# 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:** 5
**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, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/81 "2009-01-18T18:37:33Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > 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. An uncreated universe is more plausible than an uncreated Creator. ---
**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, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/82 "2009-01-18T18:37:46Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > So.. what? > > Err.. you mean other than how I very specifically asked: > > And you’re wondering why I’ve labeled a response detailing things _other_ than mere observation as irrelevant? I’m asking you why you think uninformed impressions from superficial observations have any value, or why you think those impressions should override actual evidence and rational, logical inference. ---
**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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/83 "2009-01-18T18:39:32Z")
The thing here is, complexity alone never implies a designer. Absolutely never. We know of a very nice, logical process that can lead to arbitrarily complex end products, and that’s evolution. The argument that ‘looking at a bike implies a designer’ would only work if humans themselves were designed, and thus assumes its conclusion, namely that a designer exists. ---
**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, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/84 "2009-01-18T18:41:28Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > 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? It could. There’s still the problem of where the energy came from, and there’s still the problem of how magnificent the final atom is going to eventually be in structure, design, and function. So, how much complexity is the atom needing before _you_ would entertain the idea of an intelligence designer? > [@](#): > > “It’s just easier to envision a creator than bother with all that pesky science and logic.” sort of thing. Not really, because as I’ve already stated, I’m completely in favour of pursuing answers to these questions. ---
**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, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/85 "2009-01-18T18:42:46Z")
> [@Q.E.D](#): > > Um, yeah, it does. Please enlighten me, the board, and the world’s scientific community. ---
**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, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/86 "2009-01-18T18:44:51Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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? You can accuse me of being disingenuous if you wish, all I can do is repeat that I do not understand your question, and weather any barbs you wish to throw. I’ve re-read it a few times, and I am going to answer what I think you are asking with: the atom. ---
**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, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/87 "2009-01-18T18:45:58Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > So, how much complexity is the atom needing before _you_ would entertain the idea of an intelligence designer? But an intelligent designer is FAR more complicated than an atom. And yet you have no trouble believing that such a fantastically elaborate being could emerge spontaneously! ---
**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, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/88 "2009-01-18T18:46:07Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > But theists have the same problem. Either the Creator has existed forever or the Creator emerged spontaneously out of nothing. The Creator did not spontaneously appear from nothing, but exists eternally. ---
**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, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/89 "2009-01-18T18:47:39Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > 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. The atom. Why do I need another example? ---
**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, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/90 "2009-01-18T18:47:48Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > The Creator did not spontaneously appear from nothing, but exists eternally. So you should have no trouble believing that the universe has existed eternally. ---
**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, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/91 "2009-01-18T18:49:30Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Please enlighten me, the board, and the world’s scientific community. Someone upthread already told you: an atom’s structure and subsequent behavior derives naturally from the interactions of the four fundamental forces acting upon the atom’s three component particles. These behaviors are well defined and understood, even if we don’t fully understand the _nature_ of these forces and particles. That is, we don’t understand what an electron _is_, but we can fully describe its behavior and predict with stunning accuracy how it will act in a given situation. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/92 "2009-01-18T18:50:00Z")
> [@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”. If it exists outside time, then it couldn’t very well be a designer then could it? Because there would be no point at which the universe was designed. Such a plan would have necessarily existed outside time and never ‘come into existence,’ just the same as your intelligent designer. So it seems like there really isn’t any need for the designer to begin with, since the designer was always just sort of sitting outside time alongside this eternal plan which has also always existed. Either way, the conclusion must be the same: the universe was not designed. ---
**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, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/93 "2009-01-18T18:50:48Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > The Creator did not spontaneously appear from nothing, but exists eternally. That doesn’t help. If the creator doesn’t need a cause, then neither does the universe. Just because you find a creator more pleasing doesn’t mean it’s plausible. > [@Commander Vimes](#): > > “You can’t ask questions, it’s magic. It doesn’t explain anything, it’s magic. You don’t know where it comes from, it’s magic! That’s what I don’t like about magic, it does everything by magic!” ---
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/94 "2009-01-18T18:51:50Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > The Creator did not spontaneously appear from nothing, but exists eternally. The universe didn’t spontaneously appear from nothing, but exists eternally. That’s a simpler hypothesis than the one with creator _and_ universe, and thus preferred. Incidentally, why do you think eternal existence is any less troubling a concept, logically, than spontaneous emergence? And you really should quit parroting that ‘nobody knows how atoms work’-canard; atoms are well enough explained with just the strong and electromagnetic forces, and those are reasonably well understood. And there’s absolutely no indication that they’re somehow impossible to understand totally. ---
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/95 "2009-01-18T18:51:57Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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). Hold on. I was responding to Qadgop’s claim: > [@](#): > > The facts as understood so far indicate no need whatsoever for a creator The facts as understood so far include the observation of the atom’s complexity. So, given that awe-inspiring structure, complexity and functionality doesn’t count for evidence of an intelligent designer all by itself, I want to know if there is any level of structure, design and functionality that _would_. Singing and dancing atoms? Would that do it? Or would the likes of Qadgop accept NO amount of complexity/functionality as evidence? ---
**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, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/96 "2009-01-18T18:53:54Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > 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. You have yet to show any reason why a magic fairy makes more sense than natural processes when natural processes have already been demonstrated to be a perfectly plausible explanation. > [@](#): > > 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. Obviously you’re not familiar with it since Occam’s Razor is not a theory, but merely an operating principle for scientific method. I didn’t say that rhe Razor _says_ natural explanations be eliminated first, but that it _requires_ it. What it actually _says_ is that “entities should no be muliplied beyond their necessity.” This is sometimes paraphrased as the simplest explanation being the one that’s probably true, but more accurately it means that you don’t postulate unnecessary and more complex alternative hypotheses when you already have a full and plausible explanation. There is no reason to hypothesize that a goblin ate your sandwich when your dog has crumbs on his mouth. > [@](#): > > So an uncreated quantum matrix is a believable idea, but just not an uncreated intelligent designer? Given the current evidence, that’s correct. > [@](#): > > That’s not fair. Not fair to who? ---
**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, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/97 "2009-01-18T18:54:51Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > But we’ve already shown you that the atom does not meet that criterion. The atom is demonstrably a product of natural processes. Really? Demonstrably? Please demonstrate the process. ---
**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, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/98 "2009-01-18T18:55:47Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > It could. > > There’s still the problem of where the energy came from, and there’s still the problem of how magnificent the final atom is going to eventually be in structure, design, and function. So, how much complexity is the atom needing before _you_ would entertain the idea of an intelligence designer? > Not really, because as I’ve already stated, I’m completely in favour of pursuing answers to these questions. Then your OP makes no sense, there is no point in discussing it, and I’m not certain why we are having this discussion. Either you are supposing that it is easier, ie more sensible to assume a creator because of irreducible complexity or you are not. Why are you so stuck on the adjective “magnificent” in regards to the atom BTW? > [@](#): > > ``` > mag·nif·i·cent Listen to the pronunciation of magnificent > > ``` > > Pronunciation: > -sənt\ > Function: > adjective > Date: > 15th century > > 1: great in deed or exalted in place —used only of former famous rulers \ > 2: marked by stately grandeur and lavishness \ > 3: sumptuous in structure and adornment \ ; broadly : strikingly beautiful or impressive \ > 4: impressive to the mind or spirit : sublime \ > 5: exceptionally fine \ The fact that you find something to be impressive, or beautiful does not mean that it cannot be the result of natural processes that do not need a creator. Your argument makes no sense if you are amenable to finding the scientific underpinnings of its behaviour. We KNOW why things have regular structure, and we have some pretty good ideas about how they came to exist, so your example is poorly illustrative of your conclusion. ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/99 "2009-01-18T18:56:25Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > The Creator did not spontaneously appear from nothing, but exists eternally. Then so does the multiverse. ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/100 "2009-01-18T18:56:37Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > 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! Every option you’ve listed there fits neatly in to 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”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=6)