# 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:** 11
**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, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/201 "2009-01-19T06:01:55Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > 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. No, you aren’t. Evolution is a known fact; a process we have a great deal of data on; it’s also a process that obeys known physical laws. God is something that we have zero evidence of and know nothing about, and supposedly physical laws don’t apply to it. We don’t have the data necessary to even say that a God is possible; much less that one exists; much less anything about it’s nature. God and evolution aren’t all alike. > [@CalD](#): > > 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. Non-physical things can’t exist. ---
**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, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/202 "2009-01-19T06:03:02Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You tell us. You’re the one who made them up. I have, repeatedly. A non-physical entity existing in a timeless state. ---
**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, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/203 "2009-01-19T06:03:48Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > No problem. > > The creator is immaterial - no physical complexity required. If your “creator” is immaterial, then she/he/it cannot do much of anything, right? ---
**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, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/204 "2009-01-19T06:04:05Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Cite? > Besides your fervent imagination, what evidence can you provide to back up your thoughts on _any_ of your god’s aspects and/or abilities? It’s an inferred logical conclusion. Just as scientists tell us that “_given evolution is true_, we know that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor”. ---
**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, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/205 "2009-01-19T06:04:36Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > That’s like me saying my Creator renders your matrix unnecessary, which I have sneaking suspicion is not an argument you would accept. No, it’s not the same. A simpler entity that involves things we know to exist is a better explanation than a more complicated entity that as far as we know is impossible and for which we have zero evidence. ---
**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, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/206 "2009-01-19T06:05:06Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > I see what you’re saying. > > The idea that the Creator exists in a non-physical timeless state is _inferred_ only. If it’s inferred, it’s inferred in error. It’s not _implied_ by anything. > [@](#): > > 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. No you aren’t. You’re merely asserting. Your inferrences are completely unfounded and unimplied. > [@](#): > > We understand perfectly how clocks work. This does not remove the need for a designer. There is nothing in the natural universe which is analogous to a clock. This is the fundamental fallcy of your whole position. You haven’t been able to point to a single thaing that can’t be explained by natural processes, including the formation of matter. ---
**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, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/207 "2009-01-19T06:05:29Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No it doesn’t. Infinite regression is only a problem if you need a first cause. If the multiverse is eternal, there’s nothing to regress to. The multiverse is bound by the laws of time. Please provide evidence that something bound by time can be moving without a first cause. ---
**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, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/208 "2009-01-19T06:06:11Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > It’s an inferred logical conclusion. > > Just as scientists tell us that “_given evolution is true_, we know that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor”. But that’s not what scientists say. They say “given this mountain of evidence from multiple fields, humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor.” ---
**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, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/209 "2009-01-19T06:06:41Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. The non-physical creator entity is in a constant, unchanging state of interacting with the universe. ---
**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, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/210 "2009-01-19T06:06:46Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > I have, repeatedly. > > A non-physical entity existing in a timeless state. Have you considered the possibility that the universe was created by a peracious cylidous? ---
**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, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/211 "2009-01-19T06:07:19Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Please provide evidence that something bound by time can be moving without a first cause. Virtual particles appear without cause all the time, everywhere, and they interact with normal particles thus influencing them. The first cause argument is long obsolete. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/212 "2009-01-19T06:08:18Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > I have, repeatedly. > > A non-physical entity existing in a timeless state. Which is a worthless collection of words as far as I can tell. If you want to fool yourself so you can pretend you chose Deism based on intellect go ahead. Don’t expect anyone here to applaud your self delusion. ---
**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, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/213 "2009-01-19T06:08:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. [/QUOTE] If you are beginning with the assumption that raccoons can exist without the need for a creator, then yes, you are assuming no designer is required. That’s simple logic. ---
**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, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/214 "2009-01-19T06:09:46Z")
> [@CaerieD](#): > > 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. So to put it another way, if there is a Creator, the scientific method will be unable to find 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, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/215 "2009-01-19T06:11:30Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. They’re just assertions. ---
**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, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/216 "2009-01-19T06:11:39Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > It’s an inferred logical conclusion. Inferred from what neccesary implication? > [@](#): > > Just as scientists tell us that “_given evolution is true_, we know that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor”. Scientists don’t say that. Evolution alone (selected changes in allelles leading to adaptation and speciation) does not necessarily have to imply common ancestry. Common biological ancestry of all species on earth is inferred from more data than the mere knowledge that evolution occurs. ---
**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, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/217 "2009-01-19T06:11:51Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > So to put it another way, if there is a Creator, the scientific method will be unable to find it? No; he’s saying that science doesn’t “allow for possibilities”. It looks for evidence, not wild guesses. ---
**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, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/218 "2009-01-19T06:12:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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) No it doesn’t, as I have explained multiple times. ---
**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, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/219 "2009-01-19T06:12:52Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > They’re just assertions. No, the truth. When have the people who used God as an explanation ever been right ? ---
**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, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/220 "2009-01-19T06:12:52Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > So to put it another way, if there is a Creator, the scientific method will be unable to find it? The scientific method is also useless for finding evidence of the Easter Bunny, Batman, Thor, and Santa Claus. Are you noticing a pattern here? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=12)