# 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:** 15
**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, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/281 "2009-01-19T07:09:02Z")
> [@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. Here are [several](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html). Knock yourself. In particular, I would suggest taking a look at the section on endogenous retroviral genes. None of the evidences on the page presented require a prior assumption that evolution is true, all necessitate an inference of common ancestry. And to clarify what I was telling you before, I was saying the fact that living species evolve does not _[necessarily_ prove that all observable species had a common ancestor. It happens to be the case on earth, but it’s still hypothetically possible for multiple evolutionary lines to arise from different ancestors. ---
**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, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/282 "2009-01-19T07:15:34Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No; you are just ignoring it. In fact . . . > > 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. He was trying to argue that the inference of universal common descent is predicated on the observation that evolution exists (i.e. that species adapt and speciate). I was trying to explain that the existence of evolution alone does not necessarily have to mean that all species came from a common ancestor, and that we infer common descent by other means. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/283 "2009-01-19T07:34:36Z")
> [@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. That’s not the way science works. Science works by starting with a hypothesis, deriving a test for it, and then determining if the data falsifies or supports the hypothesis. In the case of evolution, they hypothesis is that if we are closely related to chimps, more closely than we are to gorillas, we should share more genetic material with chimps than we do with gorillas - and we do. Dio’s link gives specific examples. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/284 "2009-01-19T07:35:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Composed of what, then? I’m guessing bullshit. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/285 "2009-01-19T07:43:38Z")
> [@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? Science can easily detect the intelligent creator of some things - for instance the tools used by prehistoric man. You said upthread that microprocessors can’t be explained by purely physical means. I do microprocessor design for a living, and I assure you there is nothing spiritual about it. Humans are physical, and what we create is physical also. Now, for atoms. Your assertion about the complexity of atoms seems to ignore that some atoms are more complex than others. If there was evidence of many lead, iron, or uranium atoms in the early universe, then you’d have a point. But the theory of the Big Bang predicts an initial distribution of atoms that is predominantly hydrogen and some helium. That is what was discovered, which was one of the initial predictions that held true. Why would a creator create mostly hydrogen atoms? I trust you are aware that we know exactly how bigger, more complex, atoms are formed inside stars and expelled by novas and supernovas, right? So, a non-creator hypothesis predicts a distribution that is found, while a creator hypothesis doesn’t really predict anything - or should predict a distribution like we see in the present universe. Making predictions is how you should do it, not making claims of personal incredulity. ---
**Author:** ![dehacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bbe5ce/32.png) [@dehacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dehacker)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/286 "2009-01-19T07:48:52Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Just as scientists tell us that “given evolution is true, we know that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor”. That statement alone is enough to let most people understand the depth of your ignorance about science. Scientists do not “infer” that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Scientists find a wealth of evidence supporting the fact that chimps and humans have a recent common ancestor. The data includes such items as the fossil record, anatomical similarities, biogeographical distribution and an abundance of DNA evidence. I would provide links to cite each one of these for you, but you don’t appear to have read anything provided so far, thus I won’t waste my time. Feel free to dispute any of these facts and I will provide cites, in stark contrast to your inability to do so for any of your assertions. **ETA** : I see that you are disputing the DNA evidence of a human/chimp common ancestor, and Diogenes has provided some. [Here is further evidence](http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html) addressing the chromosome difference between chimps and humans. Please feel free to respond if you surprise the holy hell out of me and possess the willingness to understand it. > [@CalD](#): > > No! > > Please read the whole thread before making invalid assertions! Please note which of these statements you haven’t asserted: 1. You don’t see how atoms can form naturally 2. Atoms appear to you to be designed 3. The designer would exist outside of space and time, hence “supernatural” As you can see, not only have you made the argument from ignorance, you are even ignorant of your having done so. So congrats on the double dose of ignorance. > [@CalD](#): > > But I’ve repeatedly stated I am in favour of investigating how things work! So you assert, but you need to back that up by investigating the links that I and others have provided detailing how atoms are formed by natural processes > [@CalD](#): > > Very little to no complexity could make it “more sensical” that no designer is required. Let’s leave aside your further display of ignorance that “sensical” isn’t even a word, or that you have provided no definition of “complexity” despite repeated requests, thereby rendering your statement above devoid of all meaning. Let’s put aside the fact that you have completely ignored the entire content of my post and replied with the equivalent of the childlike retort “No I didn’t” and the above gibberish. Let’s pretend that you will actually respond this time by indicating which items in the following list are “too complex” and therefore need a designer, and which items are simple enough that no designer is required: 1. nothing; the empty void 2. hydrogen atoms 3. helium atoms 4. stars 5. planets 6. caves 7. plants 8. snowflakes 9. crystals So far, I can only assume that you consider EVERYTHING to be designed, with nothing formed by natural processes, based on your statements in this thread. Of course, that does have the unenviable consequence of making the entirety of science nothing more than an illusion, with your wonderful designer fucking with our collective heads. However, instead of assuming, I would like to get the ignorance straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. I know that it is a naive hope bordering on tragic farce that you will address these questions and take an actual position you have to defend. But I console myself with this fantasy that you will engage in a discussion with an open mind and the possibility of learning something, and you won’t pretend that plugging your ears and closing your eyes is progress. ---
**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, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/287 "2009-01-19T08:11:53Z")
I’ve just caught this one before I head off to work: > [@dehacker](#): > > Scientists find a wealth of evidence supporting the fact that chimps and humans have a recent common ancestor. The data includes such items as **the fossil record** , **anatomical similarities** , **biogeographical distribution** and an **abundance of DNA evidence**. Please show the **fossil record** as it demonstrates the link back to the common ancestor between chimps and monkeys. **Anatomical similarities** is _not_ evidence of evolution as much it is evidence of exactly what it is - anatomical similarities. It makes as much sense (or non-sense) to say that anatomical similarities are evidence of a common designer. “ **Biogeographical distribution** ” sounds impressive, but please explain how this is evidence that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, without assuming as your premise that evolution is true. “ **An abundance of DNA evidence** ”. An “abundance” of it, hey? Please share some. ---
**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, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/288 "2009-01-19T08:26:13Z")
I already posted the DNA evidence. Read the links. You keep repeatedly asking for cites even after they’ve been given. ---
**Author:** ![Yumblie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/76d3ee/32.png) [@Yumblie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yumblie)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/289 "2009-01-19T08:31:12Z")
> [@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? Do you realize what you’re doing here? You’re saying that ocean waves are caused by Poseidon, who happens to be a physicist so he makes them behave according to physical laws. You’re saying that birds don’t actually fly, but instead run on invisible stilts that also conveniently pass through everything. You’re saying that the dinosaurs didn’t go extinct and in fact still walk among us now, but they are in the 5th dimension and undetectable by any scientific instruments. > [@CalD](#): > > I’ve just caught this one before I head off to work: > Please show the **fossil record** as it demonstrates the link back to the common ancestor between chimps and monkeys. > > **Anatomical similarities** is _not_ evidence of evolution as much it is evidence of exactly what it is - anatomical similarities. It makes as much sense (or non-sense) to say that anatomical similarities are evidence of a common designer. > > “ **Biogeographical distribution** ” sounds impressive, but please explain how this is evidence that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, without assuming as your premise that evolution is true. > > “ **An abundance of DNA evidence** ”. An “abundance” of it, hey? Please share some. Tell me, since humans and chimps have anatomical similarities, geographical similarities, DNA similarities, and many fossil links, can you come up with an explanation for this that does not involve biological evolution? Bonus points if you can do it without invoking immaterial entitites or invisible pink unicorns or whatever non-physical magic you can think of. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/290 "2009-01-19T08:49:17Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > 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. We “assume” that no designer is required in much the same way that we “assume” that no Santa Claus is required to understand how kids get presents for Christmas. I was indeed beginning with the assumption that no creator/designer was necessary for raccoons to come about. First of all, they don’t seem to be screwed, nailed or glued together and there is no obvious place for the batteries. 😉 More seriously, I feel comfortable with that assumption because there is no logical/scientific reason to even begin to plan to prepare to start to grudgingly acquire even the smallest inkling that an intelligent being designed raccoons because we know (to the extent that we can know anything) that no other mammal has ever been created an intelligent being. Just because some people put great stock in myths about dragons, pixies, and three-headed dogs doesn’t mean that we must consider that those myths have any _material_ validity (although myths _can_ have artistic or social validity). Ya know, science isn’t a popularity contest. I was deliberately cheeky about my “raccoon” comments because humans should resort to freaky magic as an explanation for raccoons only if they have exhausted all the sensible, reality-based arguments. Which can never happen, of course, because humans can never “turn over every stone” in our search for knowledge. There are an infinite number of stones–there is always that _next piece_ of previously unknown evidence that needs to be considered before we throw up our hands and say, “Well, that’s it then! It must have been leprechauns that fashioned those raccoons! We’ve considered everything else and nothing but the Wee Ones culd possibly have assembled the little raccoons!” ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/291 "2009-01-19T09:05:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If she/he/it isn’t made up of matter, what else could she/he/it possibly consist of? What, besides matter, is there? Unrebuttableium. The whole gambit of positing a “non-physical world without space/time/matter”, where the usual “constraint may not exist” is designed to pre-empt all attempts to rebut the thing proposed using any known facts or logic. The OP’s premise is rebutted by the OP in a highly effective way, but the rebuttal is dismissed by the OP simply stating that the OP’s deity exists in a world where, conveniently, this rebuttal isn’t a rebuttal. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/292 "2009-01-19T09:14:14Z")
> [@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? There is no such thing as the supernatural. There is only **1**. _Understood_ natural phenomena, **2**. _Non-understood_ natural phenomena, and **3**. Delusions, illusions, and bullshit made-up to fool the gullible. If god actually existed, she would be natural. As is stands now, however, god looks more like category #3. ---
**Author:** ![dehacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bbe5ce/32.png) [@dehacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dehacker)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/293 "2009-01-19T09:27:34Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > I’ve just caught this one before I head off to work: > Please show the **fossil record** as it demonstrates the link back to the common ancestor between chimps and monkeys. > > **Anatomical similarities** is _not_ evidence of evolution as much it is evidence of exactly what it is - anatomical similarities. It makes as much sense (or non-sense) to say that anatomical similarities are evidence of a common designer. > > “ **Biogeographical distribution** ” sounds impressive, but please explain how this is evidence that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, without assuming as your premise that evolution is true. > > “ **An abundance of DNA evidence** ”. An “abundance” of it, hey? Please share some. I have become convinced that you aren’t even trying to read our responses, instead playing some weird drinking game where you toss darts at random words and take a shot for each poster that tries to make sense of it. And I have just as much evidence for it as you do for your assertions – perhaps even a bit more. Diogenes and I both posted links to DNA evidence, but I’m not certain you know how to spell DNA at this point. Please read a [tutorial on how to follow internet hyperlinks](http://www.bcplonline.org/tutorial/tutorial.html). I’ll demonstrate the fossil record evidence first with a [picture](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg) nicely illustrating the gradations between chimps and humans, which you will no doubt conveniently ignore, then provide further detailed [analysis](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html) which you will never read nor address. Of course you can say that anatomical similarities are evidence of a common designer, because EVERYTHING IS EVIDENCE OF A DESIGNER when the designer is allowed to use magic. Nothing is ruled out when you posit a supernatural cause, which is exactly why it is worthless in the pursuit of knowledge. Biogeographical distribution sounds impressive only because you don’t understand it. I would explain it to you, but it would involve more pictures you wouldn’t look at or words you wouldn’t read, so what’s the point? As a hint, I will mention the term “Out of Africa”, though I’m quite certain to you that only represents a boring as fuck, long-ass movie. ---
**Author:** ![dehacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bbe5ce/32.png) [@dehacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dehacker)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/294 "2009-01-19T09:47:08Z")
I meant to post this article instead for the [detailed analysis](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html) of the human fossil record. You should enjoy it, there is a nice pretty picture type thingy for you to ignore at the bottom which illustrates the timeline. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/295 "2009-01-19T14:14:58Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. Ok, why don’t you go ahead and give us the simple single version of how gravity works. Don’t forget to include how it works the same at all scales, from light years to Planck length. :rolleyes: Also, if you would, please include explanations for why the universe is expanding faster than it should and, oh say, the Pioneer anomalies. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/296 "2009-01-19T14:53:03Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Or the designer is in an ever-unchanging state, and constantly in a state of creation and design. All being done in one instant, that is how the creator could “create”. But it doesn’t matter when the plan gets done; since the designer exists outside of time, then there was never any point when the framework of the universe did not exist. The designer never has the opportunity to design anything, because those designs always existed in full already. They were never nonexistent or incomplete, so it is impossible for them to have been designed. “An ever-unchanging state of creation and design” seems to be indistinguishable from an ever-changing state of doing nothing. All the “designs” existed for exactly as long as the “designer” did. There’s no cause-and-effect relationship. ---
**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, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/297 "2009-01-19T16:06:37Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Ok, why don’t you go ahead and give us the simple single version of how gravity works. Don’t forget to include how it works the same at all scales, from light years to Planck length. :rolleyes: > > Also, if you would, please include explanations for why the universe is expanding faster than it should and, oh say, the Pioneer anomalies. Ooohhh…I know. A magic fairy did it. That’s the assumption that should be made for any question yet unanswered, right? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/298 "2009-01-19T16:15:14Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > 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? The scientific method is absolutely capable of detecting an intelligent creator. The fact that it has failed to do so should give you pause. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/299 "2009-01-19T16:55:44Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > 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. I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that by “observation alone” you meant for us also to pretend that we have no pre-existing knowledge about anything. In that case, if I consider the bicycle from the perspective of person with no knowledge of man-made objects (an infant, I guess) then I have to say no, there’d be no way for me to determine that it was a designed object. If I’m a total blank slate then the bicycle is just some…_thing_…with no further inference being possible. If it’s only man-made objects that I’m unfamiliar with then, being unable to say “This sure looks like other designed objects I know about!”, I’d have to ignorantly and incorrectly conclude that it was either a natural phenomenon or a supernatural one. On the supernatural front, even “the gods must have designed this!” would be too far a conclusion to leap to if I wasn’t familiar with humans toolmaking. I’d probably assume it was some kind of magical creature. Of course, even the earliest _Homo sapiens_ humans were familiar with tools. Heck, _Homo habilis_ was making simple stone tools more than 2 million years ago. Our species has always known about designed objects, so it’s not much of a stretch for us to imagine that the gods design objects too. It’s an easy explanation for a lot of things. But that’s just anthropomorphizing the natural world, like saying that lighting is the spear of Zeus or that thunder is the sound of Thor’s hammer. These are nice stories, but they are not literally true. They’re myths. Myths seem “right” because they were created for humans by humans and reflect our own interests, feelings, and values. That’s why the idea of a creator is so appealing. Humans like the idea of a divine creator because we like to create things ourselves. It has nothing to do with being “more sensical”. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/300 "2009-01-19T17:13:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Ooohhh…I know. A magic fairy did it. That’s the assumption that should be made for any question yet unanswered, right? No. But that’s a nice hand wave/subject change. You stated quite emphatically that there was **there is nothing yet discovered in the universe which is too “complex” to be explained by ordinary physical processes** I provided a nice counter example which shows you are wrong. Besides my example, there is a multitude of stuff that can’t yet be explained by science. It may very well be in the future, but it isn’t currently. So we’ll just move along now with the understanding that your basic assertion in this debate is false. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=16)