# 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:** 12
**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, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/221 "2009-01-19T06:13:32Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > The non-physical creator entity is in a constant, unchanging state of interacting with the universe. This sentence is logical gibberish. Let’s say the non-physical creator wants to feel my balls. What does it feel them with? ---
**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, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/222 "2009-01-19T06:14:43Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. You missed the point. I was asked to show evidence that the Creator is immaterial and exists in a timeless state. I was giving an example of what an _inferred conclusion_ is. > [@](#): > > Non-physical things can’t exist. What a poorly worded sentence. Cite? ---
**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, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/223 "2009-01-19T06:15:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This sentence is logical gibberish. Let’s say the non-physical creator wants to feel my balls. What does it feel them with? His mouth? ---
**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, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/224 "2009-01-19T06:15:59Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If your “creator” is immaterial, then she/he/it cannot do much of anything, right? Well, obviously I wouldn’t agree with that. ---
**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, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/225 "2009-01-19T06:16:37Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > You missed the point. > > I was asked to show evidence that the Creator is immaterial and exists in a timeless state. I was giving an example of what an _inferred conclusion_ is. And you clearly didn’t know what you were talking about. > [@CalD](#): > > What a poorly worded sentence. Cite? You are the one making a claim for something existing, not I; the burden of proof is yours. Name an example of something that exists, something that can act, that has NO physical component. ---
**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, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/226 "2009-01-19T06:16:48Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > The multiverse is bound by the laws of time. The “laws of time?” What are those. If you think it has to be finite, you’re wrong. The multiverse (as distinct from the universe) is eternal. It requires no beginning. ---
**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, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/227 "2009-01-19T06:17:09Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. Ok, and where did the matrix get its structure/function/complexity? It’s just shifting the problem sideways. To use “We can perfectly explain the paintbrush!” as evidence that there aren’t painters is equally poor logic. ---
**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, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/228 "2009-01-19T06:17:51Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Well, obviously I wouldn’t agree with that. Why don’t you give us your special definition of “immaterial”, then. ---
**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, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/229 "2009-01-19T06:18:40Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > No it doesn’t, as I have explained multiple times. As you have ASSERTED numerous times, unfortunately, your assertions make no logical sense and cannot soleve your problem. ---
**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, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/230 "2009-01-19T06:18:46Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If it’s inferred, it’s inferred in error. It’s not _implied_ by anything. Wrong. If we start on the assumption that matter is created by the creator, we can safely in fer the Creator is not composed of matter. > [@](#): > > 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. Simply asserting that matter can be explained purely by natural processes (when by your own admission we don’t fully understand matter yet) makes no sense. ---
**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, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/231 "2009-01-19T06:19:30Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No; he’s saying that science doesn’t “allow for possibilities”. It looks for evidence, not wild guesses. She, but yes. By **CalD** ’s logic here, when evaluating all of the evidence as to what has happened in any instance, one should “allow for the possibility” that a creator magically made it happen. When someone develops lung cancer, do we consider that maybe a creator is behind it rather than a lifetime of smoking cigarettes? Or is a creator only “allowed the possibility” for nice things? That seems rather arbitrary. ---
**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, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/232 "2009-01-19T06:19:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > But that’s not what scientists say. They say “given this mountain of evidence from multiple fields, humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor.” Again, I was asked what was the evidence that the Creator exists in a non-physical, timeless state. If my starting assertion is true (matter was created by the creator), then it is a logical inferred conclusion to draw. Responding by disagreeing with the premise is totally missing the point. ---
**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, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/233 "2009-01-19T06:20:30Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Ok, and where did the matrix get its structure/function/complexity? First, I was referring to your own claims that God needs no such explanations; and pointing out that a simple quantum effect is a lot more plausible than a God. In fact, virtually anything is more plausible. And second, one likely explanation would be stability; randomness by it’s nature is unstable. Therefore structure arising from chaos is to be expected. ---
**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, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/234 "2009-01-19T06:20:31Z")
I think we’re getting Lekatted. ---
**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, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/235 "2009-01-19T06:20:57Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > If we start on the assumption that matter is created by the creator, we can safely in fer the Creator is not composed of matter. Then what do you suppose your “creator” is composed of, if not 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, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/236 "2009-01-19T06:21:47Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Virtual particles appear without cause all the time You mean to say, every single natural explanation for the appearance of virtual particles was eliminated, but still you won’t entertain the idea of a supernatural 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, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/237 "2009-01-19T06:22:39Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Again, I was asked what was the evidence that the Creator exists in a non-physical, timeless state. If my starting assertion is true (matter was created by the creator), then it is a logical inferred conclusion to draw. Responding by disagreeing with the premise is totally missing the point. No; pointing out that your premise is unnecessary and your conclusion impossible isn’t missing the point. ---
**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, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/238 "2009-01-19T06:23:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Inferred from what neccesary implication? That matter was created by a creator. > [@](#): > > 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. Once again, you’re missing the point. We have no _direct_ evidence that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. We do not have a complete fossil record that shows it, we have never observed it, but rather, we _infer_ it from all the other evidence. ---
**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, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/239 "2009-01-19T06:23:55Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > You mean to say, every single natural explanation for the appearance of virtual particles was eliminated, but still you won’t entertain the idea of a supernatural cause? They have an explanation; quantum mechanics. They just don’t have a cause. Not a known one, not an unknown one ( or so the theory seems to say ). ---
**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, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/240 "2009-01-19T06:24:24Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Wrong. > > If we start on the assumption that matter is created by the creator This assumption is not justified by any observable evidence. You need to justify this first assumption before any following inferences are worth any discussion. > [@](#): > > Simply asserting that matter can be explained purely by natural processes (when by your own admission we don’t fully understand matter yet) makes no sense. Excuse me, “my own admission?” In what post did I admit any such thing? Have you read any of the posts or links explaining exactly where matter comes from? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=13)