Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think most would agree that the universe is a rationally intelligible system. We can discover structures, patterns, laws and symmetries within the system. Things that happen within the system seem to be related to those laws too. So given all this is it not at least reasonable to form the view that it is the work of an intelligent source? Isn't it at least as reasonable or arguably more reasonable to assume that as it is to assume it just so happens to exist with all these laws, patterns just there, with all that takes place in the universe just being fluke?

If we take some of the laws of physics too, we can write these down very succinctly using mathematics, indeed mathematics seems to be a language that is superb for describing things in the universe, a fine example being Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field. Theoretical physicists often say they feel that they are discovering these laws too:

So if the universe can be described in a language like mathematics doesn't that too strongly suggest an intelligent source? much as we'd infer if we stumbled upon clay tablets with writing on them or symbols carved into stone? Doesn't discovery of something written in a language, more or less prove an intelligent source?

So isn't this all reasonable? is there anything unreasonable about this position?

[Jose Fly]

What a strange response to post. Why ever would you think that discussing a subject in a small forum like this would be an attempt to "impact the world of science"? strange, very strange.

Okay then, I guess this is yet another debate in the "do gods exist" category, which I'm not interested in. My apologies for the diversion.

[Sherlock Holmes]

What a strange response to post. Why ever would you think that discussing a subject in a small forum like this would be an attempt to "impact the world of science"? strange, very strange.

Okay then, I guess this is yet another debate in the "do gods exist" category, which I'm not interested in. My apologies for the diversion.

No, that isn't the subject of the thread either.

[Jose Fly]

What a strange response to post. Why ever would you think that discussing a subject in a small forum like this would be an attempt to "impact the world of science"? strange, very strange.

Okay then, I guess this is yet another debate in the "do gods exist" category, which I'm not interested in. My apologies for the diversion.

No, that isn't the subject of the thread either.

I don't see how, since the OP seems to be all about justifying a belief in a creator/intelligent source for the universe.

[Sherlock Holmes]

What a strange response to post. Why ever would you think that discussing a subject in a small forum like this would be an attempt to "impact the world of science"? strange, very strange.

Okay then, I guess this is yet another debate in the "do gods exist" category, which I'm not interested in. My apologies for the diversion.

No, that isn't the subject of the thread either.

I don't see how, since the OP seems to be all about justifying a belief in a creator/intelligent source for the universe.

No that isn't at all what its about. It is about whether the hypothesis of intelligence behind the universe is a reasonable hypothesis, just read the last line of the OP.

[Jose Fly]

What a strange response to post. Why ever would you think that discussing a subject in a small forum like this would be an attempt to "impact the world of science"? strange, very strange.

Okay then, I guess this is yet another debate in the "do gods exist" category, which I'm not interested in. My apologies for the diversion.

No, that isn't the subject of the thread either.

I don't see how, since the OP seems to be all about justifying a belief in a creator/intelligent source for the universe.

No that isn't at all what its about. It is about whether the hypothesis of intelligence behind the universe is a reasonable hypothesis, just read the last line of the OP.

Are you positing it as a scientific hypothesis?

[brunumb]

What do you mean "no track record"? every time we've found things like writing or engineered constructions in archeology we take it for granted these are the work of intelligence. We never claim that these arose all by themselves, do we? are you saying that archeologists are unreasonable and should assume these are all natural things, where intelligence played no part whatsoever?

Things like writing or engineered constructions have existing precedents for comparison so it is not unreasonable to take it for granted these are the work of intelligence. You have yet to provide any criteria for how we might establish that something completely unknown is the product of intelligent design.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]

It resolves absolutely nothing. It leads to an endless stream of creators for the creator itself would need a creator and the next creator too.

Richard Dawkins explains another issue here:

The Problem with God: Interview with Richard Dawkins

Yes, because it doesn't explain where the designer comes from. If they're going to emphasize the statistical improbability of biological organs-"these are so complicated, how could they have evolved?"--well, if they're so complicated, how could they possibly have been designed? Because the designer would have to be even more complicated.

https://www.beliefnet.com/news/science- ... wkins.aspx

Tcg

[Sherlock Holmes]

What do you mean "no track record"? every time we've found things like writing or engineered constructions in archeology we take it for granted these are the work of intelligence. We never claim that these arose all by themselves, do we? are you saying that archeologists are unreasonable and should assume these are all natural things, where intelligence played no part whatsoever?

Things like writing or engineered constructions have existing precedents for comparison so it is not unreasonable to take it for granted these are the work of intelligence.

Of course, I know that.

You have yet to provide any criteria for how we might establish that something completely unknown is the product of intelligent design.

Well I did say that if we look at Maxwell's laws for example, they represent something that seems to exist, a relationship that is expressible in a language, this is something that we discovered.

It seems to me, reasonable that these laws have more in common with something a mind would produce rather than just undirected forces, is this not reasonable?

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]

It resolves absolutely nothing. It leads to an endless stream of creators for the creator itself would need a creator and the next creator too.

Richard Dawkins explains another issue here:

The Problem with God: Interview with Richard Dawkins

Yes, because it doesn't explain where the designer comes from. If they're going to emphasize the statistical improbability of biological organs-"these are so complicated, how could they have evolved?"--well, if they're so complicated, how could they possibly have been designed? Because the designer would have to be even more complicated.

https://www.beliefnet.com/news/science- ... wkins.aspx

Tcg

The same is true of reductionist explanations, we get and endless stream of constituents, as we unravel things. Science is reductionist and at every level we get to we find another - yet to be explained - thing, levelling this is an objection to the designer hypothesis when the other hypothesis carries the same problem doesn't really make sense, Dawkins could have mentioned this fact but as is well known, philosophy is not his strong point.

Furthermore we would never describe scientific explanations, reductionist explanations as "resolves absolutely nothing" because of this infinite reductionism would we?

We would never say of the periodic table "this resolves absolutely nothing. It leads to an endless stream of internal constituents which themselves contain further, inner constituents and so on. Molecules composed of atoms, then atoms composed of baryons, then baryons composed of quarks..."

[brunumb]

What do you mean "no track record"? every time we've found things like writing or engineered constructions in archeology we take it for granted these are the work of intelligence. We never claim that these arose all by themselves, do we? are you saying that archeologists are unreasonable and should assume these are all natural things, where intelligence played no part whatsoever?

Things like writing or engineered constructions have existing precedents for comparison so it is not unreasonable to take it for granted these are the work of intelligence.

Of course, I know that.

Then why present an argument that you know has no merit?