is the really difficult bit . . .

Actually, more than sex is difficult here. These uncountable compoundings of molecules might happen. But the exactly correct compoundings would have to happen in just the right order, and on the one planet (out of trillions) we know of that can support life as we know it.

The self-replicating bit is also another issue. There is another thread, I don't remember what the name of it was, where they discussed research scientists have done to figure out how the original self-replicating RNA might have come about. They have made some interesting advances and are to be congratulated for their hard work.

However the first problem is that the scientists themselves described the process they discovered as being "like nothing found in nature today".

The even greater problem is the overall nature of the research as it applies to a validation of the atheistic philosophy : Intelligent men working with the purpose of bringing about a desired end, creating the building blocks of life, in order to show that it does not take an intelligent being, working with purpose, to create life.

Someone mentioned that "Ken Hamm ain't gonna like this one" but I doubt it will trouble him overmuch.

But, all will fade.

We are agreed on this point. The physical universe we know will not last. The Bible makes that clear.

Please pardon any bbcode bloopers :)

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk


Bad Penny II

Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 21, 2018, 03:04:15 PM
My apologies for taking so long to reply, Dave! It's been a busy few days. And I did want to think about your post before I responded.

On Entropy and Evolution.

QuoteTo claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also grounded in a misunderstanding of where the law applies. Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog.

I believe the slow breakdown we refer to as old age, and then death, are entropy at work. Otherwise, why does death occur even without a particular mishap such as a vehicular accident, etc?

A living organism is not so much a unified whole as it is a collection of subsystems.

So, who is writing this?

In the development of life, for example, a major leap occurred when cells mutated in such a way that they clumped together so that multicellular life was possible. A simple mutation allowing one cell to stick to other cells enabled a larger and more complex life form. However, such a transformation does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than superglue violates the law when it sticks your fingers to the kitchen counter.

The difference being that superglue didn't just appear one day as random molecules stacked up over millenia in the shape of a nice, airtight, drip proof bottle of the stuff. It had a maker.

QuoteThe second law of thermodynamics (the law of increase of entropy) is sometimes used as an argument against evolution. Evolution, the argument goes, is a decrease of entropy, because it involves things getting more organized over time, while the second law says that things get more disordered over time. So evolution violates the second law.There are many things wrong with this argument, and it has been discussed ad infinitum.

This is less an argument of rebuttal and more just stating I'm wrong, with no actual points being made.

QuoteThe second law of thermodynamics is sometimes (too succinctly) stated as "disorder increases over time".  That statement seems to hold true, what with mountains wearing down, machines breaking, and the inevitable, crushing march of time.  But living things seem to be an exception.  Plants can turn dirt (disordered) into more plants (order), and on a larger scale life has evolved from individual cells (fairly ordered) to big complicated critters (very ordered).

This is a re-statement of the issue.

However, there are a couple things missing from the statement "disorder increases over time", such as a solid definition of "disorder" (it's entropy) and the often-dropped stipulation that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.

Which is what science says earth is: https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/how-was-proven-that-nature-closed-system-497699

And I called it entropy.


Entropy will certainly eventuality stop evolution, as it will stop almost everything that goes into creating reactions, no radiation, no chemical energy gradients etc etc. Maybe some mechanical movement until gravity clumps all matter together. So, in the ultimate energy death of the Universe what the creationists etc say is true. Dead, neutral matter will be left, unilluminated by any stars. No life as we know it can exist without energy.

So long as there is radiation and other forms of energy, chemistry, mechanical action etc combining elements and splitting compounds apart then change happens. Uncountable compoundings and changes over billions of years might lead to anything. Including self repropucing molecules that get ever more mixed and complex. Sex is the really difficult bit . . .

Actually, more than sex is difficult here. These uncountable compoundings of molecules might happen. But the exactly correct compoundings would have to happen in just the right order, and on the one planet (out of trillions) we know of that can support life as we know it.

The self-replicating bit is also another issue. There is another thread, I don't remember what the name of it was, where they discussed research scientists have done to figure out how the original self-replicating RNA might have come about. They have made some interesting advances and are to be congratulated for their hard work.

However the first problem is that the scientists themselves described the process they discovered as being "like nothing found in nature today".

The even greater problem is the overall nature of the research as it applies to a validation of the atheistic philosophy : Intelligent men working with the purpose of bringing about a desired end, creating the building blocks of life, in order to show that it does not take an intelligent being, working with purpose, to create life.

Someone mentioned that "Ken Hamm ain't gonna like this one" but I doubt it will trouble him overmuch.

But, all will fade.

We are agreed on this point. The physical universe we know will not last. The Bible makes that clear.

Please pardon any bbcode bloopers :)


Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

No

Who are you quoting?
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Bad Penny II

Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 21, 2018, 03:04:15 PM

The difference being that superglue didn't just appear one day as random molecules stacked up over millenia in the shape of a nice, airtight, drip proof bottle of the stuff. It had a maker.

Ye, so?
You can't conceive of any complicated thing that doesn't have a conscious creator.
I'm setting my mobility scooter to rabbit and getting outa here.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.