Is the existence of a Creator just more sensical?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@CalD

No, they haven’t.

Are you kidding me?

[CalD]

So an uncreated quantum matrix is a believable idea, but just not an uncreated intelligent designer?

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Given the current evidence, that’s correct.

Please share the “current evidence” that an uncreated quantum matrix has existed eternally.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@CalD

But you need a few things in place before evolution can begin, and those are the complex things.

What do you think “complex” means? Please define your terms.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@CalD

Please share the “current evidence” that an uncreated quantum matrix has existed eternally.

It doesn’t have to be proven, it just has to be possible, which it is. The mere possibility renders your fairy unnecessary.

[CalD]

@Acid_Lamp

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.

Again, I am saying that it is “more sensical” that there is a designer, not “it cannot be the result of natural processes”, those are your words.

Secondly, please give an example of what a natural process that requires a designer would look like.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@CalD

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.

You don’t know what infinite regression is, do you?

An infinite universe does no such thing. It eliminates the need for an origin altogether.

[CalD]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Then so does the multiverse.

The multiverse has complexity, and suffers from a the logical problem of infinite regression.

An uncreated creator does not.

[CalD]

@Pochacco

How does a Creator who exists outside of time DO anything? Doing requires change. Change requires time. If the Creator is really timeless then he can’t actually create anything.

Yes he can, he’s in a constant, unchanging state of creating.

[CalD]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

What you seem utterly unaware of and (apparently remain oblivious to attempts at correction) is that the atom is entirely explicable in terms of natural physical processes. The fact that you personally can’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s magic.

Every explanation supplied so far is just shifting the problem sideways.

“It’s the fundamental forces!”.

Right… so where did those forces get their properties, and why do they influence atoms in just the right way for atoms to be what they are?

This is like being adamant that there’s no evidence of a painter, because we can perfectly explain the paintbrush that drew the painting.

[CalD]

@Q.E.D

No, they aren’t. An atom is stupidly simple.

That’s a stupidly simple description of an atom. If it were true, it wouldn’t have taken 2 and a half pages for someone to posit it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@CalD

Wow, really?

I didn’t realise we’d studied the complexity of intelligent creators to possibly know this. What are they really like?

You tell us. You’re the one who made them up.

[Czarcasm]

@CalD

Yes he can, he’s in a constant, unchanging state of creating.

Cite?
Besides your fervent imagination, what evidence can you provide to back up your thoughts on any of your god’s aspects and/or abilities?

[CalD]

@Pochacco

We have evidence for the existence of universes. We have no evidence for the existence of Creators. So an uncreated universe is more plausible than an uncreated Creator. QED.

Once again, unbacked assertions contribute nothing to an exchange of ideas.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@CalD

Maybe it did, but then where did it get its physical complexity from?

An inexorable result of normal physical processes. What do you think “complexity” means and why are you convinced it’s so significant?

Of course, an infinite universe also introduces the problem of an infinite regression.

No it doesn’t. Infinite regression is only a problem if you need a first cause. If the multiverse is eternal, there’s nothing to regress to.

[CalD]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I don’t know from “amazing.” That’s just subjective emotion, and it’s neither here nor there. The question is whether it’s explicable in terms of natural processes, and it is.

No it isn’t.

You can keep saying it is, but given that we don’t even know what electrons are (remember?), to say we can “explain atoms by natural processes” is a bit silly.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@CalD

Once again, unbacked assertions contribute nothing to an exchange of ideas.

Which of those assertions is “unbacked,” that we have evidence for universes or that we have no evidence for magical creators?

[CalD]

@Diz

I challenge this assertion. Atoms are not complex. They are composed of quarks and electrons whose interactions are solely governed by the four fundamental forces. They have a small number of components with a very limited way of joining together. Any apparent structure is a result of those limits.

This does not fit any definition of ‘complex’ that I am aware of.

Please describe an (even theoretical) "complex’ natural structure for me.

[CalD]

@CaerieD

Alright, let me explain it like so: I hear a noise in my attic. Living in northern Wisconsin, I can think of a number of different animals that live here that could be the cause of the sound, along with the possibility of wind or some mechanical action. Investigation shows me evidence that this sound is caused by some bats.

I did not make allowances in my hypothesis of what could be causing the sound for sky fairies, but this doesn’t mean that there is still the possibility that sky fairies were causing the sound. I discovered the cause of the sound.

The same can be said for what creates atoms. Scientists didn’t make allowances in their hypotheses that God did it. Once sufficient proof was found as to what caused the formation of atoms, there was no further need to say, “Uh, maybe God did it.”

Once an explanation has been found there’s no reason to toss out additional complications. A simple explanation that accounts for all observable evidence will do.

So in other words, using methods that don’t allow for the possibility of a creator never ends up finding one?

[Strinka]

How do atoms get their structure? Simple. The strong force and the electromagnetic force. The strong force binds quarks into protons and neutrons, and binds those together into a nucleus. The positive charge of the nucleus attracts electrons via the electromagnetic force.

There. Some fundamental forces and particles and an atom is pretty much inevitable.

[Czarcasm]

@CalD

Once again, unbacked assertions contribute nothing to an exchange of ideas.

Apology accepted.
Would you like this thread closed now?