Does it really require a creator?

1. 68

   rLcasaLmeposted 13 years ago

   When something exist and if that something is complexly programmed and sophisticated, is it really intelligent to arrive into a conclusion that it requires a creator?
   I would love to see the arguments from the experts.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Disappearingheadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      There are no experts here, just people with opinions.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That's true. Anyway, here's a starter opinion:
         
         Everything that exists has a cause (which doesn't imply a purpose, of course). If the cause can be explained with reference only to physics, biochemistry, and other sciences, there's no need to postulate a creator.
         If the cause cannot (yet) be explained by science, you have the following options:
         1. keep the question open, don't feign knowledge where it doesn't exist, and keep trying.
         2. decide to espouse one of the many available supernatural explanations usually involving a 'personal' creator.
         Personally, I favour option 1 as it leads to further discovery.

         replyreport
         1. 51

            paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Purpose is more important than the cause, I think; it should not be ignored; though it is beyond the scope of science.

            replyreport
            1. 92

               Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               If it could be shown that there is a purpose then it would indeed be important, but thus far there's no consensus that there is a purpose, except as perceived by individuals.

               replyreport
      2. 67

         Michele Travisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Of course I am not an expert, but how can something come from nothing?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That's the entire mystery of life.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Paul Wingertposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The big bang created gravity, and with the laws of physics, started the process of creating something from nothing. There was never a need for a creator.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  mischeviousmeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Gomez! I like the avatar.

                  replyreport
               2. 51

                  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Who activated the Big Band? The Creator God; did it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     mischeviousmeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     It could be said that it happens with the advent of every moment. What I was, was destroyed a moment ago and what I am, is created every moment. Each moment must be lived and every moment has life. All things exist at this moment and all at once. Bang! there it is again.

                     replyreport
                  2. 60

                     Paul Wingertposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     God did not create the big bang. God is a human invention.

                     replyreport
         2. 51

            paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Just as nothing could come from something.

            replyreport
      3. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with you.
         
         Experts would demand a fee; here it is free from everybody.
         
         Life is not for the experts only; it is for everbody born into this world; with equal rights.

         replyreport
   2. 70

      Titen-Sxullposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Arguments from the experts? How many experts are here on Hubpages? Anyway complexity is a fairly relative term. A single atom is very complex, yet it only takes two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen to make water which is considered a fairly abundant compound. Stars are fairly complex and yet they form naturally. So things that are very complex and difficult to understand can form naturally. In fact there's no evidence of something ever forming in any OTHER way than naturally. Even artificial things that humans make are created by us, and we're part of nature, so by extension artificial things are created naturally (confusing I know).

      replyreport
      1. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         It is not confusing; it is a reality. I congratulate you for writing such a good post for benefit of everybody.

         replyreport
   3. 60

      Disappearingheadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It has been said that it's as if the universe knew we were coming along a bit later. That is, some of the physics constants are just so to make the universe as we know capable of supporting life. For example, gravity is very finely balanced; just a little stronger, and the big bang would have thrown matter out at such speed, it would not have clumped to make stars; just a little weaker, and the big bang would have collapsed back in on itself.
      
      The origin of the primeval singularity, the fined tuned perfection of physical constants; many attribute these to God.

      replyreport
      1. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Excellent explanation.

         replyreport
   4. 60

      kessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Why do you say it is complexly programmed?
      How is it that you are able to conclude to such?
      
      Truth is if you understand the nature of anything you are able to understand its origin and its purpose.
      
      Complexity and ignorance is the two sides of the same coin.
      
      Where there is knowledge there is always simplicity...

      replyreport
      1. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Excellent point; my friend.

         replyreport
   5. 60

      A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      No, it isn't intelligent at all to jump to conclusions without evidence.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         mischeviousmeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That's exactly right. To admit that we don't know, is not being ignorant, it's being critical.

         replyreport
         1. 51

            paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I agree with you.

            replyreport
   6. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes.  Common sense tells us it is.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         mischeviousmeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         How is it common sense? How do you know what your brain is telling you, is true? Is it because a book says so, or do you have a connection no one else has? Then, is it not your own common sense or that of a preacher? Do you realy believe someone can guide your path in life for you? Have you ever even asked yourself these questions?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            A great philosopher once said
            He who faces reality will question many things, but he who shuns reality will question all things.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               mischeviousmeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I am at peace with reality. I am questioning you. How do you know? How are you so sure?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Because I have no need to question all things.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     mischeviousmeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     You believe all of the answers were simply given to you?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes.
                        The answers to the basic questions of life and death, yes.
                        Remember it's not that I don't question some things, because I do;  it's just that I don't question all things, because those basics are inherent or become inherent via common human perception & evidence as a human matures.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           mischeviousmeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           I found my answers and all I had to do is look, listen and not let my brain do the talking. For me the answers are everywhere and nowhere.

                           replyreport
2. 0

   icountthetimesposted 13 years ago

   Short and sweet -> No.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Muldaniaposted 13 years ago

   I have given up trying to answer this question.  Although it is natural for humans to need answers to the big questions, it is perhaps best to admit that there are questions which we can never answer.  We can only interpret the evidence by using our faulty minds.  And science seems to change its views of the universe with each generation.  First the universe was constant and stable, until the Big Bang theory allowed for a beginning.  Now quantum physics seems to be returning to the language of the mystic, and I have gone around in circles trying to understand it.  Now, I find it much easier and less frustrating to simply live with the fact that I have no idea why anything exists.  And as life is too short, I won't be around long enough to hope for an answer.  Perhaps it would be better if the human mind could live with uncertainty.  It certainly would prevent the constant arguments we have about who is right.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That is defeatism. Why admit to that?
      
       
      
      Had scientists listened to your advice, we'd still believe the universe was constant and stable.
      
      
      
      Yet, it isn't mystic at all and many people do understand it.
      
       
      
      So, you have accepted defeatism while others have not and never will.

      replyreport
      1. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I am just an ordinary man; no claims to being scholarly ; would you please explain what you have understood in simple terms?
         
         We find in nature that very complex things look very simple and beautiful to everybody.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Of course not, there is no way to explain complex concepts in simple terms.
            
            
            
            But, they may not be simple to explain to those who never take the time to understand them, so they imagine invisible beings must be at work in the background making it all happen, like some ridiculous universal marionette show.

            replyreport
   2. 51

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      There are other sources of certainty; one could explore them.

      replyreport
4. 38

   abbysonmartinposted 13 years ago

   of course i am not an expert of new hubpages created and so that please all friends help.............?

   replyreport
   1. 51

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Welcome here.
      
      Please present your problem here; sure somebody will opt to help you; all are friends here.
      
      I myself don't know much of computers.

      replyreport
5. 60

   Kyle Payneposted 13 years ago

   For all of time there have only really been two views on the subject, chance and a Creator. They both are taken by faith, and there is no substantial evidence for either. But it seems to me that the Creator is more plausible, which is again my opinion.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Neither view is shared by science, could be why they're both bogus views.
      
      
      
      Yes, an invisible sky fairy does seem plausible.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Cranfordjsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         @kyle
         "But it seems to me that the Creator is more plausible, which is again my opinion."
         
         Okay, fair enough. That would seem fine if you left it there. But do you go further, and claim to know who God is?
         
         Proclaiming God exist is one thing. To go further, and proclaim to know which God it is, seems like a tedious, ridiculous task on hand.
         
         

         replyreport