# 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:** 10
**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 19, 2009, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/181 "2009-01-19T05:39:29Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > No it isn’t. > > You can keep saying it is, but given that we don’t even know what electrons are (remember?), to say we can “explain atoms by natural processes” is a bit silly. No, YOU don’t know what an electron is, and you haven’t bothered to read any of the links that have been given to you. Go back and find the link on nuclear fission. Incidentally, even if we didn’t know what an electron is (which we do), it would not then mean that a magic fairy must have made it. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/182 "2009-01-19T05:39:56Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > If I’d never seen or even heard of a bicycle before, I’m pretty sure I could still recognize one as being a kind of machine designed and constructed by humans. That’s because the bicycle has several characteristics in common with other man-made objects (e.g. wheels), characteristics that are not shared by plants, animals, rocks, etc. But you’ve just violated “mere observation alone”. You can’t use your knowledge of other man-made mechanical objects and the similarities it bears to the bike. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/183 "2009-01-19T05:42:06Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > It seems your giving God’s complexity a free pass from having being created just by claiming “things may be different somewhere else that’s not physical”, _which is nonsensical to begin with_. Err.. if by “non-sensical” you mean “extremely logical”, then we’re in agreement. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/184 "2009-01-19T05:43:10Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > A designer would have to be even more complex than that which He designs. Really? Because a non-physical designer requires zero physical parts, unlike an atom, so why would the designer be even more complex? ---
**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 19, 2009, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/185 "2009-01-19T05:43:25Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Please describe an (even theoretical) "complex’ natural structure for me. Define “complex.” I can tell you categoricvally that there is nothing yet discovered in the universe which is too “complex” to be explained by ordinary physical processes. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/186 "2009-01-19T05:45:23Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > Why would you think that complexity requires a designer when we have countless examples all around us of extremely complex things (e.g. raccoons) that came into being without any designer? Interesting logic here. Assume your premise to be true (there’s no designer), then use that premise to conclude no designer is required? ---
**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 19, 2009, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/187 "2009-01-19T05:45:58Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Really? > > Because a non-physical designer requires zero physical parts, unlike an atom, so why would the designer be even more complex? Why it is the difference between a “non-physical” entity and nothing at all (i.e. what is the difference between a thing that is non-physical and a thing that does not exist)? How does a non-physical entity interact with the physical universe. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/188 "2009-01-19T05:46:24Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > How could something possibly be created by anything other than natural means? There is nothing outside of, or apart from, nature. > > The notion of the “supernatural” is a fictional construct of humans (a _natural_ construct, ironically, in that it is normal primitive human nature to postulate that those parts of nature he has yet to understand must somehow be outside of nature. Or in other words, magic). Assertions aren’t arguments. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/189 "2009-01-19T05:47:25Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Well he must be right. Complexity requires a designer. Of course what could be more complex than a creature that could do all this creation. That would therefore require a designer. That in turn would require another designer. It’s turtles all the way down. I’ve explained this one a few times, now. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/190 "2009-01-19T05:49:22Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > For one thing the very notion of a “creator” is a human construct. God was created in man’s image and as such possesses the same inadequacies and limitations that humans do. Have you posted this in the right forum? A response like that is better aimed at some sort of Bible-literalist Christian. ---
**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 19, 2009, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/191 "2009-01-19T05:51:07Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > > [@I Love Me](#): > > > > Why would you think that complexity requires a designer when we have countless examples all around us of extremely complex things (e.g. raccoons) that came into being without any designer? > > Interesting logic here. > > Assume your premise to be true (there’s no designer), then use that premise to conclude no designer is required? there was no such premise inherent in that statement. ILM was asking why YOU would presume a necessity for magic to explain perceived “complexity” when we have observable examples of so-called complexity existing with no need of magic. ---
**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 19, 2009, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/192 "2009-01-19T05:51:42Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > I’ve explained this one a few times, now. > [@CalD](#): > > Assertions aren’t arguments. They certainly aren’t. Can you provide cites for any of your assertions concerning your god’s aspects and/or abilities? ---
**Author:** ![CaerieD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@CaerieD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaerieD)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/193 "2009-01-19T05:53:07Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > So in other words, using methods that don’t allow for the possibility of a creator never ends up finding one? What methods for exploring the properties and origins for atoms would allow for the possibility of a creator, exactly? Because science has no need to “allow for the possibility.” The scientific method involves forming a hypothesis, finding a way to test it, and then testing it over and over again. If the tests prove the hypothesis correct repeatedly, it becomes a theory. If there the evidence doesn’t back up the hypothesis, then we look for a new hypothesis. We have had no need to discard the current theories about atoms, because all evidence supports our current understanding. There’s no hole in our knowledge that needs to be filled with a creator. We don’t “allow” for the possibility for a creator because it _isn’t needed_. ---
**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 19, 2009, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/194 "2009-01-19T05:53:25Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Assertions aren’t arguments. That’s what we keep trying to tell you. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/195 "2009-01-19T05:54:08Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > I’ve explained this one a few times, now. But your explanation doesn’t work. Claims like “God is eternal” or “God just appeared” can be applied to ideas far simpler and far more plausible than God. God is a wildly implausible claim; an obvious human ego fantasy. God is the last place, not the first that you go for an explanation. And purely as a practical matter - in all of history, the people who have tried to use God as an explanation have ALWAYS been wrong. Not a good track record. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/196 "2009-01-19T05:55:10Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Now, you’ve given in answer to a particular objection that a creator might exist in a non-physical world without space/time/matter. Quickly we have a problem with explicableness - we have no idea how this would occur, what this world is like, etc.. It’s an assertation the only evidence for which is that we cannot disprove it. I see what you’re saying. The idea that the Creator exists in a non-physical timeless state is _inferred_ only. It’s a bit like how scientists infer things about evolution, ie, “_given that evolution is true_, we now know that chimps and humans must have evolved from a common ancestor”. I’m doing the same thing. > [@](#): > > Whereas, other people in this thread have suggested particular forms of non-creator complexity that has been explained in more detail and backed up with evidence on how the world works. Thus it seems rather more explicable to me. But it shouldn’t. We understand perfectly how clocks work. This does not remove the need for a designer. > [@](#): > > Going back to the original problem, I think the problem with potentialy imagined alternate worlds is that we can imagine many of them. For example, I suggest to you an alternate world in which in fact complexity does not require creation, and that it is from this world that ours is created. And presto, it’s instantly as reasonable as your creator-alternate-world No it isn’t. All of my positions regarding the nature of the non-physical creator are inferred from a starting premise, I haven’t just “dreamed them up”. Ie, if matter is created by the creator, then we can safely infer that the Creator is not composed of matter. ---
**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 19, 2009, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/197 "2009-01-19T05:57:27Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > I’ve explained this one a few times, now. You actually haven’t. You just keep trying to declare by fiat that your fairy is subject to different logical rules than the universe. “Because I say so” is not an argument. iIf your fairy is “complex,” (and it would have to be significantly more complex than the universe) and it doesn’t need a creator of its own, then complexity doesn’t need a creator. If complexity doesn’t need a creator then the universe doesn’t need a creator. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/198 "2009-01-19T05:58:28Z")
> [@dehacker](#): > > The famous [**argumentum ad ignorantiam**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance), it seemingly never gets old. You personally do not understand how something could form naturally, therefore it must be **supernatural**! No! Please read the whole thread before making invalid assertions! > [@](#): > > If only that argument had worked on my Organic Chemistry professor when he quizzed me on the formation of ketones. I could have simply written “_goddidit!_” for all the answers But I’ve repeatedly stated I am in favour of investigating how things work! Please do not bring your baggage from debates with other Creationists to this discussion! > [@](#): > > What type of evidence would convince you that atoms occur naturally without supernatural intervention? Very little to no complexity could make it “more sensical” that no designer is required. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/199 "2009-01-19T05:59:53Z")
> [@Yumblie](#): > > No idea. If you’re going to put forth a theory involving them, it’s your job to tell us. No problem. The creator is immaterial - no physical complexity required. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/200 "2009-01-19T06:01:47Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It doesn’t have to be proven, it just has to be possible, which it is. The mere possibility renders your fairy unnecessary. That’s like me saying my Creator renders your matrix unnecessary, which I have sneaking suspicion is not an argument you would accept. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=11)