I am afraid, it is one's problem if searching the maker of the complex (though very well defined) system of his living body is like searching a myth, and searching how the natural laws started is not like looking for a fairy tale.
I didn't say the study of a biological system or a study of the natural laws looks like a myth or fairy tale. You put those words in my mouth.
I said if you need a being to be responsible for them that sounds like a myth.
The natural world is excellent and completely adept at producing all kinds of amazing things, particles, forces, and they all work together to produce an atomic level, molecular and macroscopic world. All the way up to super-superclusters of galaxies.
Nature does this just fine. No need or evidence for a creator.
The natural laws seem to have arisen from a single unified law. Beyond that we do not know. But one day we might have progressed in science and will be able to answer many deeper questions.
I can assure you, since now, that one cannot get any real answers about the Will behind his existence, if he cannot perceive it within himself.
Except many many scientists do not feel any "will" behind their existence. Many people do and that same feeling tells them the maker is Allah. Or that it's Jehova and the J. Witnesses are the only group doing the actual will of the creator.
Or it's Brahman acting through Krishna. Since so many people use there feeling to demonstrate their version of the maker is the correct and only one we see these feelings can and do lead people into complete fiction.
You have an idea in your mind and are finding a way to "feel" it's the actual truth. Sorry, sounds like made-up myth.
Evidence also demonstrates these feelings can be delusional.
Even a real scientist depends on himself first to get, for sure, any new answer (discovery). Such a scientist is known as inventor.
New answers don't mean anything. Next they must be tested and repeated by other scientists to see if the answer has any connection to reality.
Other scientists must be able to perform the answers. Then the answers must make predictions or they must have a way to be tested. "Feelings" don't get a pass. Until you can use those feelings to make new and accurate predictions about reality that can be tested and compared with other feelings and we can determine what if any can be demonstrated to be real then they are of no use and there is no reason to take them as truth.
You are right fully in this. If one expects that his Maker should be like one of the various images of God that are offered on the world's table, he is simply searching the myth which suits best his priorities in life.
Right but I'm saying that even the idea of a maker seems to be part of these myths with no other connection to reality.
I guess you liked telling me: "You are comparing God to a company which makes computers".
Yes, computers and robots are real but they are supposed to play certain roles only for which they are built and programmed. They are not supposed to waste their times searching their makers.
I am afraid that this also applies on humans. If a human feels fine by just following his natural instincts (instructions embedded in his living flesh) to play, while alive, certain roles in the material world, he is also not supposed to waste his time searching the Will behind his existence in any way, including from within himself.
You are implying several things which you have given no evidence for, a will behind existence and instincts that go beyond physical, a non-physical realm in general. No evidence at all. You have a concept which sounds like it's from religious thinking about God and a will.
Yet most religious people have put forth the idea of feelings that go beyond the physical as well as some sort of sense of a God's feelings, wishes or "will".
Yet they all stand in opposition to each other with thousands of different ideas and commands and motives from many different Gods. Your idea about sensing a "will" from a creator is no different than a prophet claiming God told them who is the correct God and what it wants.
I don't see evidence that Mohammud spoke with the angel Gabrielle or Joe Smith spoke with Moroni and I see no evidence you are in tune with any will of a creator.
There is no doubt that people can convince themselves that these things are true.
Thank you, you gave me here an example of a myth that describes the Creator.
There are many myths to describe creators. What would show there are more than myths is evidence.
I didn't get an answer regarding if one dies without "love on their heart"? Is there an afterlife in your model and is there a different afterlife for those who die without love?