# 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:** 7
**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, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/121 "2010-01-18T04:10:14Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Other cultures have spelled out in considerable detail their creator-gods. Are they wrong? Why? > > \ > > 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? Wrong? I don’t know on an absolute scale. I do know that the ones I’m aware of are wrong for me. That is why I practice no religion. For me there is the personal relationship with God/Creator. And there is religion. I’ve no interest in the latter. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Yes, but for many people, it isn’t. And if it’s so private, why are you in this thread, discussing it? I’m perfectly fine arguing the logical argument that points to the necessity of God. The rest I’m private about for the reasons mentioned. ---
**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, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/122 "2010-01-18T04:12:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m perfectly fine arguing the logical argument that points to the necessity of God. Which is what, exactly? ---
**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, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/123 "2010-01-18T04:14:33Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > 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. I’m sorry. But I’m genuinely having a difficult time understanding your points and questions. So I’ll just offer this up in the hope that it helps: I don’t see my faith as being blind—as far as the existence of God. Not sure what you mean by “me having hammered it in”. > [@Grumman](#): > > 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. Again, having a hard time. Odd. Perhaps if you asked me specific questions that would help. Just a suggestion, though. ---
**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, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/124 "2010-01-18T04:15:42Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Which is what, exactly? The need (in my estimation) for a First Cause that needs not be caused itself. I though you would have gleaned that by 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, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/125 "2010-01-18T04:23:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The need (in my estimation) for a First Cause that needs not be caused itself. I though you would have gleaned that by now. Well, I was hoping you’d have something more novel, but even if we assume a First Cause existed, it acted momentarily billions of years ago and there’s no indication of its involvement since. What “relationship” could we have with such an entity, if entity is the right word? ---
**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, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/126 "2010-01-18T04:27:00Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, I was hoping you’d have something more novel, but even if we assume a First Cause existed, it acted momentarily billions of years ago and there’s no indication of its involvement since. What “relationship” could we have with such an entity, if entity is the right word? For me, as I said, it is a highly personal one. I feel like I’m on the right track acknowledging his/its existence. The rest I mainly wonder about, trying to figure it all out as things get thrown my way. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/127 "2010-01-18T04:29:04Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > So if something has existed “forever”, what is this “something” made of? Surely not _matter_, because matter is bound by time. Matter. There it is. Time has nothing to do with it. ---
**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, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/128 "2010-01-18T04:29:12Z")
Well, if you ever find some actual evidence, don’t be shy. ---
**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, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/129 "2010-01-18T04:35:11Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, if you ever find some actual evidence, don’t be shy. Will do. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/130 "2010-01-18T04:39:40Z")
I’m an atheist, but I’m prepared to accept that we (and by “we” I mean everyone) cannot explain existence itself at this time. Some atheists seem uncomfortable about this, and maintain that there is no philosophical mystery: there is. Of course, using this fact as a support of theism isn’t quite as strong as the OP imagines. For one thing, the OP uses Occam’s razor to discount the theory of the universe popping into existence. Yet later god pops into the equation, quietly ducking the razor. Secondly many of the arguments that the universe must have had a beginning are based around properties of this space time “bubble”. Even if the OP does not consider quantum foam, say, as “nothing” (which I agree with), it is still the case that such states are not necessarily finite the way our spacetime appears to be. In other words, there’s no reason to suppose that “it all” has a beginning, therefore affecting the “The universe has a beginning” premise of the ontological argument. But finally, I’m not convinced that eternal entities necessarily don’t require a cause. This is the unspoken assumption of the ontological argument. Clearly there are eternal entities / concepts that do not exist. So even if god / our universe were eternal, it wouldn’t explain anything. We’d still be able to ask: why does this eternal entity exist and not others? And when you think about it, there’s very little difference, perhaps no difference, between this question and “How did our finite universe pop into existence”? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/131 "2010-01-18T05:31:00Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > 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. I never claimed that by the 20th century, no one in Jewish spirituality or theology would have attempted to identify some of the attributes associated with God. No one who had read Hillel, Shammai, Maimomides, or even Philo would make the claim that the concept of understanding God was alien to Judaism. I was pointing out that after multiple rude posts, all relying pretty much on the _Shema_, alone, **raindog** had failed to substantiate his point that scripture demonstrated that God was knowable. He still has not. I can point to a few passages in scripture that could support his claim, (along with the passages from Job that deny it–scripture being the marvelously versatile instrument that it is), but if he is going to attack other posters on a point, he should at least provide the evidence that supports his position rather than simply talking in circles and making up his own interpretations that are not supported by the text. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/132 "2010-01-18T08:04:55Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > 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? These are not the scenarios that I posited in the OP. ---
**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 18, 2010, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/133 "2010-01-18T11:28:46Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, I was hoping you’d have something more novel, but even if we assume a First Cause existed, it acted momentarily billions of years ago and there’s no indication of its involvement since. What “relationship” could we have with such an entity, if entity is the right word? There are billions of people who believe they have connected with God, have felt his presence and influence. Now, understand my point, I’m not suggesting this is evidence that God exists. But it is consistent with the existence of an “active” creator God. I’m just reacting to the comment “no indication of its involvement since.” Nothing provable, but certainly there is an indication of a possible ongoing involvement. But, for me, that’s beside the point. It is apparently irresistible to respond to the assertion of the First Cause with the question, “But how does that prove that the God a given people believe in exists?” even when that notion was specifically disavowed. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/134 "2010-01-18T11:40:57Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > These are not the scenarios that I posited in the OP. That’s right; these were my own simplified alternatives to the creation mystery. Simplified even further - God did it, or Shit Happens. If it’s the former, I’d be interested to know why god only decided to get involved with its plaything when primitive man had managed to invent Hebrew? Were its creations not worthy of its contact until a certain time and place in history? ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/135 "2010-01-18T11:53:11Z")
Here’s a suggestion and/or challenge to those of a religious persuasion of any kind. Acquire a copy of Geoff Simon’s “Time To Be Rational- Darwin, Demons and Sex” and read it as diligently as you read your respective holy books — read it, and then read it again, to makes sure you’ve got the real gist of it. Then come back and post rationally. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/136 "2010-01-18T12:13:11Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > There are billions of people who believe they have connected with God, have felt his presence and influence. Now, understand my point, I’m not suggesting this is evidence that God exists. But it is consistent with the existence of an “active” creator G0d. _If_ this was acceptable as evidence, it would be evidence of hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of _different_ gods, considering all the different and contradictory messages the populace receives. ---
**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, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/137 "2010-01-18T13:39:46Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > For one thing, the OP uses Occam’s razor to discount the theory of the universe popping into existence. Yet later god pops into the equation, quietly ducking the razor. That’s why he has that long, white beard ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/138 "2010-01-18T13:40:22Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > There are billions of people who believe they have connected with God, have felt his presence and influence. Now, understand my point, I’m not suggesting this is evidence that God exists. But it is consistent with the existence of an “active” creator God. > > I’m just reacting to the comment “no indication of its involvement since.” Nothing provable, but certainly there is an indication of a possible ongoing involvement. But, for me, that’s beside the point. It is apparently irresistible to respond to the assertion of the First Cause with the question, “But how does that prove that the God a given people believe in exists?” even when that notion was specifically disavowed. Billions of people also have believed the world was flat, and the center of the universe. Some have the need to want a being that takes care of them. Belief about a God is the belief in another humans words, or beliefs, that is why believing that the Bible or the Koran or any book is not proof of God’s sayings but what some human says it is. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/139 "2010-01-18T13:45:32Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > What created the place for the something to exist that came from nothing? Your argument is equally valid/invalid across both options. Not if existence has always existed, as it is impossible for nothing to exist! It is true it proves little, but it doesn’t mean a being could exist out of existence, so a being would need a place, and existence could be place! ---
**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, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307/140 "2010-01-18T13:48:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > _If_ this was acceptable as evidence, it would be evidence of hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of _different_ gods, considering all the different and contradictory messages the populace receives. No, the argument just goes to the existence of God. Period. If people then take the additional step of saying what God is or wants, that’s beyond the scope of the Firs case argument. And when they start to build a religion around him, that another step yet—a big one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-creator/525307.md?page=8)