# 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:** 14
**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, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/261 "2009-01-19T06:41:56Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No; pointing out that your premise is unnecessary and your conclusion impossible isn’t missing the point. Yes it is, you’ve obviously got no idea what point I was making. But here’s a hint: “Your premise is wrong!” most definitely missed 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, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/262 "2009-01-19T06:43:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This assumption is not justified by any observable evidence. Perhaps, but why is that relevant? In fact, how does your sentence even resemble something that could even be mildly conceived as relevant to the point I was making? ---
**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, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/263 "2009-01-19T06:44:57Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > 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? Once again. The point is that the scientific method can’t discover the Creator because all the evidence is that there ISN’T one. If there was, then quite likely it could. The problem isn’t the “nature of the scientific method”; the problem is that judging by the evidence you are wrong. ---
**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, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/264 "2009-01-19T06:45:02Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is a re-statement of the inference. What do you see that NECESSITATES such an inference. _ **IF** _ the Creator created matter, we can safely infer that the Creator is not composed of matter. I just can not put it in any more simple terms. ---
**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, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/265 "2009-01-19T06:45:21Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > 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. So your “creator” is an immaterial being that exists in a non-physical world where time doesn’t exist? In what way does she/he/it differ from The Wizard Of Oz? ---
**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, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/266 "2009-01-19T06:46:52Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > _ **IF** _ the Creator created matter, we can safely infer that the Creator is not composed of matter. > > I just can not put it in any more simple terms. Again I ask, 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, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/267 "2009-01-19T06:48:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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** _. What absolute total nonsense. Please provide for us the “genetic evidence” that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, without in any way beginning with the assumption that evolution is true. HINT: Ignoring the assumption that evolution is true, highlighting the similarity in our DNA is no more evidence of a common ancestor than it is of common genetic traits. ---
**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, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/268 "2009-01-19T06:50:08Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. His point was not lost on me. I’m sorry for trying to salvage something that resembled a point from otherwise baseless assertions. ---
**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, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/269 "2009-01-19T06:51:19Z")
> [@CaerieD](#): > > 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. You’re right. Of course I should accept the use of a method which by its very nature and by your own admission, is incapable of detecting an intelligent creator. What was I thinking? ---
**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, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/270 "2009-01-19T06:52:49Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > What absolute total nonsense. > > Please provide for us the “genetic evidence” that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, without in any way beginning with the assumption that evolution is true. > > HINT: Ignoring the assumption that evolution is true, highlighting the similarity in our DNA is no more evidence of a common ancestor than it is of common genetic traits. If evolution isn’t true, then we CAN’T have a common ancestor. You are asking him to prove himself right, while using the assumption he’s wrong. And evolution isn’t an “assumption” anyway; it’s a fact. ---
**Author:** ![HelenGawn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@HelenGawn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HelenGawn)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/271 "2009-01-19T06:52:49Z")
Define “sensical,” 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, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/272 "2009-01-19T06:53:08Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > 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. The material composition of the creator is a separate issue from whether a creator must be inferred to explain the universe. > [@](#): > > 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. It doesn’t have to prove anything. YOU are the one making the assertion, and you are doing so largely by _argumentum ad ignorantiam_ arguments – “I don’t understand it, therefore a wizard did it.” No, total explicability does not prove magical creator elves don’t exist, but we don’t HAVE to prove they don’t exist. Non-existence is the null hypothesis-- the default logical assumption. you’re the one who has the burden to prove the assumption is erroneous. ---
**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, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/273 "2009-01-19T06:53:34Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Again I ask, what do you suppose your “creator” _is_ composed of, if not matter? I have no idea, you’re asking me about a type of existence I have never seen or experienced. But if the creator created matter, then he ain’t composed of that now, is he? ---
**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, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/274 "2009-01-19T06:54:21Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > His point was not lost on me. > > I’m sorry for trying to salvage something that resembled a point from otherwise baseless assertions. No need to apologize for the OP yet again. ---
**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, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/275 "2009-01-19T06:55:14Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > If evolution isn’t true, then we CAN’T have a common ancestor. You are asking him to prove himself right, while using the assumption he’s wrong. > > And evolution isn’t an “assumption” anyway; it’s a fact. I am asking him to start by not assuming evolution to be either true or false, and then using “genetic evidence” to prove evolution true. ---
**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, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/276 "2009-01-19T06:55:37Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > His point was not lost on me. > > I’m sorry for trying to salvage something that resembled a point from otherwise baseless assertions. No; you are just ignoring it. In fact . . . > [@CalD](#): > > You’re right. > > Of course I should accept the use of a method which by its very nature and by your own admission, is incapable of detecting an intelligent creator. What was I thinking? You just did it again. ONCE AGAIN; the point is that the scientific method can’t demonstrate the existence of a Creator because going by the evidence THERE IS NO CREATOR. The fact that the scientific method is good at discovering the truth is a feature, not a bug. ---
**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, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/277 "2009-01-19T06:56:24Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Perhaps, but why is that relevant? > > In fact, how does your sentence even resemble something that could even be mildly conceived as relevant to the point I was making? If you’re admitting your assumption is unjustified, then you’re conceding your entire OP. ---
**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, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/278 "2009-01-19T06:56:27Z")
I have to leave the computer now, I hope to resume this later. Thanks to everyone for the discussion. ---
**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, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/279 "2009-01-19T06:58:09Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > I am asking him to start by not assuming evolution to be either true or false, and then using “genetic evidence” to prove evolution true. The nature of genetics mandates that evolution MUST exist barring something stopping it. Once you have heritability, variation, and differing replication rates for different genetic combinations, you get evolution. You might as well try to pretend gravity doesn’t exist. ---
**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, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/280 "2009-01-19T06:59:46Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > I have no idea, you’re asking me about a type of existence I have never seen or experienced. > > But if the creator created matter, then he ain’t composed of that now, is he? You’re the one making all kinds of suppositions about your “creator’s” abilities and general makeup. So let’s not drop this major point of your OP, o.k.? If she/he/it isn’t made up of matter, what else could she/he/it possibly consist of? What, besides matter, is there? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=15)