Firstly, I would like to thank Hassan for his contribution. Given that his argument is very brief, I have included it, in full, within the body of my reply. His argument is as follows:
“Everything other than natural things has been created by someone. So how can this big universe be there just on its own? It surely has been created. Existence of things around us is a proof of creator God.”
I will leave aside the accidental implication within the first sentence, which implies that all natural things are non-created (“by someone”), as opposed to unnatural (human-made) things, and move straight into the substance of Hassan’s intended argument.
I have broken Hassan’s argument down into two parts, being careful not to oversimplify (strawman) his position:
- We observe that humans create things, so the universe must have been created too.
This is a non-sequitur argument, meaning, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Just because humans create things does not imply creation in the broader universe. In other words, just because X (humans) create(s) things, does not imply that Y (God) creates, nor does it even begin to testify on behalf of the alleged existence of Y (God). When analyzed in light of what we know rather than what we want to believe, this argument actually supports evolution over creationism. When you look at the creative process of humans, we observe, through history and archaeology, that modern tools and machines developed over time and out of environmental necessity. The food processor began as a sharpened bone, then mutated into a chiseled stone, a metal knife, then, gradually, as the needs of evolving humans became more complex, so too did the contraptions they fashioned, and so today we have food processors. Our slowly evolving environment dictated the process of evolution that such created and “unnatural” objects went through. This is a very natural process with no need for an overarching creator. If a BMW began as a BMW, rather than as first a horse, then as a horse and cart, a chariot, then the various earlier and more primitive automobiles, then this would provide a slightly better case for a “complex creator argument,” but it did not and so therefore, it does not.
2. The Universe could not have come about by natural forces, therefore it was “surely” created by a God and everything around us proves this.
The great Daniel Dennet teaches his students to beware of the “surely alarm,” as it can indicate the weakest point in a person’s argument. Often when people use the word surely, it is to emphasize the alleged certainty of a point, but, as Dennet explains, if the point was certain, you wouldn’t need to preface it with the word surely.
Based on the first part of the argument I have addressed, an argument that is both non-sequitur in nature and goes against the desired outcome of Hassan’s position, he assures us that; “It (the universe) SURELY has been created,” and that; “Existence of things around us is a proof of creator God.”
This portion of Hassan’s argument represents his conclusion. However, a conclusion is only as strong as the premise(s) upon which it is built and here, as we have already seen, Hassan has attempted to construct a very large house on very sandy foundations.
Assuming that Hassan’s creator God is perfect, which wouldn’t be an entirely unfounded assumption to make (Islamic deity), we have no rational or logical explanation as to the imperfections that we see in nature. In other words, the things we see around us are imperfect and such imperfection is demonstrative of natural, rather than supernatural processes derived from an omnipotent creator.
Writing for the Smithsonian, Rob Dunn enunciates this imperfection by saying:
“Natural selection acts by winnowing the individuals of each generation, sometimes clumsily, as old parts and genes are co-opted for new roles. As a result, all species inhabit bodies imperfect for the lives they live. Our own bodies are worse off than most simply because of the many differences between the wilderness in which we evolved and the modern world in which we live.”
Dunn goes on to list ten consequences of these naturally evolved imperfections, some of which include; choking, backaches, hiccups, disease brought about by imperfect genetic mutations and a number of other examples.
A final point I would like to make about Hassan’s creator-god hypothesis is that it is accommodating, but not explanatory in nature. It can be used to accommodate the things we see around us, that we subjectively perceive as amazing, but it cannot explain them. Think about it this way, every unexplained or seemingly miraculous thing that we observe, the things Hassan attributes to his imagined god, could just as easily be accommodated by the equally useless expression, “It’s magic!”