# 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:** 16
**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, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/301 "2009-01-19T17:22:03Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > 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. No, you provided questions which have not been answered YET. You have not demonstrated that no non-magical answer is POSSIBLE. Just because you don’t personally understand something doesn’t mean that it can only be explained by magic. You’re just presenting yet another argument from ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/302 "2009-01-19T17:23:13Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > 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. You don’t think **DtC** was asserting that we know the answers to how everything works, do you? All the mysteries that we’ve uncovered have one thing in common: They’ve all been been “explained by ordinary physical processes.” That’s empirical evidence that that trend will continue, just as things fall to towards the Earth is empirical evidence that this will continue to happen and gravity exists, even though as you’ve mentioned, we don’t know how gravity works. ---
**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, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/303 "2009-01-19T17:49:24Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, you provided questions which have not been answered YET. Exactly. Right after you stated that **everything** discovered was explainable. Or are you trying to say that gravity hasn’t been discovered yet? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > You have not demonstrated that no non-magical answer is POSSIBLE. Just because you don’t personally understand something doesn’t mean that it can only be explained by magic. You’re just presenting yet another argument from ignorance. Nice straw man. My argument has nothing to do with magic fairies. It’s that you are writing checks that science can’t cash. That has nothing to do with magic fairies, creators, or anything else. ---
**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, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/304 "2009-01-19T17:51:56Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > The scientific method is absolutely capable of detecting an intelligent creator. The fact that it has failed to do so should give you pause. I realized this would probably trigger another “You’re just asserting things!” post, so I’m going to explain a bit. Over the course of human history there have been a huge number of different hypotheses about the nature of a Creator. In some of these models there is only one entity, in others there’s many. Sometimes he lives in the sky, sometimes on a mountain, sometimes in the ocean. Sometimes he has human form, sometimes not. Most of these hypotheses were, in fact, falsifiable. You could climb to the top of Mount Olympus and looks for yourself to see if Zeus lived there. The God of the Old and New Testaments is depicted an ever-present active force in the world. If he existed there would be huge amounts of evidence that could be studied and analyzed scientifically – seas parted, bushes burned, dead reanimated and so on. If the Creator had any one of most of the forms that people have assumed for most of history he would absolutely be detectable by scientific means. But because science has shone its light into so many previously dark corners and found nothing, modern Creationists are forced to posit entities that are far more bizarre and esoteric. So now we have someone arguing for a being that does not experience the flow of time (but is capable of performing actions) and that is extremely simple (but is capable of intelligently creating complexity). Sheesh. Just say “I believe in magic!” and be done with 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, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/305 "2009-01-19T18:03:48Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Exactly. Right after you stated that **everything** discovered was explainable. Or are you trying to say that gravity hasn’t been discovered yet? :rolleyes: I said nothing has been discovered which has been demonstarted to be beyond any natural explication. There is a difference between something not yet being explained and somehing being proven to be beyond natural explication. > [@](#): > > Nice straw man. My argument has nothing to do with magic fairies. It’s that you are writing checks that science can’t cash. That has nothing to do with magic fairies, creators, or anything else. I think you just aren’t tracking the conversation very well. Prove that gravity is beyond natural explication and get back to me. Maybe your magic fairy can help you. ---
**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, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/306 "2009-01-19T18:09:34Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > You don’t think **DtC** was asserting that we know the answers to how everything works, do you? Well, let’s break it down: > [@Diogenes](#): > > there is nothing yet discovered in the universe Gravity has been discovered. > [@Diogenes](#): > > which is too “complex” Here’s an easy one, since gravity isn’t complex. Try calculating the orbits of the moon, the earth, and the sun, (ignoring all other bodies), using the method of your choice. Here’s a hint: [Euler's three-body problem - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_three-body_problem) > [@Diogenes](#): > > to be explained by ordinary physical processes Gravity cannot be explained by ‘ordinary physical processes’. In fact, the two major schools of physics are _completely incompatible_ in regards to gravity. ---
**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, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/307 "2009-01-19T18:17:57Z")
Gravity is not yet completely understood. That doesn’t mean that it can NEVER be understood, that it CAN’T be explained by natural processes or that it can only be explained by magic. Magic is never a good hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/308 "2009-01-19T18:22:05Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Gravity cannot be explained by ‘ordinary physical processes’. This was explained to you already. Just because we can’t explain how everything works now, it doesn’t mean that it’s not _explainable_, not _explained_. Empirical evidence shows that that which happens, is explainable by ordinary physical processes and never magic. I’ll ask you again, do you think **DtC** was asserting that we know the answers to how everything works? You should be aware now that he wasn’t and give up on the straw man. > [@Sinaijon](#): > > Gravity cannot be explained by ‘ordinary physical processes’. In fact, the two major schools of physics are completely incompatible in regards to gravity. This is relevant how? Are you trying to make a claim that shows gravity probably isn’t explainable by ordinary physical processes? Note that I said “explainable” and not “explained.” ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/309 "2009-01-19T18:27:17Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > 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. The hell it is. He said, **nothing yet discovered in the universe which is too “complex” to be explained by ordinary physical processes** , and he’s right. The fact that WE can’t (yet) explain it is irrelevant- there’s nothing we’ve found that looks to be completely unanswerable by _ordinary physical processes_. In other words, there is no supernatural explanation needed- if it causes an effect in the real world, it’s part of the real world. Throwing magic into the mix doesn’t explain anything. It just means you’re too lazy to look for the real reason. ---
**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, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/310 "2009-01-19T19:24:47Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > All the mysteries that we’ve uncovered have one thing in common: > They’ve all been been “explained by ordinary physical processes.” What do you mean by ‘uncovering mysteries’? Do you mean finding a scientific explanation? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/311 "2009-01-19T19:25:22Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > I see what you’re saying. > > 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. Actually, that’s incorrect. That there is evolution doesn’t alone mean that chimps and humans must have evolved from a common ancestor; you could, for example, have life started on Earth through exogenesis (life travelling to here from other worlds), or a combination of that and an Earth-based abiogenesis. That inferences is reasonable to start off looking at the issue, by checking DNA similarities, examining fossil histories, and so forth, but it alone is by no means a “we now know” situation, nor what scientists do beyond an approaching guess. Beyond that, it is a poor inference. The problem, in your eyes, is that for complexity to arise some means other than that of our universe must exist; that we need to be working in rules other than the ones of our universe in order to find the answer. But then you implant our rules into that universe yourself, by assuming that it is the case even in that universe still that complexity requires a creator, even that there are beings at all. It makes no sense for you to infer both that a world that does not play by “our” rules exists, and at the same time that it must, in fact, play by some of our rules. > [@](#): > > But it shouldn’t. > > We understand perfectly how clocks work. This does not remove the need for a designer. And it would be rather more nonsensical to suggest that the clock requires an alternate universe in which a creator made it than it does to suggest a human made it here. We have a rather better, and more thorough explanation than that; whereas there is no explanation, no understanding behind the creator at all. > [@](#): > > No it isn’t. > > 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. No, we can’t. Matter might be the result of energy crossing the alternate world to here. The creator, itself, might be eternal. The creator might be made of matter but matter may be a naturally occurring phenomena which he manipulates. The creator could be two creators, one of matter creating non-matter, and one of non-matter creating matter. Your inference isn’t a safe one at all; there are plenty of other possible explanations. Moreover, you’re bringing your human understanding to the situation, as am I, by assuming that logic is as precise there as it is here; that cause and effect follow on, which makes no sense already as you’ve already said there’s no time for that to happen in. So not only is your inference weak, you have no way of knowing whether it is safe to assume that inferences make any sense in that universe at all. Let me ask you this; I suggest to you a similar alternate world to yours, except that in this world, time does flow, and furthermore there is space. Why is this alternate world less sensical than yours, when it matches considerably more with the evidence that we have? ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/312 "2009-01-19T19:28:43Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > What do you mean by ‘uncovering mysteries’? Do you mean finding a scientific explanation? Finding out how things work. And yes, when we do, they’re able to be explained scientifically. ---
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/313 "2009-01-19T19:36:03Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > Finding out how things work. And yes, when we do, they’re able to be explained scientifically. So…Everything that we’ve figure out using science, has a scientific explanation? That’s brilliant! ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/314 "2009-01-19T19:44:06Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > So…Everything that we’ve figure out using science, has a scientific explanation? That’s brilliant! You asked me _“What do you mean by ‘uncovering mysteries’? Do you mean finding a scientific explanation?”_ I never said _everything that we’ve figure out **using science** , has a scientific explanation_. I said uncovering mysteries is finding out how things work. I then went on to say that these things we figure out are explained scientifically, to reinforce that we never figure out that things happen through magical means. Are you going to keep building straw men to knock down as a general hobby? Where is this getting you? You’re not answering questions you’ve been asked and seem to be getting a kick out of putting words in the mouths of others. ---
**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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/315 "2009-01-19T20:41:40Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > So…Everything that we’ve figure out using science, has a scientific explanation? That’s brilliant! Yes, it’s true. We know what we know, we don’t know what we don’t know. But just because we don’t understand or are even unaware of certain phenomena doesn’t mean we need to create a Creator to explain them. A much more rational course of action is to simply admit: “We don’t know–maybe we will someday, and maybe we won’t.” ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/316 "2009-01-19T21:21:20Z")
This merry-go-round might be spinning too fast for me to jump on, but here goes… **CalD** , how does a Creator that was not created make more sense than a universe that was not created? ---
**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, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/317 "2009-01-19T22:12:23Z")
Because **CalD** said it does. Really, that’s the sum total of his argument. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/318 "2009-01-19T22:20:33Z")
> [@garygnu](#): > > This merry-go-round might be spinning too fast for me to jump on, but here goes… > > **CalD** , how does a Creator that was not created make more sense than a universe that was not created? I basically asked him this back in post #122. Instead of answering the relevant parts of my post, he quoted other parts and made sarcastic little comments. He’s clearly not interested in any form of honest debate. ---
**Author:** ![Claptree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/58f4c7/32.png) [@Claptree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claptree)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/319 "2009-01-19T22:40:56Z")
Or it may simply be that you made the error of answering him with more than one sentence. ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/320 "2009-01-19T22:49:59Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > I basically asked him this back in post #122. Instead of answering the relevant parts of my post, he quoted other parts and made sarcastic little comments. He’s clearly not interested in any form of honest debate. I did see that, I thought I’d ask again. ☹ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=17)