We do not know whether a creator exists

If there is no creator, then how were you, I, and all of us created?

This question is actually one of the oldest, deepest, and most beautiful questions in the entire intellectual history of humankind. And it cannot be answered in a single line—because the question itself operates on two levels:

1. The scientific level – “How did life begin?”
2. The philosophical level – “Does this beginning require any purpose or a creator behind it?”

Science says that life began gradually, without any prior plan, as a result of natural laws.

• About 3.8 billion years ago, some complex molecules formed in the warm waters of the early Earth.
• They began to react in response to environmental influences.
• Then they learned to make copies of themselves.
• Larger molecules broke down into smaller ones, and smaller ones again formed larger molecules.
• Gradually, this turned into a kind of self-sustaining biochemical cycle.
• Over time: single-celled life → multicellular life → animals → humans.

Nowhere in this entire process do we see any “plan” or “purpose.” It was a play of natural laws + time + environment + probability. This is science’s explanation.

But does science say “There is no creator”? No. Science never says “There is no creator.” Science only says:
“From what we have observed so far, no supernatural intervention seems necessary for the origin of life.”
That’s all.

You, I—we all began from a single primitive cell, formed by the fusion of two half-cells from our father and mother. That tiny cell grew in the mother’s womb by taking in nutrients, and after birth, it continued to gather food, energy, and the necessities of life from the environment—thus becoming who we are today.

The two people who gave birth to us were themselves born in the same way. Their previous generations too came in exactly the same way. For millions of years this chain has continued. Even when humans knew nothing about the process of their own birth, they continued to reproduce under the natural pull of life—just as trees do, just as animals do. On the individual level, our existence is part of that same natural continuity.

These things are now scientifically established and part of common knowledge. But everything I’ve said so far is only the beginning of a much larger story. Every living being on Earth carries some universal instincts—what we usually call biological—but behind them lie complex chemical processes. And behind every chemical process lies the science of atoms and molecules, whose foundation is quantum theory.

We know how fundamental particles form atoms, how atoms form molecules, and how molecules behave under different environmental conditions. We also know, to a great extent, what can happen under which circumstances. But what we still do not know is: through exactly which sequence of events this vast chain of processes unfolded. There is no record of that in human history, because history is written by humans. Yet there is another kind of history—hidden in the layers of the Earth, and in our genes. From there we get our ideas about the origin of the first life on Earth.

Beyond this, our knowledge is limited—and that is not a fault. Human conventional knowledge has very little role in the creation and maintenance of life. When we do not know the answer to a question, saying “I don’t know” is a sign of honesty—and trying to know is the mark of wisdom.

On the other hand, if we do not know the answer to a question and we simply invent one out of imagination, the chance of that being correct is almost zero. Because these questions are extremely complex, and if we imagine something that goes against the evidence we already have, it will not match reality.

Science’s progress has reached only this far. The rest can be explored through reasoning. And following that path of reasoning, your question can be reframed as—

The fact that I exist—does that by itself prove that some all-powerful being personally created me?
We do not know who created me. Science too has not yet given a final answer to that question. But does “Science doesn’t know, therefore God did it” follow any valid rule of logic?
Since we do not know whether A = B, can we simply slip through that gap of ignorance and claim that A = C?
Such conclusions do not stand on logical grounds.

Since you raised the question on the basis of logic, let me say this—if you want to argue using logic, you must also follow the rules of logic. The problem is, the existence of God cannot be proven by logic. It belongs entirely to the realm of belief. There are thousands of creation stories in the world—some show the creator as a direct actor, some as the first cause. But none of them can be fully reconciled within a strict logical framework.

So the question “If there is no creator, then how was I created?”—we do not yet have a complete answer to it.

What science does say is this: the emergence of humans is the result of a long, multi-layered process. In the language of Yuval Noah Harari’s book Sapiens, those stages can be seen like this—

About 13.72 billion years ago, our known universe was born. Time itself began then. Before that, there was no such thing as “before” — because time did not exist. These parts belong to the realm of quantum physics, and our knowledge here is still limited.

A few hundred thousand years after the birth of the universe, the first simple atoms were formed — hydrogen, helium, and lithium. Much later, from clouds of these gases, stars were born. This process is still ongoing, and we can observe it even today.

The elements that make up our bodies — carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron — these heavy elements are not formed just anywhere. They are born deep inside stars, in the final stages of their lives. When stars explode, these elements are scattered into space. It took hundreds of millions of years for the first stars to form, and many more millions of years for them to explode.

These are matters of physics and physical chemistry. After these elements were scattered, many star systems formed. Then, slowly, metallic and rocky planets emerged — like the planets in our solar system. There, the process of forming compounds from elements began — this is the domain of chemistry.

As a result of this long process, our solar system was born about 4.5 billion years ago. The Earth gradually settled into a stable orbit. Its position, temperature, presence of liquid water, and environment — all of these developed step by step.

Here, countless biochemical processes continued endlessly, which eventually created the possibility of life.

About 3.8 billion years ago, some complex molecules appeared on Earth that were capable of responding to changes in the environment. Over time, they began to make copies of themselves. Large molecules broke down into smaller ones, and those smaller molecules, when supplied with enough nutrients, acted as catalysts for their own development. Gradually, this process turned into a kind of repetitive biochemical cycle. When the environment changed, this cycle also changed, and within those changes, new possibilities emerged. From here, the first chapter of biology begins.

In the early ages, countless single-celled organisms were born, divided, and multiplied in the warm waters of the Earth. An outside observer might have thought this was nothing more than a series of chemical reactions — no one would have realized that the seeds of life were being sown there.

With time, some cells began to move together. As they moved in groups, a natural division of labor emerged among them — the outer cells became specialized in one kind of task, the inner ones in another. From here began the organization and complexity of multicellular life.

After that, over hundreds of millions of years, countless species appeared and disappeared on Earth. Who came, who vanished — it makes no difference to the Earth. Just as billions of microorganisms live in our bodies without our awareness, the Earth too does not “know” who is living on its surface, who is buried beneath its crust, or who is fighting whom. Like every other planet, Earth has its own set of rules, and within those rules a particular kind of environment has formed — the one we call “life.”

Science claims that all of this is the result of natural laws, and there is abundant evidence in support of that. The fundamental rules of the universe are very simple, but within those simple rules lie countless possibilities. Some possibilities fade quickly, some endure for a long time. The emergence of life on Earth is just one of those possibilities.

The Sun has a birth and a death, the Earth has one, and so does the universe. All of them follow the laws of nature. Think about it — if hydrogen had never fused into helium, if stars had never exploded, if the value of gravity were even slightly different — would today’s Earth or we ourselves exist? Everything would have been completely different. And we would probably have called that “different” state normal. Humans are not outside nature either — our morality, conscience, love, joy and sorrow — all of these are the results of biochemical reactions.

Here is where science’s explanation ends. But the discussion does not end here. Many questions remain unanswered. The questions science has answered so far have been established through reasoning. But does that mean everything is known? Certainly not. There may well be unknown realms beyond the world we know — and that cannot be denied.

Now let us think about the limits of reason. Once upon a time, humans did not know how clouds formed, so they thought rain was the direct intervention of God. Later we learned — water evaporates in the heat of the Sun, rises into the air, cools, condenses into clouds, and then falls as rain. This knowledge made it clear to us that—even if a creator exists—he does not personally manage these tiny processes. Rather, he has set up such rules that nature can run itself.

The more knowledge grows, the more the role of God changes. The one we once imagined as the direct controller of every event, we now see as the creator of the rules — the one who set up the framework within which everything happens.

Once people thought earthquakes occurred by God’s will. Later it was discovered — they are the result of the movement of tectonic plates. Once people thought the motion of planets was in God’s hands. Now we know — the laws of gravity and motion govern them.

The origin of life is still mysterious, but from single-celled organisms to the diverse web of life, we have a reasonably good understanding of evolution. In the past, when knowledge was limited, even a falling leaf was thought to be “God’s work.”

The less knowledge a person has, the smaller his God — busy with trivial tasks. As knowledge grows, the concept of God also expands — he becomes the creator of laws, not the micromanager of every tiny event.

Just as the entire world of Bengali literature can arise from 49 letters and a single grammar book, so too can the complexity of the universe arise from a few basic rules. If you let water flow down a slope, rivers, waterfalls, seas, and oceans can all form. You don’t need to instruct each individual wave separately.

That is why acquiring knowledge is essential. Dispelling ignorance is essential. You will not find God through logic, but knowledge can help you understand the idea of God in a deeper and more mature way.

And yet the question remains — some are absolutely certain of God’s existence, others are completely uncertain. Why is there so much debate, so much conflict over this one issue?

The conflict is not really outside — it is inside our minds. Because of our limited thinking, narrow perspectives, and ego, we trap ourselves. Those who lack knowledge but overflow with confidence take the tiny mirror of their own understanding as the final truth of the universe. We are tiny creatures, yet we behave as if the world moves at our command. This arrogance is truly embarrassing — like forcing something on someone that clearly doesn’t suit them.

Many say, “Both sides are at fault, you can’t clap with one hand.” But clapping and conflict are not the same thing. When two hands come together to make a sound, that is an expression of joy. But if one hand is still and the other strikes it, that is not clapping, that is conflict.

In the same way, in the name of debate, two sides keep striking each other, and no joy or respect is born from it—only more hostility. It is like the blind frenzy of football fans—shouting over Brazil vs Argentina, while the real problems remain untouched.

In today’s world, when it comes to the creator, we generally see three kinds of people—

• One group firmly says “He exists”; they speak from faith, and faith does not follow logic.
• Another group just as strongly says “He does not exist”; they reject the idea of God that was born out of ignorance and fear.
• And in between stands a group who say, “I don’t know yet, but I want to know.” They occupy the most honest and most intelligent position. Because true knowledge begins from there.

I respect this third group the most. Because they understand their limits, acknowledge the unknown, and keep trying to learn. When they do not know, they simply say, “I don’t know.” They do not copy others’ words, nor do they get by with half-truths. Their honesty and self-respect are their greatest strengths.

I do not blame the second group. They mainly reject the simplified concept of God held by the first group.
Their reasoning is: an idea born out of fear and ignorance does not need to be glorified. With time and experience, many of them move toward the third group.

The first group creates the most problems. Because they are not interested in the pursuit of knowledge, yet they are very eager to impose their beliefs on others. They unnecessarily interfere in matters like who is reading which book, who is following which ritual. This is nothing but an intrusion into personal freedom.

But reality is not that simple. People do not live in three separate boxes. Many stand somewhere in between, and sometimes people from two extremes even build a life together. Within the first group itself there are countless subgroups, who in turn reject one another.

People’s beliefs, opinions, and positions are all changeable. That is why human civilization still survives. Eight billion people, eight billion beliefs — that is natural. Just as language, clothing, food habits, skin color, and geography differ, so do beliefs. Even in the mind of a rigid believer, somewhere, a little bit of Lalon’s humanism resides.

Humans influence one another — that is the law of nature. Life goes on like this — and then one day everything ends. We think we are something great, but the truth is, none of us can leave behind anything on this Earth that is truly worth boasting about.

In the end, everyone dissolves into the darkness of nature — without name, without memory. Our worth is less than a speck of dust. And yet life goes on — with joy, sorrow, hope, and despair.

We do not even know who our ancestors were three or four generations back. We have no time to think about what struggles they went through to make our existence possible.

Countless generations will come after us. They will face new diseases, new hardships, new crises. And we are leaving behind mountains of waste for them — pollution, deforestation, climate catastrophe. We are consuming in advance their share of food, water, and air.

We think of ourselves as intelligent, yet we are using that intelligence to destroy the Earth. We cut down forests to install solar panels — where trees themselves used to convert sunlight into energy. We tear through jungles to build roads, destroying the habitats of animals.

We had the capacity — but we misused it. Even the smallest microorganism has a right to exist as part of the Earth. In just one hundred thousand years, humans have done enough that the Earth could retaliate at any time.

When a vast system begins to collapse, humans cannot stop it.
And until the very day before the collapse, it still feels like — “Nothing will happen.”

Compared to the age of the universe and the Earth, human existence is very brief. Before us, the Earth has gone through countless changes, countless species have vanished forever. In the course of evolution, perhaps new species will emerge again; perhaps multiple human species will once more inhabit the Earth, as they did a few thousand years ago.

So what is the truth?

The truth is — we still do not know the ultimate cause of the universe.

• Perhaps there is a creator.
• Perhaps there is not.
• Perhaps there is, but not in the way we imagine.
• Perhaps the universe is self-sufficient.
• Perhaps there is some principle we have not yet understood.

The unknown does not mean “There is no creator.”
The unknown does not mean “There is definitely a creator” either.
The unknown simply means: it is unknown.