# 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:** 13
**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, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/241 "2009-01-19T06:24:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No; he’s saying that science doesn’t “allow for possibilities”. It looks for evidence, not wild guesses. Righto, please explain how the scientific method could prove the existence of the Creator. ---
**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, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/242 "2009-01-19T06:25:42Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > That matter was created by a creator. > 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. And the evidence for your assertions are…? ---
**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, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/243 "2009-01-19T06:25:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, the truth. When have the people who used God as an explanation ever been right ? I think you’re trying to skew this discussion down a different path, sorry. ---
**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, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/244 "2009-01-19T06:26:21Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > That matter was created by a creator. > 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. We have a MASSIVE, OVERWHELMING amount of evidence. Genetics. Anatomy. Fossils. And so on, and on, and on. You have exactly zero evidence for your “inference”. It’s not at all the same. ---
**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, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/245 "2009-01-19T06:26:47Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The scientific method is also useless for finding evidence of the Easter Bunny, Batman, Thor, and Santa Claus. So why is it being invoked, or even mentioned, in a discussion about the possible existence of a Creator? ---
**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, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/246 "2009-01-19T06:27:39Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Righto, please explain how the scientific method could prove the existence of the Creator. Step #1. Evidence for the existence of your “creator” would be gathered up and studied, then… Well, shit-we seem to be stuck on step #1. ---
**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, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/247 "2009-01-19T06:28:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And the evidence for your assertions are…? Which assertions? That we haven’t observed humans and chimps evolving from a common ancestor? That we don’t have the complete fossil record showing the change between the two? There is no need to show evidence on “assertions” that both parties safely agree on. ---
**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, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/248 "2009-01-19T06:29:48Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > So why is it being invoked, or even mentioned, in a discussion about the possible existence of a Creator? I’d take this one, folks, but it’s too damn easy. ---
**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, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/249 "2009-01-19T06:30:59Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > That matter was created by a creator. This is a re-statement of the inference. What do you see that NECESSITATES such an inference. > [@](#): > > 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. Once again, you’re showing a lack of knowledge. We DO, in fact have direct evidence that chimps and humans have a common ancestor, and it’s not from the fossil record (which is more complete than you seem to think it is), but from genetic evidence. ---
**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, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/250 "2009-01-19T06:31:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This assumption is not justified by any observable evidence. You need to justify this first assumption before any following inferences are worth any discussion. In that case, direct your complaint to the others who want me to show the evidence that the Creator exists in a non-physical state. > [@](#): > > 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? Apologies, I confused you with Q.E.D. for a moment there, when he said “That is, we don’t understand what an electron is”. Regardless, we don’t fully understand matter anyway. And even if we did, what would that prove? Does completely understanding how a paintbrush works prove there is no painter? Remember, it’s the functionality and complexity that I am suggesting is the evidence, not the ability to understand it. ---
**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, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/251 "2009-01-19T06:31:27Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Righto, please explain how the scientific method could prove the existence of the Creator. Since there isn’t one, it can’t. If there was actual evidence, it could do so the same way it proves the existence of anything else. > [@CalD](#): > > I think you’re trying to skew this discussion down a different path, sorry. You tried to claim I was just “making an assertion”; I asked you for an example of my “assertion” being wrong. > [@CalD](#): > > So why is it being invoked, or even mentioned, in a discussion about the possible existence of a Creator? Talk about missing the point. He was making the obvious point that the scientific method is useless for discovering the “Creator” for the same reason it’s useless for discovering Thor or the Easter Bunny - they are all equally fictional. There’s zero evidence for any of them. ---
**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, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/252 "2009-01-19T06:34:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And you clearly didn’t know what you were talking about. > > 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. But I don’t exist in the non-physical world, it’s something unseen. The existence of it is inferred if you accept a particular starting premise. And again, to respond by saying you disagree with the starting premise, is to miss the point. ---
**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, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/253 "2009-01-19T06:35:18Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > So why is it being invoked, or even mentioned, in a discussion about the possible existence of a Creator? Ah, you’re right. My bad. A discussion in which the OP begins by example of the atom requiring a creator clearly isn’t the place for science, facts, or logic. I’m done adding to this. ---
**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, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/254 "2009-01-19T06:36:34Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. Perhaps in a world where unbacked assertions equal an argument, but I don’t think that’s how it works here. ---
**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, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/255 "2009-01-19T06:37:34Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Why don’t you give us your special definition of “immaterial”, then. “Not composed of matter” would be a start. ---
**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, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/256 "2009-01-19T06:38:07Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > But I don’t exist in the non-physical world, it’s something unseen. “Unseen” because it doesn’t exist. > [@CalD](#): > > The existence of it is inferred if you accept a particular starting premise. And again, to respond by saying you disagree with the starting premise, is to miss the point. Hardly; this is a thread about whether the existence of a Creator is “more sensical” or not. Which means that you can’t just postulate that you Creator actually exists as part of your argument. In fact, claiming that if the Creator exists he must be something impossible - which is what you are doing - is evidence AGAINST it existing. ---
**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, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/257 "2009-01-19T06:39:11Z")
> [@CaerieD](#): > > 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. That’s not what I am saying at all. If the scientific method, by your own set of definitions, is by its very nature, incapable of detecting a intelligent creator (if one exists), then why would you even mention it? ---
**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, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/258 "2009-01-19T06:39:22Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > So why is it being invoked, or even mentioned, in a discussion about the possible existence of a Creator? You may not be aware of this, but you’re the one trying to claim that a creator god can be inferred from empirical observations (i.e. from scientific method). ---
**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, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/259 "2009-01-19T06:40:17Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Then what do you suppose your “creator” is composed of, if not matter? Don’t know. I’ve never seen or experienced such an existence. ---
**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, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/260 "2009-01-19T06:40:46Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > “Not composed of matter” would be a start. Composed of what, then? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=14)