Comment: Well I have to rule that out don't I?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You seem to have ruled out (see in situ)

Well I have to rule that out don't I?

I mean if something doesn't need to have a creator then there goes the proof for God.

If things have to have creators then we get a creator, and an infinite regress of creators. A high order of infinity in fact because there's no reason to suppose that any given creator only creates one thing.

If things don't have to have a creator then we lose the logical necessity for god as there's no reason to assume something not in evidence otherwise. Even worse imputing properties to the thing not in evidence (creator) that are contrary to our understanding of the things in evidence (universe).

I'm willing to accept things have to have creators. I'm willing to accept things don't have to have creators. What pretty silly is to say this one thing has to have a creator but this other thing, which we have no evidence of in the first place, does not have to have a creator.

Now it's certainly possible some things need creators and other things do not, but there is no reason to think that and plenty of reasons not to. But it's also certainly possible that there is a planet out in the universe which is made from cheesecake and rains ice cream. But there's no particular reason to think that and plenty of reasons not to.