Evidence of a Creator

What is the origin of anything? What was there in the beginning? How did “stuff” begin? Well, to answer this question, we know that the answer falls within one of two deliberately very broad categories:

  1. Something has always existed, and it was from this something that everything that is here now, came to be.

  2. Something came in to existence from nothing (that’s a literal “nothing”. No thing. A lot of people (some atheists, especially) seem to have a lot of trouble understanding what is meant by “nothing”. To them, “nothing” can mean anything from quantum foam, zero energy entities with energy potential, singularities, all sorts of somethings that aren’t nothing. Please understand that by nothing, I am talking about what rocks dream of).

Now, I would argue that option 1 is more probable, because it requires one less thing to occur (something coming in to existence from a literal nothing). Both require something to exist, but option 2 requires one additional event - the coming in to existence of something from a literal nothing. Not only is there a serious question mark over whether something coming in to existence from nothing is even possible, the fact that option 2 requires this additional event renders it more improbable than option 1.

So if something has existed “forever”, what is this “something” made of? Surely not matter, because matter is bound by time. Remember, time is simply a measure of change. If something is changing from one state to another, you have time. The wiggle of an atom, or the movement of a sub-atomic particle is change, and change = time. Although the Big Bang is already very strong evidence that time began some 14 billion years ago, there’s another way to think of it that also offers very strong evidence to suggest time must have a beginning. Namely, as each second ticks by, the amount of “time” that has lapsed increases by one second. Infinity can not be increased, nor added to, because infinity is not a quantity. Hence, the amount of time that has lapsed so far, however huge that amount is, must be finite.

So, something, has existed forever (or more accurately, exists eternally), is immaterial, is not bound by time, and led to the origin of other things.

While not proof of a Creator, I would be interested to know why some people would claim it isn’t at least evidence of one, given how often atheists like to make the claim of “there is not one single shred of evidence that a god, or gods, exist”.

I’m perfectly OK with something coming from nothing, so I don’t have a problem with option 2. Causality is a convenient fiction on a par with Newtonian Physics or the unified mind.

You can be perfectly OK with it if you wish, but it seems the less probable option, because it requires one extra thing to happen that is not required in option 1. So, you can argue something-from-nothing is possible if you really want to, but more probable than option 1? Me and this big Razor would disagree.

Possibly I’m misunderstanding you; do the “somethings that aren’t nothing” in the latter category make for suitable examples of “this something” in the former category? Can we go for the first option, and simply describe its contents as “anything from quantum foam, zero energy entities with energy potential, singularities, all sorts of somethings that aren’t nothing” – ?

The point I was making is that often when you’re in a conversation about the origins of the universe, one person will use the word “nothing” to mean what rocks dream of, but the other will use the word “nothing” to mean all sorts of somethings. I am just making it clear: by nothing, I mean nothing.

If a creator exists then it must be in existence, so what created the place for the creator to exist? If existence is place then it would preceed everything that needed a place to exist

What created the place for the something to exist that came from nothing? Your argument is equally valid/invalid across both options.

It is not evidence of a creator for the same reason that the existence of lightning is not evidence of lightning elementals. Even if there was something prior to the existence of the universe, it’s absurd to jump without evidence to the conclusion that this something was sapient.

Perhaps the something that has always existed is the nothing people are talking about.

What do you mean by lightning “elementals”? Its most simplest parts?

No, he means those mythical beings that were once thought to throw lightning about like mischievious fairy delinquents.

This is a misuse of Occam’s razor, to evaluate the correctness of two arguments.

What’s simpler? When you get sick it’s because

  1. Viruses enter your body through some sort of exposure
  2. Viruses enter your cells and use them to create copies of themselves
  3. Which then spread around your body, causing an immune reaction
  4. And the combination of the damage the virus is doing, and the way your body reacts to attempt to fight off the virus make you feel like crap.


  1. Demons enter your body and make you feel bad.

Second one is simpler, so obviously it’s more probable that it’s right.

You are not using the merits of evidence or even philosophy in this case to weigh the different possibilities in a meaningful way. Rather you are arbitrarily breaking things up into what you consider logical steps, and then simply declaring that which has the fewest logical steps to be the winner. This is a faulty way to evaluate things.

Something that always perplexes me about this argument - and I may be misjudging your agenda here since you haven’t indicated that you intend to follow up in this manner - is that when theists argue in a philosophical way like this for the existance of something that we might consider the creator, they seem to think that if they can convince people that some sort of entity we didn’t understand was responsible for the creation of what we know as existance, then they’ve proven the case of their religion. They don’t seem to get that even if in some sort of philosophy 101 type of way that they can make people accept there’s a possibility that something predated our universe and played a role in its creation, then somehow you should just also accept that that entity is a bearded guy in the sky, and these are his rules, and these are his prophets, and this is how he has interacted with our world in the past.

It’s a ridiculously huge jump from a belief that something predated the universe - a greater multiverse, an intelligent entity who set the rules of physics and set things in motion - whatever, to accepting the doctrine of any particular religion.

Just using common sense, what seems more likely - that a non-corporeal intelligence, just popped into existence at some point and created everything we can see or experience, or that over vast barely imaginable tracts of time and some fortuitous circumstances, we are all here to argue about it?

If you choose the former, I want to hear some convincing arguments as to why; preferably ones that don’t mention the word “faith”.

Despite the fact your posts reeks of faith?

Yeah, man, by demanding evidence to support people’s views, you’re just having faith in the idea that evidence and logic are good! FAITH! FAITH!!!. You are totally the same thing as what you’re criticizing, man!!!

You do realize that theists do NOT contend that a non-corporeal intelligence “just popped into existence,” right?

The theistic argument is that, based on our experience, everything which comes into existence has a cause. That’s why philosophers are not quick to say “Oh, the universe just happened for no particular reason.” It’s an ontologically unsound proposition. If something has always existed though – or more accurately, if something exists outside of time, since time is a property of the universe – then it does not necessarily require a cause, since it did not come into existence.

For me, I find it odd that the universe itself have no cause. I find it odd because we can point to nothing else that is causeless. Some people like to claim that quantum mechanics has particles being created with no cause. But the sudden and apparent random appearance of a particle is hardly proof that it’s appearance in new location means that is was spontaneously created. So, for me, the simpler explanation is that since everything must have a cause, anything that does not would have to be extra-natural. A Creator God is the only thing that fits that bill.

I couldn’t agree more. (Though I don’t often see people claiming this.) I’ve stated things similar to this numerous times. Even if one thinks the First Cause argument proves, or is strong evidence for, the existence of a Creator God, it is a flawed leap to attribute any characteristics to that God. The argument is merely a strong argument for his existence, but it is completely mum on the flavor of that God. For all we know, every religion known to man is 100% wrong.

I’d just add that it is also fallacious to argue in the other direction that even if every religion we know is flawed or completely false, that is not a valid argument for the non-existence of a Creator God.

Dude! I’m totally with you on that.

Either we have empirical objective proof of God’s existence or we do not.

If we don’t, we’re left interpreting the “evidence.” (using subjective faith-like exercises like “logic”)

And the evidence on this is a bit scanty… (while the interpretation of it is not…)

In any event, that leaves us with our subjective beliefs.

Wouldn’t you say?

(and thank you for that powerful witness)

But, the options are either: the universe did just ‘pop into existence’, although scientists prefer to call it a Big Bang( it keeps the grants coming in if they have snappier subject titles!); it’s always been there and we are just experiencing a tiny part of it; or a Divine Creator set the whole thing in motion, not knowing that x amount of time after doing so, we’d be having so much trouble accepting said deity as our cosmic parent.

Only those lacking faith experience this trouble.