Men do say strange and weird things when caught up in religious superstition. Actually the law of nature is called surprise surprise, the law of nature. Not "the laws of his Creator". The idea that everything must have a Creator except a Creator, is the age old formal fallacy of special pleading. It failed 250 years ago just as it fails today. Creators either directly or through Kings violated the rights of others for thousands of years and are no good as a source for inalienable rights in the real world.
Rabid atheists can say even stranger things. Like this fine example of self-contradictory STUpidity: It [the Christian God] expects the correct understanding to be that there is no God. The Christian God would have to be an atheist anyway, so it's just as likely any Heaven would be for those like Itself. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3233482&#post3233482
A creator would be the best source for inalienable rights, if everyone believed. But, they don't. Our kings are dead. Hmm, maybe New Age could supply an authority! : )
Again, I am no expert on this topic - but it would appear to me that you are making enormous leaps of logic to further your narrative. To say that "Creator" does not refer to a supernatural being - which we all conveniently refer to as a "god" or "God" (since at the time of the Founders, almost everyone was a monotheist) - is rather silly. You're trying to defend a point with semantics when it is quite obvious to everyone with an IQ over 80 that the founders were doing their best to walk a line. The rest of your argument concerning the Establishment Clause, while an interesting read, isn't something I can speak to one way or the other. My point was only your attempt to maneuver out from under a rather uncomfortable situation you seem to have placed yourself in where you claim Creator and God are not essentially the same. Please don't try to steer me to anything else.
Just to be clear, I don't say "Creator" is not referred to as a supernatural being. I say the founders in their wisdom did not refer to "Creator" or originally write in their own hand no less, (which does give some indication of their thinking) the word "Creator". They amend later to include only the words "their creator", which is decidedly not the same type of thing at all. Creator is the same as creator as God is the same as god? really?. I think you'll have a big problem justifying that one. Lower case god is one of any number of imaginary deities or a supreme being conceptually consisting of anything at all. But in any case, take it up with Jem. He was the one saying capitalization is important to meaning. My point being the founders did not themselves cap up any of those words in their original drafts. Jefferson's and Adam's drafts are extremely informative in that such learned men do not initially reference any kind of deity but by later amendment include only 'their creator' and 'nature's god' significantly avoiding the more religious use of the single word "God". It vividly displays how they instinctively placed belief far down the pecking order and indeed, left any mention absent altogether when it later came to the all important legal matters of 'We the people'. I completely agree with you that the founders were trying to walk a line. I suggest the founders were consummate pragmatic politicians and saw their work succeed past Congress with alterations to written documents that do nothing to change , diminish or enhance the Declaration's fundamental meaning or purpose, working every bit as well without the words "Creator" or "creator" or "God or "god" as per those original drafts. I don't care to steer you to anything, though please don't incorrectly read into things stuff not said.
I think their appeal to authority was pragmatic on at least two levels, (one being political). The belief that there is an objective authority beyond us goes a long way to heading off existential chaos and nihilism. Yes, I like to think of the founders as also philosophers. Anyway, what is the argument here in this thread, that belief in a creator/Creator/god/God by our founders means that there must be such an entity? Jem and Tarder surely cannot be arguing that.
Just a historical to finish off Stu's stupidity and ricters odd comment about having to be a believer. If you are part of a historical movement against authorities ... such the Protestant Revolution was against the Catholic Church and Monarchs of Europe... and you are looking for justifications to make you movement legitimate, strong and powerful. You are going to consider saying natural law, comes from the creator and that it can't be changed by man. And, some of your most important points with will impressively be aligned with that Natural Law. You might even create such argumentation even if you are not a believer. If you do not think people do this in even weaker forms... I present to you Obama saying he is a Christian and Hillary saying the bible is her guide.