# Evidence of a Creator **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2010, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307 "2010-01-17T12:15:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/101 "2010-01-17T23:29:49Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I never thought I’d type this, but **raindog** is closer to what I learned in Hebrew School and in services than anyone else in this thread. The _Shema_ describes the most important aspect of God - the Lord is your God, the Lord is one. The Lord being one, or even being One, is a single attribute. The Lord being the God of the Hebrews indicates a specific relationship. Neither describes the Lord as being knowable. There may be a text in Scripture in which there is a statement that humanity can really know or understand God, but it does not appear in the _Shema_ and **raindog** has failed to provide a single other example. His original claim, (when he got his rudeness out of the way), was > [@raindog](#): > > > [@mswas](#): > > > > One of the problems with this is that even in the Abrahamic traditions conjuring up an image of God is not something one is supposed to do. Christianity handles this by using Jesus as a placeholder while implying that God the Father is simply beyond our comprehension. In Judaism you simply don’t conceive of YHVH as having some kind of image and in Islam it’s straight up blasphemy. > > The OT makes it quite clear that the Jews had a clear image (if not literal) of God, his attributes, purposes, and expectations. I’ll grant that His expectations were made known to the Jews, but attributes and purposes? The _Shema_ says nothing about them and **raindog** has failed to provide any other example. In fact, as you, yourself, point out > [@Voyager](#): > > Forget images - after we got over Moses seeing God’s tush, we understood God has no image. One poem that we read in services said quite explicitly that God has no shape and no form. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/102 "2010-01-17T23:30:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t think you have to. Well, for a discussion about “Evidence of a Creator”, I kinda thought it would _help_. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/103 "2010-01-17T23:32:24Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Yes, but if we postulate that there exists one cause that has no cause, then proposition 1 of your syllogism is therefore falsified. No, only if we accept that the unmoved mover must exist within the boundaries and framework of the universe. By definition it does not, it exists outside of them, otherwise it could not have brought the universe into being. > [@](#): > > You postulate that uncaused causes exist. Why should there only be one of them, and every other cause flows from that first cause? If there’s one, why not a kabillion? Why can’t they be happening every day all around us? I already answered this. > [@](#): > > And the problem with “entity” is exactly what you said–it implies a “thing” of some sort. Is gravity an entity? Is quantum indeterminancy an entity? Is the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle an entity? Is the proposition that all causes must have a prior cause an entity? No, I don’t think so. The uncaused cause is a being with a will, for lack of a better description. The act of creation, and all that. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/104 "2010-01-17T23:38:02Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, for a discussion about “Evidence of a Creator”, I kinda thought it would _help_. Ha. I guess there are two aspects to this. One is the intellectual exercise in which we debate about the likelihood of their being a Creator God. The other is my personal belief, which is the result of 1) logic and 2) personal experiences I have had. I can never communicate #2, so I don’t try. And I don’t think anyone should change their mind/heart on a personal experience that happened to another person. Additionally, I think I’d come to the same conclusion based solely on #1. So that is where I choose to have the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/105 "2010-01-17T23:40:49Z")
I’d be okay with some empirical evidence. Logic without evidence can be used to argue just about anything. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/106 "2010-01-17T23:45:23Z")
Ugh. I don’t see what scripture has to do with the argument. I also don’t see where the argument is evidence for anything called god in the usual sense. [ul] [li]From what I gather, _our current universe_ has a beginning in the big bang and a finite but ridiculously long timespan in which anything interesting (like atoms) will be here.[/li][li]I don’t know if it’s necessary for the big bang to have a cause. As far as I know opinion is divided on that, and I’m not a phycisist.[/li][li]It may be there was a cause - or time - before the big bang. There are hypotheses that stipulate that there was, but no evidence for it that I know of. It’s not even clear if that sort of evidence is possible.[/li][li]If there was a cause, there is no reason to assume it is eternal, can or does interact with our universe, or even exists anymore - “creating” the universe might have destroyed it, or it could be just a fundamental property of “nothingness”, in the same way that dark energy might be a fundamental property of spacetime. [/li][li]Without any sort of evidence as to what it is, naming that cause a “creator” assumes an _intent_ on the part of the cause that is completely unwarranted. The cause can be a random chance event, or a more directed constant force or any of a multitude of mindless concepts.[/li][/ul] Now with all that in mind, _even if the creator was in fact an actual being with intentions and all that, that still does not mean it’s god or a bunch of gods or whatever sort of mythological being you’re familiar with_. For one, as I stated above, it doesn’t follow that the creator has any influence in our universe. So: still no evidence for god. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/107 "2010-01-18T00:03:48Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’d be okay with some empirical evidence. Logic without evidence can be used to argue just about anything. Sigh. God is a matter of faith. If he visited you one day and performed every magic trick you asked and did whatever else you wanted to the point where you were convinced, you wouldn’t need faith, would you? Science is great for interacting with most of the world. But why do you so adamantly fight against faith? Seriously. Gotta run now… ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/108 "2010-01-18T00:12:07Z")
How does “God” get spoken of in approving terms as representative of faith, to the exclusion of other deities whose followers were no less faithful? ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/109 "2010-01-18T00:32:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Sigh. God is a matter of faith. If he visited you one day and performed every magic trick you asked and did whatever else you wanted to the point where you were convinced, you wouldn’t need faith, would you? Science is great for interacting with most of the world. But why do you so adamantly fight against faith? Seriously. Because it leads to people making terrible decisions when they either think they themselves know what God wants, or follow others who think they know. It’s funny that people always defend faith in God, but they’d think adults who have faith in unicorns are insane. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/110 "2010-01-18T00:33:32Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Now with all that in mind, _even if the creator was in fact an actual being with intentions and all that, that still does not mean it’s god or a bunch of gods or whatever sort of mythological being you’re familiar with_. For one, as I stated above, it doesn’t follow that the creator has any influence in our universe. > > So: still no evidence for god. I think you’re getting way too hung up on this. It’s true that the argument from creation doesn’t automatically imply the Judeo-Christian God, but that’s hardly a substantive objection. Philosophical arguments typically involve a series of steps, and when it comes to the deepest questions of human existence, one can seldom expect to arrive at immediate answers. Besides, the title of this thread is “Evidence for a **Creator**.” Not necessarily the God of the Bible, but some sort of cosmic creator. As I said, postulating an uncaused cause provides a philosophical starting point. Could there have been multiple creators? In principle, perhaps, but that would be an ontologically bloated proposition – multiplying agents beyond what’s necessary. Similarly, one could question whether this agent has an influence in the universe. However, if this agent were powerful enough to create the universe, then it would be implausible to suggest that he was somehow incapable of influencing it in any way. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/111 "2010-01-18T00:39:31Z")
Well, then what kind of test could we conceivably create that would establish that a creator of some sort was involved? Assuming we could, got any ideas of tests that would help define its nature? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/112 "2010-01-18T00:57:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Sigh. God is a matter of faith. If he visited you one day and performed every magic trick you asked and did whatever else you wanted to the point where you were convinced, you wouldn’t need faith, would you? Science is great for interacting with most of the world. But why do you so adamantly fight against faith? Seriously. Because your position is a blatantly self-serving argument with no basis in reality. You expect us to take it on faith that faith has any place in your worldview, despite evidence and common sense both telling us that deliberately shunning anything resembling feedback is more likely to lead you to completely the wrong conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/113 "2010-01-18T02:46:51Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Because it leads to people making terrible decisions when they either think they themselves know what God wants, or follow others who think they know. It’s funny that people always defend faith in God, but they’d think adults who have faith in unicorns are insane. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/114 "2010-01-18T02:49:55Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Because your position is a blatantly self-serving argument with no basis in reality. You expect us to take it on faith that faith has any place in your worldview, despite evidence and common sense both telling us that deliberately shunning anything resembling feedback is more likely to lead you to completely the wrong conclusion. Can you explain what you mean a little better? Especially the beginning of your second sentence? Why would you doubt that faith has a place in my worldview? Why would you care? If I ask you to do something based on my faith, I could see it, but I’ve just claim having faith. Period. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/115 "2010-01-18T02:53:46Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, then what kind of test could we conceivably create that would establish that a creator of some sort was involved? Assuming we could, got any ideas of tests that would help define its nature? Wow. Well, I think logic kind shed light on the first part. But the nature of the Creator is quite a bit tougher. I have my thoughts, but I tend to keep them to myself. Partly because they’re still so much in the process of being formed and I have a hard time stating them clearly to even myself. And partly because for me, one’s relationship with God is a personal/private one. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/116 "2010-01-18T03:22:33Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Yes, I’ve said so in this thread. I don’t believe I can prove it to you, though. And I’m not certain that only one religion is “right” in the most important ways. But I can offer no proof, only what I have personally experienced. > > But I agreed with the original assertion, that as a matter of logic, it’s the prime mover that withstands logical scrutiny. My religion does not, but I don’t hold it as a matter of logic. I’m definitely not asking for proof - I’m asking for your, or anyone else’s argument. Do you connect God with the creator because you believe in god for other reasons, so if there is a creator it has to be your God? Or does your belief that there has to be a creator somehow justify your choice of gods? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/117 "2010-01-18T03:37:56Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The Lord being one, or even being One, is a single attribute. The Lord being the God of the Hebrews indicates a specific relationship. Neither describes the Lord as being knowable. > There may be a text in Scripture in which there is a statement that humanity can really know or understand God, but it does not appear in the _Shema_ and **raindog** has failed to provide a single other example. His original claim, (when he got his rudeness out of the way), wasI’ll grant that His expectations were made known to the Jews, but attributes and purposes? The _Shema_ says nothing about them and **raindog** has failed to provide any other example. In fact, as you, yourself, point out I dug out the prayerbook I was given after my bar mitzvah, 45 years ago, and opened it at random. In the Morning service, I read > [@Siddur](#): > > Let him rise early and say: > Master of all worlds! It is not on account of our own righteousness that we offer supplications to thee, but on account of thy great compassion. … Indeed all the heroes are as nothing before thee, the men of renown as though they never existed, the wise as if they were without knowledge; the intelligent as though they lacked understanding. Not the perfect example, but not bad for just opening the book. That certainly gives an attribute or two. Purpose? Unknown, except in respect to promises made. And, neither **raindog** or anyone else, theist or atheist, has, to my knowledge, ever claimed that knowing God is possible. As for the Shema, it is not at all surprising that someone whose ancestors were mass-converted by some king or other would understand what "The Lord is **your** god means to us. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/118 "2010-01-18T03:46:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Wow. Well, I think logic kind shed light on the first part. I tend to distrust pure-logic arguments that have no connection to any discernible physical evidence. The so-called epistemological proof of God is one such example, the “make a rock he can’t lift” is another. > [@](#): > > But the nature of the Creator is quite a bit tougher. I have my thoughts, but I tend to keep them to myself. Partly because they’re still so much in the process of being formed and I have a hard time stating them clearly to even myself. Other cultures have spelled out in considerable detail their creator-gods. Are they wrong? Why? > [@](#): > > And partly because for me, one’s relationship with God is a personal/private one. Yes, but for many people, it isn’t. And if it’s so private, why are you in this thread, discussing it? And you can call it God if you like. That name is but one of many, used throughout history. Is it objectively better than other names? Why? If you were born in Greece in 300 BCE, would you have a similarly private relationship with Chaos? Why or why not? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/119 "2010-01-18T03:47:00Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > As I said, postulating an uncaused cause provides a philosophical starting point. Could there have been multiple creators? In principle, perhaps, but that would be an ontologically bloated proposition – multiplying agents beyond what’s necessary. Similarly, one could question whether this agent has an influence in the universe. However, if this agent were powerful enough to create the universe, then it would be implausible to suggest that he was somehow incapable of influencing it in any way. The capability of influencing it doesn’t imply that it got influenced - and there is no evidence that it has been. It is also a big universe. The influence might be local, at a place far away from us, in fact so far from us that we can’t even see it or be influenced by it. Not that a creator must be able to influence the universe. Perhaps an advanced technology could create a universe by creating a singularity. The creator of that universe would be forever barred from looking into or influencing it. The creator might be a grad student for all we know. The one thing we do know is that if there was a creator, and he did come to talk to us, and he did tell someone a creation story, he was either pulling their legs or lying through his ass, because we know that the creation stories of all world religions have nothing at all to do with what really happened. Hell, when the Big Bang happened, there wasn’t even light. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/120 "2010-01-18T03:52:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Can you explain what you mean a little better? Especially the beginning of your second sentence? Why would you doubt that faith has a place in my worldview? I meant it in the sense that blind faith _shouldn’t_ be part of your worldview, not that you haven’t hammered it in there anyway. > [@](#): > > Why would you care? If I ask you to do something based on my faith, I could see it, but I’ve just claim having faith. Period. I care because it represents a fundamental flaw in your way of thinking. You aren’t just blindly picking a number between one and infinity, you’re also arguing that this blind guess is _better_ than using the tools you have available to narrow it down. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307.md?page=7)