Hacker News Reader

Comment by linsistine | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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".

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

>Even Moon does not have life...

*That we know of.

Not clear to me what you're trying to show by indicating the moon has no life.

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.

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?

>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".

> Things just don't appear for no reason and with no creator.

This logic must logically apply to said creator.

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?

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.

So if you're answer is, "I don't know", how can you say that a belief in a Creator is wrong? If you truly don't know?

I technically don't know if there's an invisible unicorn living in a cave on the Moon.

I can state with reasonable certainty that there isn't.

I'm perfectly willing to be convinced by compelling evidence to the contrary, but "it's in the Bible" or "everything needs a beginning EXCEPT THIS ONE THING THAT MAKES MY ARGUMENT WORK" isn't that evidence.

It's reasonable to think that the Universe came into existence without some sort of creator, that it wasn't intelligently designed in some capacity, and that it came from nothing out of randomness and for no reason?

That you came from your father's penis as a drop of fluid, to be formed into some living thing, and ultimately be given birth from your mother's vagina into this world for no reason, out of randomness, and with no sort of intelligent force behind all of this?

Yes.

You've already indicated you yourself think it's reasonable to think things can come into existence without a creator, by asserting the existence of such a thing in the form of a creator.

I'm entirely comfortable with the concept of my being here due to natural selection rather than a mystical purpose. Don't make the mistake of thinking "everything must have a purpose" to be a globally shared worldview.

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.

Where this line of thinking falls apart is realizing you must, due to the same logic, explain the architect's coming into existence.

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'.

> 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.

Name me one thing which has no beginning.

We see all sorts of weirdness with time, like 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-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.

What does this even mean?

"Time is a weird concept even in our universe at times. It breaks down entirely outside of the known universe."

Yes...but what does this mean?

That the idea that "things must have a beginning" may not be the case when talking about physics outside the known universe.

Sure, that's hard to wrap your head around, but so's quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment. Doesn't change the fact that the universe works in very, very weird ways sometimes.

Here's Stephen Hawking on the weirdness of all of this: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

> Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.

This is one of the hardest concepts to grasp in theoretical physics/quantum physics/cosmology. (And I'm not saying I fully grasp it)

We, as beings who experience time linearly, can't fathom the concept of "No time". Every event we experience has a beginning, middle, and end.

Time was created along with the universe. "Before" the Big Bang there was literally "No time". There was no "before". There was nothing you could say was "before" because "before" literally did not exist. Just asking the question "what was before the big bang?" is nonsensical. You can't ask what was before "before" existed.

This gets more confusing because we know the Universe has had a finite lifetime.

I know this seems like a cop out. And you can say well then whoever/whatever caused the Big Bang was "God". That may or may not be true, it can't be tested of verified, but it seems that the universe is here just because it is here.

Which is not a very satisfying answer to most.

When asked what triggered the big bang, an honest answer is "I don't know, have a guess at it".

It's true that all roads from there will eventually lead to abandoning the logic and essentially saying "just because".

imho the leap of faith in assuming the architect(s) came into existence by divinity (just because) is more satisfying than the one in assuming there is none.

> 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.

Would you describe a dolphin as a complex structure? It wasn't designed, it evolved through natural selection.

I suggest reading a short book titled "Why evolution is true", or "The blind watchmaker".

Belief in a higher power does not counteract the belief, or proof, of the idea of evolution and natural selection.

Surely someone can design something to self-heal, self-correct, or evolve/adapt to it's surroundings right? Wouldn't a good designer/architect do that?

True but if you think the big bang and god and evolution are all true, then surely you must reject the Bible, right?

There's no need to introduce a creator in order to explain evolution. Introducing a creator does not help explain anything that could not be explained without it either. It is not a rational belief.

Nonsense. Put a bunch of magnets in a box, all spread out. Close it, add energy (shake the box). Open the box - the magnets are neatly organized into stacks. Order from nothing! Its perfectly natural and expected. No architect required.

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

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_atheist...

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.

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.

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?

It sounds like you're describing big bang cosmology rather than a personal god.

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.

It turtles down until there is a beginning, a source.

That source, or beginning, is what religions people refer to as God.

but they can't be the source because their design implies a designer

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.

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.

then what logic do you accept?

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?

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

Would you be able to summarize what he says? At work and I can't watch any videos lol

You can find a transcript here: https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotations/quotes/stephen_fr...

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com