# 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:** 4
**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, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/61 "2009-01-18T18:16:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Or you’re dodging it. .. or I don’t understand your question. ---
**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, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/62 "2009-01-18T18:18:15Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Well, duh. Nobody’s desputing that atoms or watches exist. Your point is lost on me. I very clearly asked if the _mere observation_ of an object alone leans towards the existence of a designer. To respond with a “debunk” that talks about things _other than_ mere observation can rightfully be challenged as irrelevant to the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/63 "2009-01-18T18:18:56Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Well that’s not quite what I believe. I believe that the intelligent designer exists outside of time, and exists eternally, hence, did not, at some point, “emerge spontaneously”. Your “logic” makes no sense. If your creator can exist eternally, why can’t matter descend from energy, and the arrangement of that matter adhere to physical laws enforced by the nature of the matter? Why can’t that simply be a cycle not requiring am intelligent creator? More importantly, if you are going to go " Ah Acid, but who started the cycle?" I would answer that I don’t know, and though brighter minds than myself might eventually figure it out, I don’t need a god, designer, or any other nonsensical fictional entity to fill the void in my knowledge. It has no bearing at all on life now. You seem to be arguing from a stance of intellectual laziness. “It’s just easier to envision a creator than bother with all that pesky science and logic.” sort of thing. Nobody knows that the first cause will even make sense to us. As mortal beings, we understand things to have physical first causes. It might not be that simple. ---
**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/64 "2009-01-18T18:19:28Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There is nothing in the unverse which is analogous to your example. The point is, how much complexity is needed before Qagdop starts to think a designer is more sensical? Is there no amount of complexity capable of doing it? ---
**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, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/65 "2009-01-18T18:20:37Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What non-man made example in the universe do you see that is analogous to a bicycle? What do you see in the universe that shows “design” that was not made by people or animals? But this is the fundamental disagreement of the discussion. I’m going to respond by saying “atom”, which brings us right back to the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/66 "2009-01-18T18:21:17Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Well, time is what allows us to not do everything all at once, so that would be how the Creator is having to do everything - all at once. That’s how he/she/it would get around the “time” problem. How does one do everything at once, without being able to see how time will affect one’s creations? We, and everything around us, is time-dependent; cause-and-effect and all that. ---
**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, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/67 "2009-01-18T18:24:05Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > .. or I don’t understand your question. Sure you do, but just to play along, you are asserting that the univesre needs a creator. You are obviously not claiming that the creator was a human. Anything “designed” by humans was designed by a product of the universe itself. What do you see in the universe that you think reqiures a designer who was not a product of the universe itself? ---
**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 18, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/68 "2009-01-18T18:24:31Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > But even atheists are forced to believe that either: > > 1. Something has existed forever, or: > 2. The universe (or the First Cause that would become the universe) came from a very real and very literal “nothing”. > > If you find the idea of an uncreated creator a bit silly, then you also have to find point 1 equally silly. To believe in point 2 takes more faith than any religious fanatic could ever dream of possessing. But theists have the same problem. Either the Creator has existed forever or the Creator emerged spontaneously out of nothing. ---
**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, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/69 "2009-01-18T18:25:02Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Your point is lost on me. > > I very clearly asked if the _mere observation_ of an object alone leans towards the existence of a designer. To respond with a “debunk” that talks about things _other than_ mere observation can rightfully be challenged as irrelevant to the discussion. Mere observation only proves that something exists. How we _interpret_ the observation is what the whole discussion is about. Of course if we’re observing a watch we conclude that it was man-made, because we know watches and how they’re produced and any other conclusion would require a lot more evidence. The same is not at all true for an atom. And after multiple requests you **still** haven’t given any other example of a not clearly man- or animal-made object that you think clearly demonstrates it’s been created by an intelligent 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, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/70 "2009-01-18T18:26:38Z")
> [@CaerieD](#): > > I mean this with no disrespect, but you honestly don’t seem to have much knowledge about atoms and what science has found regarding them. Because of our understanding of nuclear mechanics, we have been able to narrow down what could be possible in terms of creating atoms. And who drew up the list of initial possibilities? Was the list all-inclusive? Did it account for the possibility that atoms weren’t created through natural means? > [@](#): > > If you are knowledgeable on this topic and still reject the idea that we know how atoms are created.. Well, not just how were they were created, but what really impresses me is the atom’s structure, complexity and functionality. Science does _not_ have answers to where atoms got those things from. .. And no, I can not answer your science trivia question, nor do I think I need to for the purposes of this discussion. ---
**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, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/71 "2009-01-18T18:27:26Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > The point is, how much complexity is needed before Qagdop starts to think a designer is more sensical? Is there no amount of complexity capable of doing it? None that you’ve been able to demonstrate. Whether such a thing could hypothetically be demonstrated is another story. The point is that, so far, it never HAS been. All you have to do is show something in the universe that could not have come into existence by purely material, natural processes (and human activity IS a natural process, so you can drop that angle altogether). ---
**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, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/72 "2009-01-18T18:27:57Z")
> [@Q.E.D](#): > > How does one do everything at once, without being able to see how time will affect one’s creations? If the existence of the universe appears to the Creator as one instantaneous occurrence, the creator would see the affects of time all at one. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/73 "2009-01-18T18:28:17Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Well, not just how were they were created, but what really impresses me is the atom’s structure, complexity and functionality. Science does _not_ have answers to where atoms got those things from. Um, yeah, 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, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/74 "2009-01-18T18:29:13Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > But this is the fundamental disagreement of the discussion. I’m going to respond by saying “atom”, which brings us right back to the OP. But we’ve already shown you that the atom does not meet that criterion. The atom is demonstrably a product of natural processes. Try something else. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/75 "2009-01-18T18:29:13Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Indeed, it seems as though you’re prepared to entertain any number of hypothesis, many of which are based on nothing more than speculation - but you just won’t entertain the idea of a creator? Whereas you seem to be rather eager to jump on it without any provocation. What’s wrong with saying ‘I don’t know, but here’s some options we currently know of’? What you’re doing is essentially the same as saying that because you don’t understand David Copperfield’s tricks, they must be real magic. And I do entertain the idea of a creator – it’s just not a very good hypothesis in that it goes against everything that’s so far been observed and doesn’t usefully explain anything (far be it from me to even demand something like testable predictions or a criterion of falsifiability). > [@](#): > > But even atheists are forced to believe that either: > > 1. Something has existed forever, or: > 2. The universe (or the First Cause that would become the universe) came from a very real and very literal “nothing”. Again, there are more options than you are permitting – time might be circular, and the universe may be its own cause; time may well be finite (into the past), but have no starting point (like the open interval (0;1) doesn’t include a smallest number), ‘nothing’ may simply be not possible (like you have quantum fluctuations in even the best vacuum). Don’t confuse the constraints on the conditions in the universe with the limits of your knowledge! ---
**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, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/76 "2009-01-18T18:31:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Most “Challenges to the Watchmaker Analogy” are to do with things other than the mere observation of the (object) alone. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > So what? So.. what? Err.. you mean other than how I very specifically asked: > [@](#): > > When you look at a bicycle, _do you believe that mere observation of the bike alone_ doesn’t even lean towards the likelihood of a designer? And you’re wondering why I’ve labeled a response detailing things _other_ than mere observation as irrelevant? ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/77 "2009-01-18T18:33:44Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > If the existence of the universe appears to the Creator as one instantaneous occurrence, the creator would see the affects of time all at one. This doesn’t make any sense. How can any being see everything at once and still make sense of it? Take a movie and cut the frames apart and stack them in order, then project the whole on a screen. You’re looking at the whole movie, all at once. Now, how do you make sense of it? How do you describe the interactions between the characters? ---
**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, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/78 "2009-01-18T18:34:49Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Your point is lost on me. > > I very clearly asked if the _mere observation_ of an object alone leans towards the existence of a designer. To respond with a “debunk” that talks about things _other than_ mere observation can rightfully be challenged as irrelevant to the discussion. I don’t really know what you mean by this. If you’retrying to say that some things in the universe look “designed” to you on a purely superficial level, then all I can say is so what? What does that prove? I can tell you that closer inspection has never born that perception out ( a perception I’ve never personally shared, incidentally, so it’s not universal). ---
**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, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/79 "2009-01-18T18:35:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You need to show a _necessity_ for a creator. No I don’t, I never said a creator is necessary. I said it makes more sense, when we look at how magnificently complex, structured and functional an atom is. > [@](#): > > That’s how it works. If there’s no necessity for magic, there’s no reason to consider it. Are you familiar with Occam’s Razor? The Razor requires that all natural explanations be eliminated before you need to consider magic. Actually that’s not what the theory says, and yes I am familiar with it. Regardless, any theory that requires all natural explanations be eliminated before supernatural explanations can be considered is going to be a pretty useless at detecting an intelligent creator, if one exists. > [@](#): > > There is no reason not to believe option 1. The “something” does not have to be this physical universe. That’s just the current (or _a_ current) manifestation of an underlying and eternal quantum matrix. So an uncreated quantum matrix is a believable idea, but just not an uncreated intelligent designer? That’s not fair. ---
**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, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/80 "2009-01-18T18:35:53Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > And who drew up the list of initial possibilities? Was the list all-inclusive? Did it account for the possibility that atoms weren’t created through natural means? There was no need for this list to account of “the possibility that atoms weren’t created through natural means.” This list had nothing to do with such philosophy. It’s based on simple observation of physical effects. Examples of some of these effects you might be familiar with are splitting atoms in a laboratory and nuclear power. We hypothesized what we would get as a result of these tests, then revised theories based on the results. The list of possibilities for the creation of atoms is based off of observable data. These theories weren’t created by people trying to ignore the existence of a creator: they were created to explain what was observed. If there is no observed evidence of something additional then there is absolutely no reason to include it. They had no evidence of something additional, and so had no reason to include the possibility of a creator. > [@](#): > > Well, not just how were they were created, but what really impresses me is the atom’s structure, complexity and functionality. Science does _not_ have answers to where atoms got those things from. > > .. And no, I can not answer your science trivia question, nor do I think I need to for the purposes of this discussion. Yes, science does. An atom’s structure, complexity and functionality are all the result of basic physical properties. The same properties which, on a large scale, account for the shape of a piece of mica. The atom is a result of the particles that form it. You would have better luck focusing your argument that we can’t explain something on an object that _isn’t_ the center of nuclear theory and _isn’t_ split apart in laboratories every day. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=5)