Is the existence of a creator so obvious?
We start by examining the why the concept of a creator sounds so self evident and whether after all it is so or not.
The most common argument that can be found in favour of the self evident nature of god is as follows:
"If the universe exists, obviously some external agency must have caused it to exist."
In short, nothing exists without a creator.
Let me start by showing you how such an assumption has nothing self evident or obvious about it.
For that, we first need to to understand why most of us would think that this assumption is very much obvious. The answer is, that we have related the existence of the universe to the existence of various other things within the universe. For example, if a car exists, we know,
from experience, that somebody must have created it.
Suppose, there were a parallel universe, a universe similar to ours, with only one distinction of "things existing without being created". It is very difficult to imagine such a place, but for a moment just take it to be the case.
Now, if you were born in such a universe, you would have seen a car many times, but would have never seen anyone or anybody creating it. This argument would hold for all other things in that universe. And then, you would have never asked yourself a question like "Where did this come from?", simply because such a question would be meaningless in a universe where things don't come from any further thing, but instead are JUST THERE.
You may doubt the validity of the point above, but it is a valid one, simply because it has been scientifically and experimentally shown that all of our reasoning, and intuitiveness depends on the external factors we grow up in. The environment shapes up our logic, reasoning and just about everything.
If you still disagree, I can tell you about an experiment that was conducted by the National Geographic Channel, in which a group of babies, who had previously never fallen off a height, were made to crawl on a platform with a pit beyond its edges. All the babies, in the first trial, tried to crawl right over the edge and into the pit despite having seen the height difference.
But ofcourse, they didn't fall or get hurt because the assistants were present to hold them on as soon as they stepped over.
The experiment was conducted again, and this time, none of the babies, crawled over the edge, and instead stopped right at the very edge hesitating to take a step forward.
Their experience of nearly falling down in the first trial made them aware of the consequences of stepping over the edge and they didn't repeat the mistake in the second trial.
This very basic experiment shows that our brain is an empty hard drive when it comes to the world and is slowly filled up by the various external stimuli and experiences we have in the world.
And so there is nothing obvious in not stepping over a cliff if you want to live. You know that because your brain has experienced the phenomenon of walking across height differences in the past and found this experience to be a vital threat to your chances of survival.
Now we can extend all the above examples and arguments to the concept of creation.
Creation seems to be an obvious thing to us because we have experienced it since the very first days of our lives. And we have seen that the concept of creation is valid "WITHIN" the universe (whatever 'within' means).
But we cannot extend the concept to anything that may lie BEYOND the universe(whatever 'beyond' may mean). In short, concepts such as creation, may work well within the universe, but it is not necessary that they also work for the entire universe as a whole.
It may very well be that none of the concepts or laws that work within the universe, also work in the same way beyond the universe. They may, but it's also possible, that they MAY NOT.
The world that may lie beyond the universe may be way beyond our present capacity to comprehend.
All the words of the human language may be meaningless beyond the universe.
There is no good reason to extend the laws and concepts of this universe to the world that may lie beyond.
Let's suppose for an instant that the concepts that work within the universe can also be extended to the "outside" part of the universe. And then let's say, the word creation holds its meaning even on the "outside" of the universe, making the existence of a creator necessary.
But then, since creation holds its meaning in the world beyond the universe, it should also apply to THE GOD, since he too belongs to the "outside" part of the universe.
And saying that creation has no meaning for GOD, is nothing more than an ad-hoc assumption.
Well, if the concept of creation can be meaningless for GOD, why can't it be as meaningless for the universe?
Why is it such an obvious thing when it comes to our universe, and why does it become totally meaningless when it comes to the creator?
The only difference between science and religion, is that both agree, as far concept of creation is considered, until the point of big bang.
And that's where science stops and admits that we have no clue of what lay beyond that point, let alone knowing whether the laws of the universe apply to whatever lay beyond.
But religion goes another step forward, includes a GOD, and then stops, making making an ad-hoc assumption of the concept of creation not being applicable to GOD.
The problem lies with this extra step that religion takes without any rhyme or reason.
About Author / Additional Info:
I am a staunch critic of religion and will publish other arguments against religion in a step by step manner.