# 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:** 8
**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, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/141 "2009-01-19T01:00:53Z")
> [@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? How could something possibly be created by anything other than natural means? There is nothing outside of, or apart from, nature. The notion of the “supernatural” is a fictional construct of humans (a _natural_ construct, ironically, in that it is normal primitive human nature to postulate that those parts of nature he has yet to understand must somehow be outside of nature. Or in other words, magic). ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/142 "2009-01-19T01:01:20Z")
Well he must be right. Complexity requires a designer. Of course what could be more complex than a creature that could do all this creation. That would therefore require a designer. That in turn would require another designer. It’s turtles all the way down. ---
**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 19, 2009, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/143 "2009-01-19T01:06:35Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Cite the basis on which you make this claim. It has took the universe until relatively recently to come up with the human brain, and you think we are going to top it in a lab, or something? I make this claim on the basis that human technology has been consistently increasing in complexity, apparently without bound. Moreover, historically, the rate at which new technologies are developed has been increasing. It stands to reason that at some point in the (possibly distant) future, our technology will surpass we ourselves in its complexity. It took the universe so long to create a human brain precisely _because_ it wasn’t being designed. It took nature millions of years to go from Archeopteryx to modern birds; it took human technology less than 70 years to go from first powered flight to landing on the Moon. ---
**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, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/144 "2009-01-19T01:13:30Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > _We_ couldn’t, but we’re human. > > Why are you placing human constraints on the Creator? For one thing the very notion of a “creator” is a human construct. God was created in man’s image and as such possesses the same inadequacies and limitations that humans do. Sure, when humans created God they were feeling rather frisky and full of themselves so they added some impossible, magical traits into their God’s bag of tricks, but that doesn’t make those magical traits any more real than the transporters or warp-drive invented by Gene Roddenberry. ---
**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, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/145 "2009-01-19T01:15:59Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > My personal observations lead me to believe that there are relatively few people who actually know anything meaningful about the structure of the atom, but there are tons of people who know that the structure of the atom proves a designer. How does that work? Kinda like how people from all walks of life seem to have a problem with evolutionary theory, except those who, you know, actually study it for a living. Anyone who says that a creator simplifies things obviously hasn’t given it much thought. If you add in a creator, you just bring up a whole host of questions. Who is the creator? _What_ is the creator? Is he a he? Does he have DNA? Is he bound by physical laws? If he exists outside the universe (or the observable universe as we know it, since the strict definition of “universe” is _all there is_), then the mechanism by which he interacted with the universe should still be detectable within it. You can’t say “oooh, it’s so complex!” as proof; the human circulatory system is amazingly complex (much moreso than a simple atom) and yet no one goes around saying God is personally responsible for digesting all the food we eat. There has to be something detectable that we can only conclude came externally. And even then, you could just say that we haven’t yet found the natural explanation for it. So a creator is a backward step and just complicates things. Plus, you get the old philosophical conundrums of who created the creator, as well as what the creator did before creating. If the creator is eternal, i.e. existed for an infinite amount of time before creating the universe, then it will have taken him an infinite amount of time to create it, so he never does end up creating it, therefore the universe doesn’t exist. Oops! ---
**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, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/146 "2009-01-19T01:52:15Z")
> [@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. > > A quick pre-emptive strike: > > “But CalD, if complexity requires a designer, who designed the designer?” > > My answer -\> Complexity requires a designer in the known physical world. In a non-physical world without space/time/matter, this constraint may not exist. I can’t compete with other people on here scientifically, so i’m going to try and have a go at this logically. Well, ish. Let’s talk sense. Now, to me, something being more “sensical”, making more sense, rather depends on things acting in a way that is coherent and explicable. Coherent, as in makes sense in context - so for example, an orange floating on Earth would be rather more nonsensical than one floating on the International Space Station. Explicable, as in, well, can be explained - if we can not only see the orange floating, but understand that it is due to the relative lesser effect of gravity upon it, it becomes a more sensical act. Now, you’ve given in answer to a particular objection that a creator might exist in a non-physical world without space/time/matter. Quickly we have a problem with explicableness - we have no idea how this would occur, what this world is like, etc.. It’s an assertation the only evidence for which is that we cannot disprove it. Whereas, other people in this thread have suggested particular forms of non-creator complexity that has been explained in more detail and backed up with evidence on how the world works. Thus it seems rather more explicable to me. Add onto that, that this alternate world matches nothing we know - we have no basis on which to compare it, it goes unsupported by any evidence we currently have (and, indeed, that’s the point of it). Whereas the alternate ideas suggested by other people in this thread are more supported by other things we see about nature; we have evidence that makes these ideas coherent in terms of everything else we see. In those terms, then, I would say that their ideas are more sensical. Going back to the original problem, I think the problem with potentialy imagined alternate worlds is that we can imagine many of them. For example, I suggest to you an alternate world in which in fact complexity does not require creation, and that it is from this world that ours is created. And presto, it’s instantly as reasonable as your creator-alternate-world - more so, if anything, since fewer universal standards need to be dropped for it to make sense. It could have both time and space, for example, and the idea is more sensical. ---
**Author:** ![in\_hiding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c5a1d2/32.png) [@in\_hiding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/in_hiding)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/147 "2009-01-19T01:53:05Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > I believe so. For those who don’t believe so, my question stands: How much structure/complexity/functionality _would_ you accept as evidence of a designer? Something that is not explainable by science and the laws of the universe, and that is **very** unlikely to be random. Sagan had such an example in his Novel “Contact” (I don’t think this is a spoiler): Some digits of PI (in, say, base 10, to make the coincidence higher, as we use base 10 now) suddenly have a quadratic block of only 1s and 0s, and in this block the 1s form a circle on a background of 0s, like a bitmap. Like 3.1415…blablab0111011011100011101101110blabla would have a block of ```auto 01110 11011 10001 11011 01110 ``` in it. Make this block appear so early and be so big, that pure chance as a reason for it is very very unlikely. This might be a message from a creator of the universe to its inhabitants. But everything that is explainable with the laws of the universe alone - and the atom certainly _is_ explainable - can’t be an argument in favor of a creator. **You** might feel so, but you have to understand that it’s just a personal, somewhat irrational feeling. ---
**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, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/148 "2009-01-19T02:25:08Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > The atom’s structure, functionality and complexity are amazing, are they not? So amazing that you’d almost have to believe there is evidence of design in there? The famous [**argumentum ad ignorantiam**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance), it seemingly never gets old. You personally do not understand how something could form naturally, therefore it must be **supernatural**! If only that argument had worked on my Organic Chemistry professor when he quizzed me on the formation of ketones. I could have simply written “_goddidit!_” for all the answers, studied less and drank more. Ah, who am I kidding? There’s no way I could have drank more. So if amazing structure, functionality and complexity are all that is required to convince you of a supernatural designer, perhaps you can tell me who designed these [caves](http://simplebrowser.blogspot.com/2007/08/amazing-caves.html)? Does your imaginary friend spend his days creating [Romanesco broccoli](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/132/318347912_021bac8f46_o.jpg)? How does he have the time during the recent blizzards, with all the time spent on the various [snowflakes](http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/snowflakes.jpg)? And who created the [Giant’s Causeway](http://www.risingroadtours.com/graphics/Causeway_c.jpg), or these [crystals](http://www.briolette.com/images/xf_veracruz_amethyst_matrix1.jpg). I would ask you who designed the [Mars face](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg), but that would be pointless since everyone knows it was [this guy](http://www.acm.rpi.edu/~diesel/my_pics/halloween04_costume/marvin%20the%20martian.jpg). > [@CalD](#): > > Science does not have answers to where atoms got those things from… > > Please enlighten me, the board, and the world’s scientific community. Not surprisingly, you are the one that needs enlightenment. Not the board, and certainly not the world’s scientific community, for they are well aware of the process of [nuclear fusion](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/nucene/fusion.html#c1). This describes very well [how atoms are created in stars](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/astro/astfus.html#c1), and they appear to be doing it all by themselves quite naturally, unless of course baby Jesus is inside the star somewhere simulating fusion while remaining undetected. If you are confused where the first atoms came from, try studying [this page](http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html) for an elementary treatise on the subject. Please note that I am utilizing a lot of images to illustrate these concepts, since my 6 year old niece learns more quickly from pictures, and you seem to demonstrate the same level of intellectual rigor. > [@CalD](#): > > How much structure/complexity/functionality _would_ you accept as evidence of a designer? You have this question ass-backwards. We can accept that bicycles and watches are designed by humans because we know humans exist, and a few have been known to design watches and bicycles. If you can produce evidence of a designer creating atoms, perhaps that should be your first step. So you really need to turn this question around: What type of evidence would convince you that atoms occur naturally without supernatural intervention? ---
**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, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/149 "2009-01-19T03:17:36Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > Why would you think that complexity requires a designer when we have countless examples all around us of extremely complex things (e.g. raccoons) that came into being without any designer? I’m inclined to say that extreme complexity is more likely to be a sign _against_ there having been an intelligent designer than the other way around. A raccoon or even a tree is a lot more complicated than a bicycle. One of the striking features of the bicycle, and one of the clear indications that it was carefully and intelligently designed, is that it’s so _efficient_, one might even say _simple_. If the natural world had been intelligently designed, many things would probably be LESS complex than they are. The bodies of living creatures are not only complicated, they are in some ways more [complicated](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial) than is strictly necessary. ---
**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, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/150 "2009-01-19T05:11:01Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. You refer to the “actual evidence and rational, logical inference” for the atom’s complexity like there is some. As I’ve challenged many times, please enlighten us all. ---
**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, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/151 "2009-01-19T05:12:05Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > 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. But you need a few things in place _before_ evolution can begin, and those are the complex things. ---
**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, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/152 "2009-01-19T05:13:09Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > 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! Wow, really? I didn’t realise we’d studied the complexity of intelligent creators to possibly know this. What are they really like? ---
**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, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/153 "2009-01-19T05:14:30Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > So you should have no trouble believing that the universe has existed eternally. Maybe it did, but then where did it get its physical complexity from? Of course, an infinite universe also introduces the problem of an infinite regression. ---
**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, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/154 "2009-01-19T05:15:56Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Wow, really? > > I didn’t realise we’d studied the complexity of intelligent creators to possibly know this. What are they really like? No idea. If you’re going to put forth a theory involving them, it’s your job to tell us. ---
**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, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/155 "2009-01-19T05:16:04Z")
> [@Q.E.D](#): > > 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. So you add to the complexities of the atom beyond the things that I have described, then concede we don’t really know what an electron even is.. and this just further adds weight to your theory that this _still_ all came together with no designer? ---
**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, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/156 "2009-01-19T05:18:07Z")
> [@Terrifel](#): > > 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. 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”. ---
**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, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/157 "2009-01-19T05:20:04Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > That doesn’t help. If the creator doesn’t need a cause, then neither does the universe. But then the universe is bound by the laws of the time. How can we arrive at “now” if “now” has been preceded by an infinite amount of time? Additionally, the universe has a high degree of physical complexity (evidence of designer), the uncreated creator has zero physical complexity. ---
**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, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/158 "2009-01-19T05:21:10Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > 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. You can understand atoms as thoroughly as you like. You need to explain how they _got_ their structure, complexity and functionality. ---
**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, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/159 "2009-01-19T05:22:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. No, they haven’t. ---
**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, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867/160 "2009-01-19T05:23:19Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > You refer to the “actual evidence and rational, logical inference” for the atom’s complexity like there is some. As I’ve challenged many times, please enlighten us all. Read the thread. It’s been explained to you multiple times with links. What part of the atom do you think requires explanation? I think you need to quit using the word “complexity,” by the way. It doesn’t really have any useful definition in this discussion. You’re apparently just using it to designate anything you don’t personally understand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-existence-of-a-creator-just-more-sensical/481867.md?page=9)