If there is a creator, so what?

[The Reality Salesman01]

---

My stance has always been that it may be possible that some sort of intelligence created our universe/reality. Currently I see no reason to conclude that there is.

But if there is one:

1) We don't know if it still exists
2) We have found no evidence of it within our universe/reality
3) We have no current means to learn anything about things outside our universe/reality, if such a thing is even coherent

My conclusion is that it is entirely irrelevant, unless new evidence emerges. In other words, it makes no practical difference to me if there is a creator.

There's all these arguments trying to establish a generic creator, such as Kalam or intelligent design. Call the creator God if you want, we haven't learnt anything about it just by giving it a title...

---

[robvalue]

Thanks a lot, much appreciated

[Norman Humann]

I just don't get what it is about the idea of a creator that feels probable. It creates the parallel problem of who or what created the creator. If you have no problem assuming the creator always existed, why do you have a problem with the universe always existing without the creator?

And why is saying "I don't know" so difficult for some people?

[Minimalist]

The whole point of trying to convince you "something is up there" is so they can try to weasel in their particular god afterwards.

The whole point is so they can weasel their way into your wallet, afterwards.

All religions begin with this premise.

One guy says to another:

"Psst, Buddy. God told me to tell you that he wants you to do what I say. Oh, he also said he wants you to give me some money so I can tell more people."

And here we sit....with the pope on his golden fucking throne.

[watchamadoodle]

On the other hand:
- Some things aren't important until we learn about them,
- Some things are important without us knowing about them
- Some things are important to some people and not to others
- ...

(I'm practicing to be a Luciferian, by playing the devil's advocate )

[Lek]

I just don't get what it is about the idea of a creator that feels probable. It creates the parallel problem of who or what created the creator. If you have no problem assuming the creator always existed, why do you have a problem with the universe always existing without the creator?

And why is saying "I don't know" so difficult for some people?

What makes a creator seem probable is the fact that we can't explain a cosmos that always existed. Natural science has no means to deal with it. We tend to assume that something that has always existed would possess qualities that are beyond the natural. If there was simply nothing and all of a sudden there was something, then that is also something that natural science can't explain. Either we assume that there is a natural explanation and have to live without knowing, or we open up to the possibility that there may exist something that is not part of our natural world. Using science to prove the existence of the supernatural is like using mathematics to prove evolution. Math doesn't have the capabilities to do that.

Some people will keep looking for a way that materials came together and began to live, even though we don't know, and say this is reasonable. At the same time, they will refuse to acknowledge the possibility that something outside of nature caused that life to enter into those materials. To me, a creator is no more unbelievable than energy or matter that has always existed and never was created. Which is more believable than the other?

[watchamadoodle]

What makes a creator seem probable is the fact that we can't explain a cosmos that always existed. Natural science has no means to deal with it. We tend to assume that something that has always existed would possess qualities that are beyond the natural. If there was simply nothing and all of a sudden there was something, then that is also something that natural science can't explain. Either we assume that there is a natural explanation and have to live without knowing, or we open up to the possibility that there may exist something that is not part of our natural world. Using science to prove the existence of the supernatural is like using mathematics to prove evolution. Math doesn't have the capabilities to do that.

Maybe the concepts of existence/non-existence, something/nothing, etc. are wrong?

The "paradox" is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality "ought" to be.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
The concepts we naturally use are not necessarily the only abstractions. They work for many things, but they might not work for all things.

[robvalue]

So, an argument from ignorance Lek? We have no answer yet so we make one up and stick to it? How does that help?

I don't discount any possibility, that's what being an agnostic atheist is. But it doesn't mean I accept suggestions backed by nothing but assertion.

We have no way to evaluate how likely a "creator" is, having no experience of one, and not even knowing if such a thing is possible.

And if there is a creator, why should I care?

[RobertE]

So, an argument from ignorance Lek? We have no answer yet so we make one up and stick to it? How does that help?

I don't discount any possibility, that's what being an agnostic atheist is. But it doesn't mean I accept suggestions backed by nothing but assertion.

We have no way to evaluate how likely a "creator" is, having no experience of one, and not even knowing if such a thing is possible.

And if there is a creator, why should I care?

We have to go back to basics to actually understand how the universe came about, how human beings and other organisms came about and how we share certain features. This is only hypothetical of course, but if God created man in his own image and he created the animals, how could he have got it so wrong? It is said that he created animals such as snakes, whales, hippos, lions, tigers, bears, sharks etc etc ad nauseum. However, how can someone so give what could be described as legs to an animal that slithers along the ground? What is the point of whales still having vestigial organs i.e. legs again when they live in water and have done for some time. Are we really to believe that God created perfect beings in the hope that they might change their habitats over a certain period of time?

Another difference is the way of thinking between creationists and those who believe in natural selection. Religious people i.e. Catholics, Muslims are very closed-minded people. On the otherhand, the way Dawkins and Krauss dealt with one person by clearly stating that they are welcome to be challenged by any of their students and given a better solution. If it is a better solution, then scientists will test it and see if it rings true, what you might call the next step in the learning process of how earth came about. It is only a matter of time before Scientists will get the break they need and religion will die off.

[robvalue]

That's right, the biblical god is ludicrous. He's a bumbling moron, I wouldn't trust him to open a can of beans that was already open.

To me, the only kind of god that in any way gels with reality is the deistic god, it fired everything up and stood back and watched. Or got bored and left. Or died, whatever. But still, it's just a placeholder. Instead of saying "I don't know" you say "This thing did it". It offers no explanatory power, we understand things no better. It's a fairly harmless belief, though.