# Is the existence of a Creator just more sensical? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 18, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867 "2009-01-18T16:52:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/1 "2009-01-18T16:52:42Z")
I’m too scared to put this in GD for a couple of reasons: - GD is full of super-heavyweights, which is a class I am not sure I’m in - I don’t want to appear pretentious So let’s start it in here and see how we go. I believe the idea that the universe has an intelligent creator makes more sense than not having an intelligent creator. If you look at matter’s basic building block, the atom, and observe all of its magnificent complexity, structure and functionality, it surely makes “more sense” that it was designed. A quick pre-emptive strike: “But CalD, if complexity requires a designer, who designed the designer?” My answer -\> Complexity requires a designer in the known physical world. In a non-physical world without space/time/matter, this constraint may not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/2 "2009-01-18T16:57:15Z")
I believe that this universe is the result of matter being sucked into a black hole in another universe and expelled into what was formerly nothing. Nobody knows what the Big Bang was and nobody knows what happens beyond the event horizon of a black hole, so it’s as good an explanation as any. A creator? Sure, if that makes you feel better. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/3 "2009-01-18T17:00:16Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > A creator? Sure, if that makes you feel better. Nope, not at all. I happily fluttered between atheism and agnosticism for years. My belief in a creator is based purely on the “evidence” I see before me. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/4 "2009-01-18T17:00:16Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > I believe the idea that the universe has an intelligent creator makes more sense than not having an intelligent creator. If you look at matter’s basic building block, the atom, and observe all of its magnificent complexity, structure and functionality, it surely makes “more sense” that it was designed. Not to me, it doesn’t. That’s the problem with the “doesn’t it just seem like this to you?” arguments: to a lot of people, it _doesn’t_ just seem like that. Also, the basic building block is arguably the quark, not the atom. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/5 "2009-01-18T17:01:47Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > Not to me, it doesn’t. That’s the problem with the “doesn’t it just seem like this to you?” arguments: to a lot of people, it _doesn’t_ just seem like that. What does it seem like to you when you wonder about the atom, then? “What an amazing coincidence that this could come together all by itself!”? > [@](#): > > Also, the basic building block is arguably the quark, not the atom. Yeah, I’m still getting used to the pedantic ways of this board. I’m getting there 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/6 "2009-01-18T17:02:38Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > I’m too scared to put this in GD for a couple of reasons: > > - GD is full of super-heavyweights, which is a class I am not sure I’m in > - I don’t want to appear pretentious > > So let’s start it in here and see how we go. > > I believe the idea that the universe has an intelligent creator makes more sense than not having an intelligent creator. If you look at matter’s basic building block, the atom, and observe all of its magnificent complexity, structure and functionality, it surely makes “more sense” that it was designed. > > A quick pre-emptive strike: > > “But CalD, if complexity requires a designer, who designed the designer?” > > My answer -\> Complexity requires a designer in the known physical world. In a non-physical world without space/time/matter, this constraint may not exist. What about all the imperfection in the world? Why would someone create a bunch of stuff that doesn’t work well? Surely he’s not all that talented if this is the best he can do. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/7 "2009-01-18T17:03:43Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > What about all the imperfection in the world? Why would someone create a bunch of stuff that doesn’t work well? Surely he’s not all that talented if this is the best he can do. Whether the creator is talented and why it allows what appear to be imperfections is a secondary discussion, I feel. ---
**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 18, 2009, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/8 "2009-01-18T17:09:04Z")
An intelligent creator only _sounds_ like it makes more sense, because it sweeps everything that isn’t explained or understood under a carpet and then nails the carpet to the floor. And statements like > [@](#): > > In a non-physical world without space/time/matter, this constraint may not exist. create even **more** unanswerable questions. And note that it seems to imply a creator **isn’t** necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/9 "2009-01-18T17:10:17Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Complexity requires a designer in the known physical world. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/10 "2009-01-18T17:11:48Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Cite? No need to cite it. If someone challenges me with “complexity requires a designer”, I can safely assume they are including the physical world. No need to cite something that the other person, by default, agrees with. ---
**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 18, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/11 "2009-01-18T17:13:46Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > No need to cite it. If someone challenges me with “complexity requires a designer”, I can safely assume they are including the physical world. > > No need to cite something that the other person, by default, agrees with. It seems you’re arguing evolution is impossible, for one. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/12 "2009-01-18T17:15:22Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > An intelligent creator only _sounds_ like it makes more sense, because it sweeps everything that isn’t explained or understood under a carpet and then nails the carpet to the floor. Really? Can you give an example of how an atom created by an intelligent designer might differ from one that came about via different means that haven’t yet been “explained or understood”? ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/13 "2009-01-18T17:16:27Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > It seems you’re arguing evolution is impossible, for one. Nah -\> I could argue that the mechanisms required to start evolution are the “complex” part. ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/14 "2009-01-18T17:17:09Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Is the existence of a Creator just more sensical? No. It’s just very simple minded and anthropocentric. It means that you can’t see truth objectively and outside of a very prejudiced worldview. ---
**Author:** ![sjc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@sjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjc)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/15 "2009-01-18T17:17:57Z")
Regarding the question of the complexity and functionality and how that just looks like it ought to have been designed, I wonder if that’s as much an artifact of looking at things with human eyes and a human brain. I mean, we exist in this world; our senses and our brains are geared toward operating in this world, of course this world is going to make sense. I’m not saying that this is evidence of there _not_ being a creator, but I wouldn’t say that it’s evidence of that there is. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/16 "2009-01-18T17:20:13Z")
> [@devilsknew](#): > > No. It’s just very simple minded and anthropocentric. It means that you can’t see truth objectively and outside of a very prejudiced worldview. Hi devilsknew, it’s a bit hard to respond to what are simply assertions. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/17 "2009-01-18T17:20:20Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Yeah, I’m still getting used to the pedantic ways of this board. I’m getting there 😉 Correcting false statements at the heart of the debate is hardly pedantic. It seems to me that your basic assertion is that “It stands to reason” that there must be a creator. “Reason” as a method of investigation has not been terribly fruitful for establishing basic facts. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/18 "2009-01-18T17:23:19Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Hi devilsknew, it’s a bit hard to respond to what are simply assertions. Then how do you expect us to respond to your assertion that a Creator is “just more sensical”? ---
**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 18, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/19 "2009-01-18T17:24:08Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Really? > > Can you give an example of how an atom created by an intelligent designer might differ from one that came about via means that haven’t yet been “explained or understood”? That’s not what I meant. There may not be any difference, but you’re proposing that a designer exists, and created everything (or maybe only some things, or maybe started a couple of things and the rest is sort of the mess we’re left with when he got bored, or anything in between) which means we now can’t think about how atoms came into being at all, or why they act like they do, or anything like that - they’re created by God, period. That’s what I mean by sweeping questions under the carpet - it doesn’t explain anything at all. If anyone wants to believe in a creator, that’s fine by me. Just don’t claim that it usefully explains anything. ---
**Author:** ![CaerieD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@CaerieD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaerieD)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/20 "2009-01-18T17:24:18Z")
It doesn’t make more sense to me. The moment that cemented my conviction that there is absolutely no need for a creator was when I was in college, taking a geology class. I was learning about the qualities of different elements, of how they come together to form molecules, of how those molecules as a necessary and physical function band together, forming the same shapes over and over again, not out of design but simply as a result of natural laws. A sculptor with a chisel and hammer might easily mimic the basal cleavage of mica, but the sculptor is unnecessary when the hexagonal arrangement of the mica’s atoms have already taken care of this. We may not understand life or the universe as well as we understand rocks, but considering the beautiful complexity that minerals can exhibit by virtue of simple physical laws, I see no reason as to why the universe itself needs a divine sculptor. The “god of the gaps” argument might say that this creator is the one who made up the physical laws, so that, eventually, the universe would have its current configuration. If that’s the case, then this is something that can’t be proven or disproven, which changes absolutely nothing about the universe itself, and is utterly meaningless to me beyond providing believers with the warm surety that “somebody’s out there.” The idea that some mystical being outside of time and space set up a grand universal simulation, designing particles and physics so that, eventually, I would wake up this morning and have a fried onion sandwich doesn’t make sense to me. It doesn’t comfort me. It takes away the profound beauty and mystery of the universe, reducing it to a cheap parlor trick that was designed to fool us. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=2)