# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![UncleRojelio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unclerojelio/32/3160_2.png) [@UncleRojelio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleRojelio)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/21 "2009-01-18T17:25:29Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > I believe the idea that the universe has an intelligent creator makes more sense than not having an intelligent creator. If you look at matter’s basic building block, the atom, and observe all of its magnificent complexity, structure and functionality, it surely makes “more sense” that it was designed. If the atom, in all it’s magnificent complexity, structure and functionality, wasn’t exactly as it is, you wouldn’t be here to marvel at how the creator created it so perfectly for your existence. Some other type of being would be here marveling at how it was so perfect for his existence. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/22 "2009-01-18T17:26:06Z")
> [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](#): > > Correcting false statements at the heart of the debate is hardly pedantic. Nah, whether “building block” is a properly descriptive term for the atom is not at the heart of this debate at all, in fact, watch as I completely remove the term from the sentence I put it in: > [@](#): > > If you look at… the atom, and observe all of its magnificent complexity, structure and functionality, it surely makes “more sense” that it was designed. ---
**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 18, 2009, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/23 "2009-01-18T17:26:25Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > No need to cite it. If someone challenges me with “complexity requires a designer”, I can safely assume they are including the physical world. > > No need to cite something that the other person, by default, agrees with. I don’t agree with you at all. I’m asking you to prove that complexity requires a designer. There’s absolutely no reason to believe that it does. ---
**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 18, 2009, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/24 "2009-01-18T17:28:36Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Really? > > Can you give an example of how an atom created by an intelligent designer might differ from one that came about via different means that haven’t yet been “explained or understood”? That’s for you o explain, not us. You have to explain why a magic super genie is _necessary_ to “create” an atom, and why matter couldn’t have just frozen out of the energy of the Big Bang like the evidence shows. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/25 "2009-01-18T17:29:05Z")
> [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](#): > > Then how do you expect us to respond to your assertion that a Creator is “just more sensical”? Well, compare it to the idea that the atom came together all by itself, or through a process that requires no intelligence. Atoms don’t breed and reproduce, so you can’t argue they “evolved”. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/26 "2009-01-18T17:31:43Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Well, compare it to the idea that the atom came together all by itself, or through a process that requires no intelligence. > > Atoms don’t breed and reproduce, so you can’t argue they “evolved”. Current physics theory indicates they may be converted from energy. They are not living things. There is no need for them to breed or reproduce or evolve. Do you understand the difference between living and non-living systems? Your entire argument seems to be that the idea of a Creator is more pleasing to you than not having a creator. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/27 "2009-01-18T17:31:46Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > That’s not what I meant. There may not be any difference, but you’re proposing that a designer exists, and created everything (or maybe only some things, or maybe started a couple of things and the rest is sort of the mess we’re left with when he got bored, or anything in between) which means we now can’t think about how atoms came into being at all, or why they act like they do, or anything like that - they’re created by God, period. That’s what I mean by sweeping questions under the carpet - it doesn’t explain anything at all. I think you’re confusing me with Christian Creation fundamentalists. I have nothing against investigating where the atom’s structure, function and complexity came from. But given that this investigation has so far turned up nothing, that counts for their being zero evidence against what, on face value, appears to be something that was meticulously designed. ---
**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 18, 2009, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/28 "2009-01-18T17:34:01Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Well, compare it to the idea that the atom came together all by itself, or through a process that requires no intelligence. > > Atoms don’t breed and reproduce, so you can’t argue they “evolved”. Matter came from energy. This is physics 101. ---
**Author:** ![CaerieD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@CaerieD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaerieD)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/29 "2009-01-18T17:34:25Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Well, compare it to the idea that the atom came together all by itself, or through a process that requires no intelligence. > > Atoms don’t breed and reproduce, so you can’t argue they “evolved”. Atoms may not breed or reproduce, but they are formed by physical laws same as everything else. There is nothing intelligent or spiritual about it. The concept of [nucleosynethesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis) is a good place to start if you don’t understand the origins of atoms. ---
**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 18, 2009, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/30 "2009-01-18T17:35:16Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > I think you’re confusing me with Christian Creation fundamentalists. > > I have nothing against investigating where the atom’s structure, function and complexity came from. But given that this investigation has so far turned up nothing, that counts for their being zero evidence against what, on face value, appears to be something that was meticulously designed. Who told you that “investigation has turned up nothing?” You appear to have some large gaps in your knowledge here, but don’t project that onto everybody else. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/31 "2009-01-18T17:35:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t agree with you at all. I’m asking you to prove that complexity requires a designer. There’s absolutely no reason to believe that it does. Absolutely no reason to believe that complexity requires a designer? I’m amazed you’d align yourself to such a concrete, no-room-to-move statement, but let’s think of it this way: I’m claiming it makes more sense that complexity (at least something as complex as the atom) _more likely than not_ requires a designer. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/32 "2009-01-18T17:37:49Z")
> [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](#): > > Current physics theory indicates they may be converted from energy. They are not living things. There is no need for them to breed or reproduce or evolve. Do you understand the difference between living and non-living systems? Quite well. You’ve obviously misunderstood, or I wasn’t clear enough, on something I said. > [@](#): > > Your entire argument seems to be that the idea of a Creator is more pleasing to you than not having a creator. Not sure what you mean by “more pleasing”. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/33 "2009-01-18T17:38:52Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s for you o explain, not us. You have to explain why a magic super genie is _necessary_ to “create” an atom, and why matter couldn’t have just frozen out of the energy of the Big Bang like the evidence shows. _Necessary_ is your word, not mine. I said it’s more _sensical_ to believe the atom was designed/created. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/34 "2009-01-18T17:39:55Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > I’m claiming it makes more sense that complexity (at least something as complex as the atom) _more likely than not_ requires a designer. What kind of scientific argument is “it makes more sense”? The facts in this case don’t support that assertion. The facts as understood so far indicate no need whatsoever for a creator. Adding a creator to the mix only makes it even more complex. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/35 "2009-01-18T17:40:09Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Matter came from energy. This is physics 101. Yep.. I am aware what atoms are. ---
**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 18, 2009, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/36 "2009-01-18T17:40:46Z")
Incidentally, could you give a single example of something that “appears to be designed?” Can you provide an example of something which could not have come into existence by purely material processes? ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/37 "2009-01-18T17:41:07Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Quite well. You’ve obviously misunderstood, or I wasn’t clear enough, on something I said. I don’t think so > [@](#): > > Not sure what you mean by “more pleasing”. Not sure what you mean by “more sensical”. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/38 "2009-01-18T17:42:08Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > I think you’re confusing me with Christian Creation fundamentalists. No, I just think that using “God did it” as an explanation is a lazy way of thinking. You might as well claim atoms are created by magic. > [@](#): > > I have nothing against investigating where the atom’s structure, function and complexity came from. But given that this investigation has so far turned up nothing, that counts for their being zero evidence against what, on face value, appears to be something that was meticulously designed. From my limited knowledge of physics, it seems that in this universe, at this particular time, atoms cannot be different from how they are. There’s no need to think they’re designed at all. Someone else here may be able to explain it a lot better (or correct me). ---
**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 18, 2009, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/39 "2009-01-18T17:43:47Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Absolutely no reason to believe that complexity requires a designer? Absolutely zero that has ever been shown. > [@](#): > > I’m amazed you’d align yourself to such a concrete, no-room-to-move statement, but let’s think of it this way: I’ll marry it and fuck it and have kids with it. > [@](#): > > I’m claiming it makes more sense that complexity (at least something as complex as the atom) _more likely than not_ requires a designer. And I’m asking you what your basis is for that assertion. What is there in the universe which cannot have come into existence without magic? ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/40 "2009-01-18T17:43:52Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Nope, not at all. I happily fluttered between atheism and agnosticism for years. My belief in a creator is based purely on the “evidence” I see before me. I think that your belief in a creator for the atom is more likely based on convenience than evidence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=3)