Is There Evidence for a Creator of the Universe?

[brushman]

Someone gave me the argument...

Either all space, time, matter, energy, natural laws, chemical properties, mathematical formulae, organic information, consciousness, rationality, music, etc., is the result of Conscious Something (Creator Mind) or just itself (chance matter).

Theist or atheist…both require faith.

In other words, a complex system allowing for intelligent life is unlikely a mere coincidence. Thus, suggesting a "creator".

Myself being scientifically immature, the only counter point I could think of is: we don't know all the possible combination of different physical laws that allow for intelligent life, so how can we know the probability of a universe that can harbor intelligent life?

From researching online another point seems to be that we don't know how these laws are generated, so how can we determine it's unlikely? I also read some stuff about anthropic principle, but I don't really know what that is.

Ultimately my questioning comes down to, "what is junk about the junk science that follows a universal designer".

Thanks.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Just don't get into crap like this, as no matter what you do you cannot win.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Someone gave me the argument...



In other words, a complex system allowing for intelligent life is unlikely a mere coincidence.

What reason do you have for asserting this?

Thus, suggesting a "creator".

Myself being scientifically immature, the only counter point I could think of is: we don't know all the possible combination of different physical laws that allow for intelligent life, so how can we know the probability of a universe that can harbor intelligent life?

From researching online another point seems to be that we don't know how these laws are generated, so how can we determine it's unlikely? I also read some stuff about anthropic principle, but I don't really know what that is.

Ultimately my questioning comes down to, "what is junk about the junk science that follows a universal designer".

Thanks.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

There is nothing suggesting a conscious or non-random influence in the creation of the universe.

 

[Evo]

There is no need for a "creator" in nature.

Make them crazy and ask them who created the creator.

 

[Mkorr]

The central false premise in the argument is the chance/design dichotomy. There are other viable options, such as a combination of natural regularity and chance. Biologists agree that intelligent, complex and integrated biological life cannot form by pure chance. No one is disputing this. No one ever claimed that it did. What biologists do think is that natural regularity in addition to chance can explain it. Do not let anyone tell you that mechanisms such as natural selection is "random". To accept that natural regularity together with chance generates biological complexity is not a faith-based claim, it is supported by empirical evidence.

A well-rounded overview of the scientific problems with intelligent design creationism is the book "Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism" edited by Matt Young and Taner Edis (Rutgers University Press, 2006). Pay special attention to the chapters 7 ("Self-organization and the origin of complexity", by Shanks and Karsai), 10 (Chance, Necessity - and Intelligent Design?, by Taner Edis) and finally chapter 12 ("Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Us?" by Victor Stenger). There are many other articles in this book worth reading as well.

The American particle physicist Victor Stenger is currently in the process of writing a book that is tentatively called "The Fallacy of Fine-tuning: How the Universe is Not Designed for Humanity". When it is published, it may be worth checking out, even though Stenger has discussed the notion of apparent fine-tuning in earlier publications.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

"It's random" is a bit of a banana peel in discussions like this, as you were poking on above. There are a number of set laws in nature, according to which a number of things can emerge. One of these things is intelligent life. The "chance" thing is that intelligent life doesn't neccesarily have to emerge, but the emergence of it is by no means entirely random - The principles of evolution would imply a trend towards it in certain parts of the biosphere, I'm quite certain.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While we normally don't allow religious discussions relating to the truth of existence, or not, of a God, I am curious about one point being made.

From a scientific point of view, how do we know that there is no need for a creator? Given that we as yet are unable to provide a complete description of physics, how can the need for a creator be logically excluded?

I find absolute statements as such to be completely unsupportable.

Said another way, we don't know what we don't know.

 

[GeorginaS]

Said another way, we don't know what we don't know.

Hence why Margaret Atwood said (I'm paraphrasing) that the only supportable scientific position on this is agnosticism.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would add that the very moment in time that mystifies science - the first moment - is precisely the moment that would presumably require a creator.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Obviously, I am referring to the facts that our current observations of the behaviour of the universe do not require a creator to explain the emergence of certain phenomena, or certain trends; they are within reason of what could be expected.

Planets form just fine on their own (Well okay galaxies are kind of a big deal right now), creatures don't need intelligent design to evolve, and so on.

Given our current understand of the universe, there is no need for an outside factor that somehow intervenes against entropy, if you would. There is at the moment no reason to assume that there is an invisible hand guiding evolution, for instance; natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, genetic drift et al account for that. I could make up a fifth fundamental force, and there could very well be one, but I don't have any reason to.

Of course you could argue for the deistic god (quite popular among the great minds, I believe) who set up the physical laws and such of the universe but has not intervened after the universe came into existence, and is impossible to observate or contact, but I don't think that is what the thread was about.

I'm fine with the existence of the deistic god, but since he doesn't care if I believe in him or not I'm rather apathic on the issue, and he doesn't really answer anything anyway.

 

[Relena]

for me believing in god is like believing that paradoxes have a logic solution beyond our language abilities, as it may be languages fault that questions are more than answers.

anyway, I don't think exploring the universe will provide any suggestion for the existence of god, if one found that the universe suits us too much, this would be a paradox between god's love and caring and evolutionary adaptation to what just exists.

if the prophets were real prophets not just liars, then it is god who knows that our brain systematic logic is not enough to find him, there must be a well defined way to follow other than science that is man-logic made.

perhaps if we do care about our destiny we should give all religions a good try, but who cares :D

 

[HeLiXe]

Make them crazy and ask them who created the creator.

OMG! I asked this when I was 3 and my family was telling me about God. They just answered no one and God always existed.

 

[HeLiXe]

The central false premise in the argument is the chance/design dichotomy. There are other viable options, such as a combination of natural regularity and chance. Biologists agree that intelligent, complex and integrated biological life cannot form by pure chance. No one is disputing this. No one ever claimed that it did. What biologists do think is that natural regularity in addition to chance can explain it. Do not let anyone tell you that mechanisms such as natural selection is "random". To accept that natural regularity together with chance generates biological complexity is not a faith-based claim, it is supported by empirical evidence.

A well-rounded overview of the scientific problems with intelligent design creationism is the book "Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism" edited by Matt Young and Taner Edis (Rutgers University Press, 2006). Pay special attention to the chapters 7 ("Self-organization and the origin of complexity", by Shanks and Karsai), 10 (Chance, Necessity - and Intelligent Design?, by Taner Edis) and finally chapter 12 ("Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Us?" by Victor Stenger). There are many other articles in this book worth reading as well.

The American particle physicist Victor Stenger is currently in the process of writing a book that is tentatively called "The Fallacy of Fine-tuning: How the Universe is Not Designed for Humanity". When it is published, it may be worth checking out, even though Stenger has discussed the notion of apparent fine-tuning in earlier publications.

Great post! Thank you for this!

 

[alt]

I would add that the very moment in time that mystifies science - the first moment - is precisely the moment that would presumably require a creator.

.. leading to the circular nature of the question.

If a creator is required, then the creator must have one too. Who created the creator ?

 

[LBloom]

I'm going to be honest and say I skimmed this entire thread beyond the first two posts.

There is NO way to proof G-d exists in such a forum. This thread is going to end up the same way these threads always do, with no resolution and just some parsing over definitions as many philosophical debates tend to do when argued by people who don't have a complete grasp of the philosophical subject (no offense to anyone here)

The problem is the concept of G-d (as it tends to be argued by philosophers) is too vague. It's almost impossible to disprove an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being who can do all and be all at will. There can be legitimate debates between religious practitioners about the nature of gd and whether or not he exists, but philosophers concept is too abstract and vague without any firm grounding. The G-d of the philosophers is different from the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (paraphrasing Blaise Pascal here)

And I don't see why the question of who created the creator should bother anyone. If scientists don't feel a need to have a creator for the Universe, why should religious people feel a need to have a creator for the creator?

 

[DaveC426913]

OMG! I asked this when I was 3 and my family was telling me about God. They just answered no one and God always existed.

[Devil's Advocate]
That is the answer; they weren't copping out. The fact that it's difficult to grasp does not invalidate it as an answer.
[/Devil's Advocate]

In other words, a complex system allowing for intelligent life is unlikely a mere coincidence.

Foregone conclusion.

Since the rest of the argument follows from this, the rest of the argument falls apart if this claim is not granted.

Which it isn't.

 

[stevenb]

From a scientific point of view, how do we know that there is no need for a creator? Given that we as yet are unable to provide a complete description of physics, how can the need for a creator be logically excluded?

This is my point of view as well.

Science has never demonstrated that it can explain itself, despite the fact that this is the goal of many theoretical physicists. Science still continues to describe nature in terms of simpler and simpler ideas, but it has never been able to explain it. Believing that this goal is achievable does require faith and there is no proof that it can be achieved.

There is another issue with atheism that seems to get swept under the rug. That is, it is even more illogical than religion. A religious person has faith, and can not rely on proof of his beliefs. However, he can logically believe that a creator gives the ability to know without proof. In other words, a religious person makes the logical statement that he can know that God exists because God gives this ability. An atheist also has faith that God does not exist, yet there is no outside power or force to give him this conviction. In my view this makes atheistic-faith and religious-faith non-symmetric, and reveals that the atheist is more illogical than the religious person.

In my view, a scientist that does not see a need to believe in a God, must adopt a more restrained view of agnosticism or some type of "tempered" atheism that does not make an absolute statement that God CAN NOT exist.

This is of course all my own personal opinion, so I mean no offense to anyone, whether religious or atheist.

 

[DaveC426913]

An atheist also has faith that God does not exist, yet there is no outside power or force to give him this conviction. In my view this makes atheistic-faith and religious-faith non-symmetric, and reveals that the atheist is more illogical than the religious person.

With that logic, how does one avoid the same pitfall about unicorns, ghosts and flying spaghetti monsters?

One observes and tries to explain what one sees. Evidence for the existence unicorns is just not convincing. I choose to bet money that they don't. That is not "illogical".

 

[stevenb]

With that logic, how does one avoid the same pitfall about unicorns, ghosts and flying spaghetti monsters?

I'm just stating opinion, as I said. I make no claims to be able to be totally logical on this topic, nor to be able to avoid pitfalls. It's a difficult question that has baffled me my whole life. I just don't know, and I know that I just don't know. I do know that I can't just believe in a God without proof and without an inwardly driven faith. I also can't make an absolute statement that God does not exist. So, that's my opinion - simple as that.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm just stating opinion, as I said. I make no claims to be able to be totally logical on this topic, nor to be able to avoid pitfalls. It's a difficult question that has baffled me my whole life. I just don't know, and I know that I just don't know. I do know that I can't just believe in a God without proof and without an inwardly driven faith. I also can't make an absolute statement that God does not exist. So, that's my opinion - simple as that.

Yes, I didn't mean to sound like I was demanding that you defend your belief.

 

[stevenb]

Yes, I didn't mean to sound like I was demanding that you defend your belief.

No problem, I didn't take it that way at all. It was a valid point you made.

One thing I always want to be careful about on this topic is to not have a confusion on definitions. What I define to be an "atheist" may not be what someone else defines to be an "atheist". I don't even like to call myself agnostic because although this comes closest to my own viewpoint, I still feel it does not capture my true feelings. There is a spiritual side of me that wants to believe in something beyond this existence, and I almost do believe in it. There is also a scientific side of me that wants us to discover a theory of everything that can explain our complete universe, consciousness and existence. I'm completely schizophrenic in this regard.

It's funny that as I'm writing this, my wife is sleeping after watching "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory". Now that the movie is over, the television has Pastor Joel Osteen assuring me that God loves me and will always be there for me. Man, I envy him his convictions. He must sleep much better than I.

 

[pallidin]

I think it's fairly obvious that this is a question that can not be currently answered.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

And I don't see why the question of who created the creator should bother anyone. If scientists don't feel a need to have a creator for the Universe, why should religious people feel a need to have a creator for the creator?

Well, I can answer this: It's because the concept of God is supposed to solve the question of creation, not move it a step back.I'm just generally apathethic on God. I'm almost entirely convinced that if a God exists, he's not JHVH, however, and I find it dubious that a God of that sense would answer to prayer or prefer humans over anyone else.

 

[rolls]

I find the notion that there is a supreme being capable of creating a universe and life on it more absurd that the idea that it came to be by chance.

The answer seems like a total cop out as it just introduces even more complexity to the universe. Not only do we have to understand how some creator managed to create the universe, we have to understand how the hell they came to be?

The other notion is that the creator having always existed and was always around is easier to believe than the universe was always around and has always existed makes no sense to me either.

I mean surely believing that the universe goes through an infinite serious of expansions and contractions (repeating big bang over and over) requires no more of a stretch of the imagination than that a creator has always existed?

If you can believe that a creator has always existed, or that having a creator so complex they can create a universe from nothing, surely you can believe that random chance allowed life to come to be on one planet out of an astronomically large number of planets?

I personally see the idea that a creator exists as even more complicated and harder to comprehend than the idea that the universe just came to be. It doesn't add simplicity to the problem or question, it just makes it even more complicated and answers nothing.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I personally see the idea that a creator exists as even more complicated and harder to comprehend than the idea that the universe just came to be. It doesn't add simplicity to the problem or question, it just makes it even more complicated and answers nothing.

Yeah, that sums up my opinion on it pretty well.

 

[rolls]

Yeah, that sums up my opinion on it pretty well.

it was actually me that said it lol

 

[HeLiXe]

[Devil's Advocate]
That is the answer; they weren't copping out. The fact that it's difficult to grasp does not invalidate it as an answer.
[/Devil's Advocate]

Shouldn't that be [God's Advocate][/God's Advocate]

For some reason though, this aspect is not hard for me to grasp currently. I can imagine if our universe is finite, complex possibilities may exist beyond and time may be a physical component of our universe and not beyond. God itself is hard for me to grasp, that is what I don't understand...the why of it baffles me more than anything. In all of my reasoning it is something I really totally cannot comprehend. Not to mention the more I learn about things, the more difficult it is for me to understand. I don't consider myself atheist or agnostic because my mind is blank when it comes to God. As the OP posted, some people say it takes faith to be an atheist and faith to believe in God, but I think it comes down to believing in what is rational and logical, I don't think that applies to God. If God exists, I think it is beyond human capacity to understand it. And if it "created" us with this reasoning, then maybe it does not want us to understand it, which is even less understandable @_@ And then we're supposed to love it? Or serve it or something? I don't get it!

I think I just need to go to bed and end this rambling. Well at least my post illustrates my "cluelessness" clearly

 

[HeLiXe]

I personally see the idea that a creator exists as even more complicated and harder to comprehend than the idea that the universe just came to be. It doesn't add simplicity to the problem or question, it just makes it even more complicated and answers nothing.

You said it better than me! LOL

 

[TubbaBlubba]

it was actually me that said it lol

Yes, I know. And it sums up my opinion on it pretty well.

 

[rolls]

Yes, I know. And it sums up my opinion on it pretty well.

lol I just meant that your quote tag got the name messed up.

 

[Relena]

.. leading to the circular nature of the question.

If a creator is required, then the creator must have one too. Who created the creator ?

I think they say that the universe requires a creator, a creator is not required independently of the case, the main difference between God and universe that the universe follows certain rules, if god created those rules it is not necessary to obey them.
in order to create doesn't mean you have to be created, being created is not one of God's properties, you can't ask about the taste of vacuum because taste is not a property of vacuum, and you can't imagine how it feels to be dead because death ceases perception, no one can create God because he is the creator of everything.

 

[rolls]

I think they say that the universe requires a creator, a creator is not required independently of the case, the main difference between God and universe that the universe follows certain rules, if god created those rules it is not necessary to obey them.
in order to create doesn't mean you have to be created, being created is not one of God's properties, you can't ask about the taste of vacuum because taste is not a property of vacuum, and you can't imagine how it feels to be dead because death ceases perception, no one can create God because he is the creator of everything.

That is a ridiculous answer. Once again it introduces exceptional complexity to the question just to allow for a god to exist, haven't you ever heard of occams razor?

 

[Relena]

That is a ridiculous answer. Once again it introduces exceptional complexity to the question just to allow for a god to exist, haven't you ever heard of occams razor?

I don't see that my answer increase the complexity, on the contrary, before you ask a question you have to check the basis of the question first.
can I ask you: what's the name of the little cute tooth fairy that took your tooth when you was eight ?
if we assumed that god exist for a moment, we can't make any questions we want about it, you have to answer first if god is created or not before asking who created him.
this doesn't proof the existence of God, but it shows that the question who created god is total absurdness.

 

[rolls]

That doesn't make any sense to me at all, why can't we ask any questions we want about it just because we assume they exist?

Even if this is so what does it have to do with what we are discussing?

 

[Relena]

I mean, speaking of God's being, we can assume, by language, properties that don't belong to God, now that's multiplying entities unnecessarily, asking about the God's creator just doesn't provide any evidence that the universe is created or not.

I still insist that God's existence can't be proved by logic abstractly without religion.

 

[DaveC426913]

I find the notion that there is a supreme being capable of creating a universe and life on it more absurd that the idea that it came to be by chance.

The answer seems like a total cop out as it just introduces even more complexity to the universe. Not only do we have to understand how some creator managed to create the universe, we have to understand how the hell they came to be?

[Devil'sAdvocate]
On the contrary, it is not more complex; it is simpler. It coalesces all the mysteries of our universe into a single, neat, discreet mystery.
[/Devil'sAdvocate]

 

[rolls]

[Devil'sAdvocate]
On the contrary, it is not more complex; it is simpler. It coalesces all the mysteries of our universe into a single, neat, discreet mystery.
[/Devil'sAdvocate]

That is like saying we have 1000 individual problems, we are going to make them simpler by compiling a book with all 1000 problems in it and call it a single problem that needs to be solved.

I know you were taking the piss but I couldn't help myself lol.

 

[Evo]

[Devil'sAdvocate]
On the contrary, it is not more complex; it is simpler. It coalesces all the mysteries of our universe into a single, neat, discreet mystery.
[/Devil'sAdvocate]

It's a cop out. It boils down to "I don't know the answer so I'll make something up". And if anyone asks why there is no evidence of this thing, "oh it's because it's supernatural and humans can't comprehend it". Etc.., etc... Like when they used to believe that demons and evil spirits caused illness.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's a cop out. It boils down to "I don't know the answer so I'll make something up". And if anyone asks why there is no evidence of this thing, "oh it's because it's supernatural and humans can't comprehend it". Etc.., etc... Like when they used to believe that demons and evil spirits caused illness.

Yes.


I was simply making the point that "God just makes things more complicated" is a weak refutation of God. There are stronger ones.

My common philosophy - especially in things related to religion - is to ensure that the strongest argument against it be nurtured, groomed and disseminated. To that end, I seek to discourage weak arguments that can be more easily attacked by opponents of atheism.

...which is the definition of Devil's Advocate - to take an opposing position in order to test the quality of the argument on the table.

 

[rolls]

It wasn't a refutation of god, it was just a question of whether or not it is less of a leap of faith to believe in a creature capable of creating a universe and life from nothing, or to believe that given x trillion trillion planets that it is likely life will evolve on one of them.

If it is less of a leap of faith, why do people insist on using the argument, "well it is the simplest explanation, I can't explain how it happened, so someone else must have created it all".

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I think they say that the universe requires a creator, a creator is not required independently of the case, the main difference between God and universe that the universe follows certain rules, if god created those rules it is not necessary to obey them.
in order to create doesn't mean you have to be created, being created is not one of God's properties, you can't ask about the taste of vacuum because taste is not a property of vacuum, and you can't imagine how it feels to be dead because death ceases perception, no one can create God because he is the creator of everything.

The problem is that;
1. You assume that the universe requires a creator.
2. You assume that a creator does not require a creator.

Both of this without any premises as far as I can see.

 

[DaveC426913]

The problem is that;
1. You assume that the universe requires a creator.
2. You assume that a creator does not require a creator.

Both of this without any premises as far as I can see.

Is he assuming, or is he postulating?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Isn't a postulate supposed to be self-evident?

 

[Evo]

How about "in the beginning, there was a supreme being, but he exploded with a *big bang*".

What about all of the thousands of creation myths with fish, reptiles, and amphibians? What about all of the other thousands of gods? Why is it that people forget how many gods are worshipped on this planet?

 

[Relena]

The problem is that;
1. You assume that the universe requires a creator.
2. You assume that a creator does not require a creator.

Both of this without any premises as far as I can see.

I didn't assume any thing solely, I say if it is assumed that the universe requires creation this doesn't mean that the creator of the universe is created, because the creator properties are different from creature properties. the creator won't be made of something like atoms or energy he is just indescribable except by what he describes himself.

As I said it twice before, God's existence is beyond our bottom-up logic, and the need for God is not the need for knowledge, we may be able to reduce everything we see into laws, however we won't know why such rules exist, one would say that such a question is a fault of language and there is nothing like "why is this like that", this is an opinion but not a profound fact, besides it's out of science's hand.

Most of people on Earth don't need to know anything about the universe, they just want to know their own destiny, too many of them are just half believers because they don't want to take the risk that 0.00001% God exists, and thus the whole life would be like a test, and who knows what destiny is waiting for them beyond death, other people just make jokes of that because they find it a pride not to fear the so called God even if existed, and they feel proud not to be fooled by the liars called prophets and the hocuspocus holy books. The same scenario have been happening from centuries, no matter how developed the basis of refutation became, it is still based on human pride not understanding.

That's why I find the idea of philosophical/ non religious God absurd and goalless, and that's why I can clearly see that this discussion will never end, unless closed of course.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

How about "in the beginning, there was a supreme being, but he exploded with a *big bang*".

What about all of the thousands of creation myths with fish, reptiles, and amphibians? What about all of the other thousands of gods? Why is it that people forget how many gods are worshipped on this planet?

As Richard Dawkins put it, paraphrased; "A Christian is atheistic towards 9,999 gods. I'm atheistic towards 10,000."

 

[DaveC426913]

As I said it twice before, God's existence is beyond our bottom-up logic, and the need for God is not the need for knowledge, we may be able to reduce everything we see into laws, however we won't know why such rules exist,

Note though, that the same trouble applies to an explanation that doesn't include God as well as one that does.

Whether the ultimate answer is a self-referencing Grand Unified Equation that explains First Cause, or whether it is a conscious entity that explains First Cause makes no difference in the solution to the conundrum of how all existence pulled itself up by its own bootstraps.

There is nothing that the "God" solution addresses that the "GUE" solution doesn't also address, and there is nothing that the "God" solution leaves open that the GUE solution does not also leave open.

So, what we are left with is that God is still redundant. It solves nothing.

 

[DaveC426913]

That's why I find the idea of philosophical/ non religious God absurd and goalless...

But wanting existence to not be "absurd and goalless" does not make it so.

Wanting there to be an objective meaning to life does not mean there is any.

Which is why so many see Believers as wishful thinkers.

 

[pftest]

I saw on the first page statements like "a creator isn't needed in nature" and "nothing suggests a conscious influence in the creation of the universe". I understand this is being said in the context of a "god-creator" during the big bang, but even so those statements are false for the reason that conscious humans exist and influence the universe. So this establishes in principle that conscious creative forces are natural. Looking at humans we can also see that a creator can in principle create/consciously influence himself, make himself more or less complex, etc. Many of the things that are said to be impossible, irrational or inplausible in the context of a god-creator, are known to happen with human-creators.