1

Our eyes, nose, tongue, skin, ears, and brain convert physical or chemical or electrical impact into electrical signals which are read by neurons in brain. I believe such a sophisticated machine could not have arisen on its own. I see involvement of higher power of intelligence in the creation.

My question is: Is there any proof of existence of a higher intelligence which created us?

  • 1
    No, there isn't. It's a figment of human imagination fueled by a need to explain origin but stifled by his laziness to use rational frameworks, such as science. – amphibient Mar 14 '18 at 16:53
  • 3
    "proof" can't really happen with this kind of questions. Metaphysics can't speak about proof, only logical justifications. You simply can't ask for a proof, which is something inherently ontological, for something beyond ontology (or, the basis of it). Any decisive answer for this question will simply have false logical assumptions. You can say it might be less likely, but proof is something you can't seek in these realms. – Yechiam Weiss Mar 14 '18 at 17:05
  • 5
    Why a proof ? If you believe... believe. If you agree with the reasonable argument that the complexity of the cosmos need a superior power to build it, this is an argument that has a strenght of his own. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Mar 14 '18 at 18:12
  • 2
    If there was, there wouldn't be any need for faith. Reason would be everything. Be careful what you wish for. – Dan Christensen Mar 14 '18 at 22:56
  • 3
    I see involvement of higher power of intelligence in the creation. Do you also see involvement of a higher, higher power of intelligence in the creation of that creator ? If not, why? If yes, is it turtles all the way up ? – Amit Naidu Mar 15 '18 at 2:46
11

No. Any concrete proof of a higher intelligence would have long ago been presented to the world at large, tested, experimented, and confirmed. At that point you would no longer have rational non-believers, as you do now, especially in this age of universal information.

But I see that you have a particular instance of evidence in mind- your statement that we are "sophisticated machines" and therefore a higher intelligence was involved.

This could be interpreted as strong evidence, given no rational alternatives. If there is no route for existence outside of a creator, then surely it must be the creator. if(A) then A;

However, you are missing a piece of the sophisticated machine. In a way, it is even more sophisticated than you have given it credit for. This machine builds itself, and builds copies of itself. The machine can even make random improvements to itself through successive generations by making mistakes.

It is through that mechanism that these sophisticated machines were originally much less sophisticated and much more robust. This can be seen by looking at the diversity of other creatures on Earth, and comparing the DNA and RNA markers between them. All of them appear to share the same ancestry, suggesting a much simpler root origin.

You may wish to bring up the creation of this original root organism, then. Things are a bit foggier in that regard. It's hard to "test" or "investigate" the origin of the Universe. So I don't have any good answers for you there, nor does anyone have any proof. I would caution the assumption of a creator in this case, however, since rationally speaking that would necessitate a creator of the creator too, would it not? Perhaps simpler to just say that the Universe exists because it exists.

  • 4
    Scientific evidence doesn't automatically alleviate ignorance, as the climate scientists can attest (assuming you can trust their conclusions). – Robert Harvey Mar 14 '18 at 22:41
  • @RobertHarvey A good point. I made some changes to that section of the answer. – Onyz Mar 15 '18 at 11:26
4

Philosophers, theologians and atheists have come up with countless arguments they claim prove or disprove the existence of God(s).

For many, it's a black-and-white issues - YES there is a God, or NO, there is no God. But philosophers have explored many angles (e.g. How does one define "God"?).

I just recently listened to a talk by Alan Watts, who commented on intelligence. I don't know how respected Watts is in the philosophical community. I think he was kind of a 60's pop icon; many of the things he said certainly resonated with me.

Anyway, Watts says it's in the nature of apple trees to produce apples, even using the word apple as a verb (apple trees apple). Similarly, he says it's Earth's nature to "people," producing people the way a fruit tree produces fruit.

Although he didn't go into any detail in this particular talk, he said the rocks from which life evolved are "intelligent."

Though it might sound like a stupid idea, it makes some sense (to me, at least).

Are you familiar with the term Gaia, the view of Earth as a living organism?

If you study evolution, you have to be in awe of some of the amazing trends that have continually transformed Earth. If we could travel back in time to the Cambrian Period, we probably couldn't survive on what was essentially an alien planet. Would there even be enough oxygen in the air to breathe?

Yet the evolution of plants modified the atmosphere itself, at the same time stabilizing the land and nurturing the evolution of soils and herbivorous terrestrial creatures. Predators evolved greater intelligence, and their prey similarly became more intelligent in a sort of biological arms race. Some scientists have described plants as intelligent.

For me, this is powerful evidence that one doesn't need a god in order to create intelligence - unless one believes that a prime mover (e.g. "God") was needed to create the cosmos out of a void, setting everything in motion. Others argue that the cosmos itself is God - a god very different from the Christian god.

3

No, proofs do not exist for the hypothesis that we have been created by an other being – besides our human parents :-)

Philosophy of religion has used the so called watchmaker argument: If one finds a watch, then one assumes that a watchmaker has crafted that watch. Watches do not exist by change. Also they do not grow just by natural forces.

The watchmaker argument has been stated in favour of creation by design. It should support the view that intelligent design needs an intelligent designer, i.e. the Christian god.

Of course a parable like the watchmaker parable does not prove anything:

… analogies prove nothing, that is quite true, but they can make one feel at home (Sigmund Freud)

A scientific explanation of the development of humans and other animals has been given by the theory of evolution. Like all scientific theories also the theory of evolution operates without the concept of a creator. In addition, the theory is not based on any teleological principle which would make the whole process goal oriented. In a broader context, the severest rival of the concept of creation is the concept of self-organisation.

Though, the old concept of being created by a higher being finds a revival in the concept of Mathematical Reality: We humans and our whole environment, i.e. our whole world, is a computer program with artifical intelligence. It is designed by a programmer and installed on his computer. See Chapter 10 in „Green, Brian: The Hidden Reality. Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos.“ See also Are we living in a simulation? The evidence

  • 1
    Since OP's question is a mere restatement of Paley's watchmaker fallacy which was refuted by Hume long before Darwin was even born, and more recently by Dawkins - here is the relevant link to the award winning BBC documentary from 3 decades ago for the YouTube generation. On a lighter note, obligatory Futurama episode on evolution and the god of the gaps is required viewing. – Amit Naidu Mar 15 '18 at 3:35
3

The argument of a higher being that created humanity is by its own nature flawed.

As Jo Wehler pointed out, the concept that humanity is too complex to have sprung up without guidance is the watchmaker argument. The problem with this argument is that the watchmaker, in this case the entity that created humanity, would have to be more complex than that which it created.

So now we have a godlike entity that created humanity. Where did that godlike entity come from? It either was created, or came into being naturally.

If it was created, it has to have been created be something more complex than itself. This winds up in a cyclical argument with no end.

If you choose to believe it came into being of its own nature, why not just believe that humanity came into being of its own nature (evolution) instead? It's more credible to believe that a more simple form of life evolved, than a more complex form that was capable of creating a simple form.

1

Is there any proof of existence of a higher intelligence which created us?

To Christians, Jesus is God. Therefore, any proof of Jesus' historical presence and/or his true nature could serve to prove the existence of God.

However, a person's freedom not to believe is acknowledged by Christian teaching. Therefore, it seems necessary that all-powerful God not provide proof of his existence, or else He would not provide people this freedom.

Christian person William Lane Craig acknowledges that this is a problem and identifies rather than proof, "warrant" as something possessed by a believer in addition to his own faith that God exists.

For a discussion of "warrant", please see here. Craig did not originate this idea: it was written earlier by Alvin Plantinga in, among other things, his book entitled "Warranted Christian Belief".

0

Just because humans view biological organisms as "sophisticated" doesn't mean a higher power engineered us. The concept of "sophistication" was created by humans to measure a standard. Without the creation of the concept by humans, the biological organism would still exist and be complex all on its own.

If you think about the vastness of the universe and imagine it being a giant petri dish, and how there's quite a bit of room for random combinations of elements, molecules, gases, liquids, etc to form and create explosions and other chemical reactions, evolution may not be so far-fetched of an idea to you anymore, that sophisticated beings don't require a higher power to exist, that eventually autonomous life would sprout out of sheer chance.

It's sort of like practicing basketball -- you may be terrible at getting the ball in the basket, but enough tries and you'll eventually get it in. Enough practice and eventually you'll be a better player than the next guy. Beat a few players in games and you may end up being picked for an organized team, maybe even paid. That's evolution in a nutshell.

0

TLDR: There is no known evidence (as of early 2018) of any kind of higher creator.


The longer answer is structured as follows. I will first define what it means to have evidence, then I will reproduce the definitions of Occam's razor and ad hoc hypothesis, and finally explain how the data scientists currently have does not provide evidence for a higher creator. By higher, I simply mean that this hypothetical creator has created life and perhaps the universe itself. Creators certainly exist; I am one. I have created, e.g., answers on this and other Q&A sites.

Before I begin, I want to stress that the definitions below are for the sake of this answer, and are not meant to be authoritative.

By evidence for some hypothesis, I mean data gathered by observations that is interpreted and explained by said hypothesis or in a more general framework as consequences of the hypothesis. I should stress that I mean observations in a broad sense, for example looking out the window to test the hypothesis "It is raining", or hearing the reply of a friend to the question "Do you like me" to test the hypothesis "My friend likes me", count as observations.

Occam's razor is a principle that, informally speaking, states that out of many possible explanations one should choose the simplest one. By simplest, I mean making fewest additional assumptions. For an example, suppose a student failed a test. Out of several possible explanations, we can consider the following: 1) the student was ill-prepared for the test 2) the teacher fabricated the results out of dislike towards the student. Out of these, we would prefer the first explanation over the latter.

Ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis that is introduced for some very specific purpose, often to save a theory from being falsified. I will demonstrate the problem with ad hoc arguments with an example. For a long time it was believed that celestial bodies are perfect spheres. When the first observations with a telescope suggested that they are not, some proponents of the old theory suggested that celestial bodies are covered by an invisible shell that fills every crater and evens out all bumps such that they are perfectly spherical. This ad hoc argument was quickly countered by another, namely that the invisible matter is piled up on the bumps on celestial bodies to make them even less spherical than they seem.

We are finally in a position to answer the original question. There are currently (as of early 2018) no experimental observations that would be best explained, in the sense of Occam's razor, using a higher creator, i.e. there is no evidence for the existence of a higher creator. Since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it does not logically follow that we can say with certainty that there is no higher creator, but at this time introducing such a creator would be an ad hoc hypothesis.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.