8 ms·

What I can't fathom or understand is how someone can look at the universe and say that there was no Creator or Architect of some kind? If I showed you an incre

What I can't fathom or understand is how someone can look at the universe and say that there was no Creator or Architect of some kind? If I showed you an incredibly complex software program and told you there was no developer or designer behind it, and that it came into existence randomly and for no reason, you would look at me like I'm crazy. Or for the artistically inclined, if I showed you the Sistine Chapel and told you there was no artist or creator behind it, you would say I'm insane. But for some reason people can look at something as remarkable as the universe and say there's no creator.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. But software and Sistine chapel having creators doesn’t provide any proof regarding origins of anything else. Some people choose to assume things that make themselves feel better, such as after lives and gods. Some people assume the opposite. Some people don’t assume anything at all. Either way, it’s nobody else’s business. Belief = assumption + ego, so I find assumption to be a better word to use when speaking about a political topic.
- loopycode 8y ago
  The proof is in the pudding. The creation is the proof. Even Moon does not have life... Even though it has the right distance from the sun and what not...
  - renholder 8y ago
    >Even Moon does not have life... *That we know of.
  - skj 8y ago
    Not clear to me what you're trying to show by indicating the moon has no life.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    There's no single "right distance from the sun" - areas of Mars have temperature ranges acceptable for some Earth bacteria, Europa likely has liquid seas, etc., and Earth-style life isn't the only option - and the Moon is inhospitable in a variety of other ways. We also can't completely discount life on the Moon having briefly explored a couple acres of it, largely on foot.
- linsistine 8y ago
  How is it not proof? It's using the most fundamental of logic. We're talking elementary logic here. I see a thing, this thing must of came from something. Things just don't appear for no reason and with no creator. A pen, a banana, a baby, a piece of code, all of these things came from something. And all of these things compared to the universe are incredibly simple. But how come you believe the universe came into existence from nothing and without design?
  - tw04 8y ago
    >A pen, a banana, a baby, a piece of code, all of these things came from something. And all of these things compared to the universe are incredibly simple. But how come you believe the universe came into existence from nothing and without design? The modern banana, a pen, a baby, a piece of code - these all were invented by us, and made out of something that already existed. Just because so many things that WE observe have a beginning and end, doesn't mean EVERYTHING has a beginning and end. Our entire world/universal view is skewed by the fact we are mortal. Even if we go by the logic of someone had to make this, it couldn't have come from nowhere - then who made the inventor? Where did that come from? At some point your logic will REQUIRE you to believe that "things appear for no reason and with no creator".
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    > Things just don't appear for no reason and with no creator. This logic must logically apply to said creator.
    - linsistine 8y ago
      As I've replied to your other comment, name me one thing which has no beginning. So the timeline of the universe has no beginning? It just "is" and "was" for no reason, no design, no creator, for an infinite period of time?
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        The answer is "we're not sure, but we'd love to find out". Giving up and replacing "we'd love to find out" with "well, it's just unexplainable magic!" is not a satisfying option to me.
- linsistine 8y ago
  I'm not even bringing feelings or faith into this discussion though. This is pure logic my friend. It is not rational to "believe" that an object, a thing, a complex structure, can come into existence without being intelligently designed in some manner. That something as intricate and complex as the universe just came to be randomly, for no reason, and with no architect of some sort.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    Where this line of thinking falls apart is realizing you must, due to the same logic, explain the architect's coming into existence.
    - linsistine 8y ago
      All creation has an ultimate source though, does it not? A point of singularity. This source, or point of singularity, is what religious people refer to as 'God'.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        > All creation has an ultimate source though, does it not? A point of singularity. This is an unsupported assertion. The current answer to "what came before the Big Bang" is "we're not sure, and we're not sure that's even the right terminology". If everything needs a creator, that "singularity" has to have one, and its creator, and its creator, and so on and so forth for infinity.
        linsistine 8y ago
        Name me one thing which has no beginning.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        We see all sorts of weirdness with time, like delayed choice experiments: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-eraser-delayed-choice-experiments/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-eraser-de... The entire concept of time starts to break down in spots, like within a black hole: https://phys.org/news/2015-09-law-implies-thermodynamic-black-holes.html https://phys.org/news/2015-09-law-implies-thermodynamic-blac... It also breaks down when you start talking about pre-Big Bang cosmology. It's not clear there is such a thing as a "beginning" outside of the universe.
Pengy7 8y ago
Hume has interesting comments on this idea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
renholder 8y ago
I always defer to Stephen Fry's answer[0], when approached on the aspect of the existence of a god. [0] - https://youtu.be/I_ciu7_cOhg https://youtu.be/I_ciu7_cOhg
- linsistine 8y ago
  Would you be able to summarize what he says? At work and I can't watch any videos lol
  - Starwatcher2001 8y ago
    You can find a transcript here: https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotations/quotes/stephen_fry_irish_tv_interview.htm https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotations/quotes/stephen_fr...
- benjohnson 8y ago
  If you're curious - in the theology world, Stephen's answer is a reiteration (and a good one) of the Problem of Evil: If Good is good and all powerful, then why is there evil in the world? The standard answer is that God may have other values than what we think of as Good. For example everything was 'good' then perhaps there wouldn't be a need for forgiveness, generosity or free will More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds
AndrewDucker 8y ago
Two approaches here: 1) If I could show you a simple process by which we could take a random mess, and the Sistine Chapel would then form all by itself, without any need for a creator, would you then believe that it could exist without a creator? If not, why not? 2) If all complex things require a creator, and the creator is presumably complex, why does the creator not also require something to have created them?
david-gpu 8y ago
First, if a complex system like a bee implied the existence of a creator, that begs the question of what created that creator, since it must also be a complex system. It's all turtles down there. Second, we know that complex systems like bees can and do arise without a creator by means of evolution through natural selection. Third, even if you somehow still want to believe in a creator, what can we infer about it? There is beauty in this world, but also suffering and misery, and that is not limited to humans -- far from it. Just as you would expect from a system that arise through natural selection alone.
- linsistine 8y ago
  It turtles down until there is a beginning, a source. That source, or beginning, is what religions people refer to as God.
  - notus 8y ago
    but they can't be the source because their design implies a designer
    - linsistine 8y ago
      So you've accepted the logic that all designs have a designer. But now you attempt to debunk the logic by saying, "Surely the Creator has a creator too, right?". But we've already established that the idea that all designs have a designer, all creations have a creator, is more logical than for something to come into existence, from nothing, with no creator, for no reason, and out of randomness.
      - notus 8y ago
        I'm only accepting the logic for the sake of the argument, I don't actually accept it. I'm just pointing out that accepting the logic is dissonant because at some point you have to deny the logic.
        8y ago
ljm 8y ago
There's an interesting metaphysical discussion here, but in the context of the wider conversation the focus really has to be on spirituality (as opposed to religiousness). When you're on that level you're no longer restricted to the idea of a creator and their creation. Tantra, for example, says that god is within us, we are the divine. At deeper levels it goes on to say we are all composed of the same matter that exists in all the universe, so surely we are made of the universe. So, divinity. We are also the creators of our own destiny to some extent, through our beliefs and our actions and our mindset. Does that mean there's a relationship between creator and created, or might we also be a consequence of an unexpected and serendipitous emergent process, like evolution? This doesn't answer the question of how or why all of this exists, but once you take religion out of the picture you can start to look at the underlying theories and all of the various concepts we've developed over the millennia.
Starwatcher2001 8y ago
If the universe was created, it wasn't created to be friendly to life. I'd guess that more than 99.99999 % of it is hostile to human existence. On the subject of over reporting of church attendence, the discrimination against atheists in the USA may have a good part to play: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheist...
daveFNbuck 8y ago
By this logic, the creator requires a creator, and that creator requires a creator and so on. Unless you believe in this infinite chain of creators, you already understand how someone can believe in a complex thing coming into existence without a creator.
- linsistine 8y ago
  Until the creator reaches to a point of singularity, an ultimate source, which religious people refer to as God. Isn't there a beginning to EVERYTHING?
  - daveFNbuck 8y ago
    It sounds like you're describing big bang cosmology rather than a personal god.
lucozade 8y ago
It's perfectly reasonable to look at the universe and believe that it came from something. Where there's little to no evidence is that it was designed. What for, us? Hardly, if so that's some record for redundant packaging. Some mysterious purpose that we can't fathom? Yeah, I've worked on software like that too. Colour me unimpressed. But it's beautiful? Well some of it maybe. A fairly large part of it is literally as dull as physically possible. And there's myriad examples of things that are beautiful to us that weren't designed to be. They need to have been created, sure, but not designed. So yeah, the universe was created. But there's no basis for believing that it was created by anything intelligent, nor that it was designed. And there's plenty of evidence that, once created, it just shuffled along on its own. No need for a cosmic repairman to still be around. Oh, and thank you for not using the eyeball as an example of divine perfection. That one used to wind my (blind in one eye, short sighted in the other) grandfather up no end. Unlike some here, I have no issue if you want to believe something different from me. But this is HN and that's not a strong argument.
- linsistine 8y ago
  Purpose is subjective. What I'm saying is, all of "this" must of came from something. And that "something" is what people refer to as God, the Higher Power, the "Ultimate".
  - lucozade 8y ago
    > What I'm saying is, all of "this" must have come from something Fair enough > And that "something" is what people refer to as God Expects it's not, is it? If people stopped at "the thing that kicked off the universe", we'd be laughing. But they don't. You wouldn't need prayer, or moral guidance, or Pope's or whatever. Utterly pointless, the launch was eons ago. You cannot reasonably get from "the universe was created" to anything close to most monotheistic deities. There have been dualist religions that had a stab but they were generally slaughtered if they got too popular.
  - dual_basis 8y ago
    If you are just giving a name to whatever currently exists beyond scientific understanding then what use is that? If you are implying that there was an entity with some form of conscious thought which designed the universe we currently experience then no, I don't believe that. There are plenty of examples of amazingly complex systems which were built from independent actions not requiring a creator to design them.
soylentcola 8y ago
I guess in my mind these are two separate things. I accept and acknowledge my ignorance of (and, likely, incapacity to understand) the deepest workings of the universe. At the same time, I have not seen any reason to believe that the ultimate nature of the universe is the creation of a conscious architect/designer. As the traditional line of thought goes: who created or designed the creator? If the universe is so complex that it required a conscious being to kick everything off, then wouldn't that being be of sufficient complexity to also require a designer? I don't mean to say that I can even comprehend the concept of how this universe could have come into existence. Sure, I can grasp on some vague level the processes we've observed or inferred, but I doubt that anything resembling modern humanity can possibly wrap their heads around the ultimate origins. So to me, it seems a bit of a cop out (or maybe just anthropomorphism) when we think "well, it must be like another guy doing it....just a bigger/better/smarter/older/whatever guy". It's like the old joke of "turtles all the way down". We think in terms of hierarchy and design so we imagine some point at the very top of the hierarchy, there's a tippy-top dog who must have been responsible for designing things. But the idea that there's a creator who is basically a super-whatever and he is aware of us and cares about what we do seems as unlikely to me as turtles all the way down. Sure it could be the case as easily as anything else since I can't fathom what could have provided the ultimate start of everything. But I've yet to see any evidence or logic that suggests this is the case. If anything it would seem the opposite. Frankly I would love reason to believe I had a clue about this because when I mull over the concept of "everything" it's a bit terrifying.

lotsofpulp 8y ago

Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. But software and Sistine chapel having creators doesn’t provide any proof regarding origins of anything else. Some people choose to assume things that make themselves feel better, such as after lives and gods. Some people assume the opposite. Some people don’t assume anything at all. Either way, it’s nobody else’s business. Belief = assumption + ego, so I find assumption to be a better word to use when speaking about a political topic.

loopycode 8y ago
The proof is in the pudding. The creation is the proof. Even Moon does not have life... Even though it has the right distance from the sun and what not...
- renholder 8y ago
  >Even Moon does not have life... *That we know of.
- skj 8y ago
  Not clear to me what you're trying to show by indicating the moon has no life.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  There's no single "right distance from the sun" - areas of Mars have temperature ranges acceptable for some Earth bacteria, Europa likely has liquid seas, etc., and Earth-style life isn't the only option - and the Moon is inhospitable in a variety of other ways. We also can't completely discount life on the Moon having briefly explored a couple acres of it, largely on foot.
linsistine 8y ago
How is it not proof? It's using the most fundamental of logic. We're talking elementary logic here. I see a thing, this thing must of came from something. Things just don't appear for no reason and with no creator. A pen, a banana, a baby, a piece of code, all of these things came from something. And all of these things compared to the universe are incredibly simple. But how come you believe the universe came into existence from nothing and without design?
- tw04 8y ago
  >A pen, a banana, a baby, a piece of code, all of these things came from something. And all of these things compared to the universe are incredibly simple. But how come you believe the universe came into existence from nothing and without design? The modern banana, a pen, a baby, a piece of code - these all were invented by us, and made out of something that already existed. Just because so many things that WE observe have a beginning and end, doesn't mean EVERYTHING has a beginning and end. Our entire world/universal view is skewed by the fact we are mortal. Even if we go by the logic of someone had to make this, it couldn't have come from nowhere - then who made the inventor? Where did that come from? At some point your logic will REQUIRE you to believe that "things appear for no reason and with no creator".
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  > Things just don't appear for no reason and with no creator. This logic must logically apply to said creator.
  - linsistine 8y ago
    As I've replied to your other comment, name me one thing which has no beginning. So the timeline of the universe has no beginning? It just "is" and "was" for no reason, no design, no creator, for an infinite period of time?
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      The answer is "we're not sure, but we'd love to find out". Giving up and replacing "we'd love to find out" with "well, it's just unexplainable magic!" is not a satisfying option to me.
linsistine 8y ago
I'm not even bringing feelings or faith into this discussion though. This is pure logic my friend. It is not rational to "believe" that an object, a thing, a complex structure, can come into existence without being intelligently designed in some manner. That something as intricate and complex as the universe just came to be randomly, for no reason, and with no architect of some sort.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Where this line of thinking falls apart is realizing you must, due to the same logic, explain the architect's coming into existence.
  - linsistine 8y ago
    All creation has an ultimate source though, does it not? A point of singularity. This source, or point of singularity, is what religious people refer to as 'God'.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      > All creation has an ultimate source though, does it not? A point of singularity. This is an unsupported assertion. The current answer to "what came before the Big Bang" is "we're not sure, and we're not sure that's even the right terminology". If everything needs a creator, that "singularity" has to have one, and its creator, and its creator, and so on and so forth for infinity.
      - linsistine 8y ago
        Name me one thing which has no beginning.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        We see all sorts of weirdness with time, like delayed choice experiments: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-eraser-delayed-choice-experiments/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-eraser-de... The entire concept of time starts to break down in spots, like within a black hole: https://phys.org/news/2015-09-law-implies-thermodynamic-black-holes.html https://phys.org/news/2015-09-law-implies-thermodynamic-blac... It also breaks down when you start talking about pre-Big Bang cosmology. It's not clear there is such a thing as a "beginning" outside of the universe.

Pengy7 8y ago

Hume has interesting comments on this idea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

renholder 8y ago

I always defer to Stephen Fry's answer[0], when approached on the aspect of the existence of a god. [0] - https://youtu.be/I_ciu7_cOhg https://youtu.be/I_ciu7_cOhg

linsistine 8y ago
Would you be able to summarize what he says? At work and I can't watch any videos lol
- Starwatcher2001 8y ago
  You can find a transcript here: https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotations/quotes/stephen_fry_irish_tv_interview.htm https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotations/quotes/stephen_fr...
benjohnson 8y ago
If you're curious - in the theology world, Stephen's answer is a reiteration (and a good one) of the Problem of Evil: If Good is good and all powerful, then why is there evil in the world? The standard answer is that God may have other values than what we think of as Good. For example everything was 'good' then perhaps there wouldn't be a need for forgiveness, generosity or free will More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds

AndrewDucker 8y ago

Two approaches here: 1) If I could show you a simple process by which we could take a random mess, and the Sistine Chapel would then form all by itself, without any need for a creator, would you then believe that it could exist without a creator? If not, why not? 2) If all complex things require a creator, and the creator is presumably complex, why does the creator not also require something to have created them?

david-gpu 8y ago

First, if a complex system like a bee implied the existence of a creator, that begs the question of what created that creator, since it must also be a complex system. It's all turtles down there. Second, we know that complex systems like bees can and do arise without a creator by means of evolution through natural selection. Third, even if you somehow still want to believe in a creator, what can we infer about it? There is beauty in this world, but also suffering and misery, and that is not limited to humans -- far from it. Just as you would expect from a system that arise through natural selection alone.

linsistine 8y ago
It turtles down until there is a beginning, a source. That source, or beginning, is what religions people refer to as God.
- notus 8y ago
  but they can't be the source because their design implies a designer
  - linsistine 8y ago
    So you've accepted the logic that all designs have a designer. But now you attempt to debunk the logic by saying, "Surely the Creator has a creator too, right?". But we've already established that the idea that all designs have a designer, all creations have a creator, is more logical than for something to come into existence, from nothing, with no creator, for no reason, and out of randomness.
    - notus 8y ago
      I'm only accepting the logic for the sake of the argument, I don't actually accept it. I'm just pointing out that accepting the logic is dissonant because at some point you have to deny the logic.
      - 8y ago

ljm 8y ago

There's an interesting metaphysical discussion here, but in the context of the wider conversation the focus really has to be on spirituality (as opposed to religiousness). When you're on that level you're no longer restricted to the idea of a creator and their creation. Tantra, for example, says that god is within us, we are the divine. At deeper levels it goes on to say we are all composed of the same matter that exists in all the universe, so surely we are made of the universe. So, divinity. We are also the creators of our own destiny to some extent, through our beliefs and our actions and our mindset. Does that mean there's a relationship between creator and created, or might we also be a consequence of an unexpected and serendipitous emergent process, like evolution? This doesn't answer the question of how or why all of this exists, but once you take religion out of the picture you can start to look at the underlying theories and all of the various concepts we've developed over the millennia.

Starwatcher2001 8y ago

If the universe was created, it wasn't created to be friendly to life. I'd guess that more than 99.99999 % of it is hostile to human existence. On the subject of over reporting of church attendence, the discrimination against atheists in the USA may have a good part to play: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheist...

daveFNbuck 8y ago

By this logic, the creator requires a creator, and that creator requires a creator and so on. Unless you believe in this infinite chain of creators, you already understand how someone can believe in a complex thing coming into existence without a creator.

linsistine 8y ago
Until the creator reaches to a point of singularity, an ultimate source, which religious people refer to as God. Isn't there a beginning to EVERYTHING?
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  It sounds like you're describing big bang cosmology rather than a personal god.

lucozade 8y ago

It's perfectly reasonable to look at the universe and believe that it came from something. Where there's little to no evidence is that it was designed. What for, us? Hardly, if so that's some record for redundant packaging. Some mysterious purpose that we can't fathom? Yeah, I've worked on software like that too. Colour me unimpressed. But it's beautiful? Well some of it maybe. A fairly large part of it is literally as dull as physically possible. And there's myriad examples of things that are beautiful to us that weren't designed to be. They need to have been created, sure, but not designed. So yeah, the universe was created. But there's no basis for believing that it was created by anything intelligent, nor that it was designed. And there's plenty of evidence that, once created, it just shuffled along on its own. No need for a cosmic repairman to still be around. Oh, and thank you for not using the eyeball as an example of divine perfection. That one used to wind my (blind in one eye, short sighted in the other) grandfather up no end. Unlike some here, I have no issue if you want to believe something different from me. But this is HN and that's not a strong argument.

linsistine 8y ago
Purpose is subjective. What I'm saying is, all of "this" must of came from something. And that "something" is what people refer to as God, the Higher Power, the "Ultimate".
- lucozade 8y ago
  > What I'm saying is, all of "this" must have come from something Fair enough > And that "something" is what people refer to as God Expects it's not, is it? If people stopped at "the thing that kicked off the universe", we'd be laughing. But they don't. You wouldn't need prayer, or moral guidance, or Pope's or whatever. Utterly pointless, the launch was eons ago. You cannot reasonably get from "the universe was created" to anything close to most monotheistic deities. There have been dualist religions that had a stab but they were generally slaughtered if they got too popular.
- dual_basis 8y ago
  If you are just giving a name to whatever currently exists beyond scientific understanding then what use is that? If you are implying that there was an entity with some form of conscious thought which designed the universe we currently experience then no, I don't believe that. There are plenty of examples of amazingly complex systems which were built from independent actions not requiring a creator to design them.

soylentcola 8y ago

I guess in my mind these are two separate things. I accept and acknowledge my ignorance of (and, likely, incapacity to understand) the deepest workings of the universe. At the same time, I have not seen any reason to believe that the ultimate nature of the universe is the creation of a conscious architect/designer. As the traditional line of thought goes: who created or designed the creator? If the universe is so complex that it required a conscious being to kick everything off, then wouldn't that being be of sufficient complexity to also require a designer? I don't mean to say that I can even comprehend the concept of how this universe could have come into existence. Sure, I can grasp on some vague level the processes we've observed or inferred, but I doubt that anything resembling modern humanity can possibly wrap their heads around the ultimate origins. So to me, it seems a bit of a cop out (or maybe just anthropomorphism) when we think "well, it must be like another guy doing it....just a bigger/better/smarter/older/whatever guy". It's like the old joke of "turtles all the way down". We think in terms of hierarchy and design so we imagine some point at the very top of the hierarchy, there's a tippy-top dog who must have been responsible for designing things. But the idea that there's a creator who is basically a super-whatever and he is aware of us and cares about what we do seems as unlikely to me as turtles all the way down. Sure it could be the case as easily as anything else since I can't fathom what could have provided the ultimate start of everything. But I've yet to see any evidence or logic that suggests this is the case. If anything it would seem the opposite. Frankly I would love reason to believe I had a clue about this because when I mull over the concept of "everything" it's a bit terrifying.