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?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #40]

You claim "No god beings have ever been demonstrated to actually exist" which is untrue, consider the New Testament and the claims the apostles were convinced that Jesus had been resurrected.

The key word there is demonstrated. Some apostles being "convinced that Jesus had been resurrected" is not even remotely close to a demonstration. Here is what Dictionary.com has for the definitions of these words:

Demonstrate: (verb (used with object), dem·on·strat·ed, dem·on·strat·ing.

- to make evident or establish by arguments or reasoning; prove: to demonstrate a philosophical principle.
- to describe, explain, or illustrate by examples, specimens, experiments, or the like: to demonstrate the force of gravity by dropping an object.
- to manifest or exhibit; show: He demonstrated his courage by his actions in battle.
- to display openly or publicly, as feelings: to demonstrate one's anger by slamming a door.

Convince: (verb (used with object), con·vinced, con·vinc·ing.

- to move by argument or evidence to belief, agreement, consent, or a course of action: to convince a jury of his guilt; A test drive will convince you that this car handles well.
- to persuade; cajole: We finally convinced them to have dinner with us.

See the difference?

So I'm sorry but there is something to defend, whenever anyone claims anything they incur a burden of proof, in this case you have no proof (and as you know there can be none) and there is even contrary evidence, I do not agree that claims made without evidence should always be regarded as true.

No there isn't. Gods remain speculative until one of them can be demonstrated (using the definition above) to exist. Someone being convinced themselves is not a demonstration.

So the atheist is free to cite source material but the same privilege must not be extended to the theist? you actually believe that arguments produced under such conditions are in any way relevant?

I can't make any sense of that. What "source material" are you talking about? How about showing us some demonstration that gods exist, and if you can't then I'm free to argue that I lack a belief that they do necause of a lack of evidence (ie. I'm not convinced). This is a relevant argument, despite that fact that it is at odds with your opinion.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #40]

You claim "No god beings have ever been demonstrated to actually exist" which is untrue, consider the New Testament and the claims the apostles were convinced that Jesus had been resurrected.

The key word there is demonstrated. Some apostles being "convinced that Jesus had been resurrected" is not even remotely close to a demonstration. Here is what Dictionary.com has for the definitions of these words:

Demonstrate: (verb (used with object), dem·on·strat·ed, dem·on·strat·ing.

- to make evident or establish by arguments or reasoning; prove: to demonstrate a philosophical principle.
- to describe, explain, or illustrate by examples, specimens, experiments, or the like: to demonstrate the force of gravity by dropping an object.
- to manifest or exhibit; show: He demonstrated his courage by his actions in battle.
- to display openly or publicly, as feelings: to demonstrate one's anger by slamming a door.

Convince: (verb (used with object), con·vinced, con·vinc·ing.

- to move by argument or evidence to belief, agreement, consent, or a course of action: to convince a jury of his guilt; A test drive will convince you that this car handles well.
- to persuade; cajole: We finally convinced them to have dinner with us.

See the difference?

If someone is convinced by something then by definition they witnessed a demonstration of it. You can - right now - open a Bible and read an account of it, of course you can choose to believe that account or not, just as you can do with any account of something from the past, but that's your personal choice.

Perhaps you should have written "No god beings have ever been demonstrated to me to actually exist", is that what you meant to write?

The fact is all you can claim is that because you have never seen a demonstration of this then nobody else anywhere in the world at any time has, that's quite a ridiculous extrapolation, I don't attach any value to it myself, your personal opinion is not objective or indeed free from personal bias.

So I'm sorry but there is something to defend, whenever anyone claims anything they incur a burden of proof, in this case you have no proof (and as you know there can be none) and there is even contrary evidence, I do not agree that claims made without evidence should always be regarded as true.

No there isn't. Gods remain speculative until one of them can be demonstrated (using the definition above) to exist. Someone being convinced themselves is not a demonstration.

All demonstrations are subjective Dr., that you are not convinced speaks only to you, I for example and millions of others are convinced, so be careful, don't make the common mistake of confusing your subjective claims with absolute, objective claims, I thought you said you understood how science works?

So the atheist is free to cite source material but the same privilege must not be extended to the theist? you actually believe that arguments produced under such conditions are in any way relevant?

I can't make any sense of that. What "source material" are you talking about? How about showing us some demonstration that gods exist, and if you can't then I'm free to argue that I lack a belief that they do because of a lack of evidence (ie. I'm not convinced). This is a relevant argument, despite that fact that it is at odds with your opinion.

You really don't understand??? The very same source material you referred to Dr:

The defense of your talking points is usually a reference to the bible, some creationist website or publication (eg. the Russell Humphreys or Walt Brown kind of nonsense).

You also keep saying there's a "lack of evidence" which is patently false, the New Testament is an extant record, more copies exist than any other document from antiquity, you need to get objective facts, you are mistaking your opinions and biases for facts, they are not:



You could look at this scientifically if you really wanted to.

[JoeyKnothead]

You claim "No god beings have ever been demonstrated to actually exist" which is untrue, consider the New Testament and the claims the apostles were convinced that Jesus had been resurrected.

Convinced is not confirmed.

I'da thought someone with your claimed experience debating these issues woulda already known that.

...
...

So the atheist is free to cite source material but the same privilege must not be extended to the theist? you actually believe that arguments produced under such conditions are in any way relevant?

Well about that, it's kinda expected the cited source'd be reliable.

There's a reason the bible ain't considered authoritative in this section of the site.

[Sherlock Holmes]

You claim "No god beings have ever been demonstrated to actually exist" which is untrue, consider the New Testament and the claims the apostles were convinced that Jesus had been resurrected.

Convinced is not confirmed.

I'da thought someone with your claimed experience debating these issues woulda already known that.

If I'm convinced then I've confirmed something, if you're not convinced then so what?

So the atheist is free to cite source material but the same privilege must not be extended to the theist? you actually believe that arguments produced under such conditions are in any way relevant?

Well about that, it's kinda expected the cited source'd be reliable.

There's a reason the bible ain't considered authoritative in this section of the site.

Nothing says the Bible is not authoritative, the forum guide says "the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims" I referred to the NT as being evidence of an historic claim, not as support for some scientific hypothesis.

However the scientific claim that the New Testament has more copies from antiquity and that those copies were composed much closer to the events they pertain to than any other ancient document is easily verified without quoting anything from within it:

The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature, with over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian.

Source: Wikipedia.

Let me know if you'd like more detail, I'm always happy to help when it comes to science.

[JoeyKnothead]

If I'm convinced then I've confirmed something, if you're not convinced then so what?

You've only confirmed you're convinced.

What'd you do, dig up some body and discover it was a genetic match for Mary and God?

You wasted all that money on them logic classes you're so proud of.

Nothing says the Bible is not authoritative, the forum guide says "the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims"

Hence, in this section of this site, Science and Religion, the Bible ain't considered an authoritative source on - now follow me here, it gets tricky - science.

My point here is that the Bible is a poor choice to use when arguing matters of science. Sure, it claims stuff, but, well, there we go.

I referred to the NT as being evidence of an historic claim, not as support for some scientific hypothesis.

So we see, just cause something's writ down, that don't make it a scientifically supportable notion.

However the scientific claim that the New Testament has more copies from antiquity and that those copies were composed much closer to the events they pertain to than any other ancient document is easily verified without quoting anything from within it:

A brazillion copies of Gone With the Wind don't mean Tara was a real plantation.

Snip pic cause these copies can't be compared to the originals for accuracy.

The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature, with over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian.

If I produce a brazillion copies of an errant work, I got me a brazillion copies of errancy.

Let me know if you'd like more detail, I'm always happy to help when it comes to science.

Will do.

And you be sure to holler when you wanna learn how logic works.

[Sherlock Holmes]

If I'm convinced then I've confirmed something, if you're not convinced then so what?

You've only confirmed [that] you're convinced.

What'd you do, dig up some body and discover it was a genetic match for Mary and God?

You wasted all that money on t̶h̶e̶m̶ [those presumed] logic classes you're [presumably] so proud of.

Nothing says the Bible is not authoritative, the forum guide says "the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims"

Hence, in this section of this site, Science and Religion, the Bible a̶i̶n̶'̶t̶ [isn't] considered an authoritative source on - now follow me here, it gets tricky - science.

My point here is that the Bible is a poor choice to use when arguing matters of science. Sure, it claims stuff, but, well, there we go.

I referred to the NT as being evidence of an historic claim, not as support for some scientific hypothesis.

So we see, just [be]cause something's [been] writ[ten] down, that d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ [doesn't] make it a scientifically supportable notion [the last sentence needs a complete rewording].

However the scientific claim that the New Testament has more copies from antiquity and that those copies were composed much closer to the events they pertain to than any other ancient document is easily verified without quoting anything from within it:

A b̶r̶a̶z̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶ [large number of] copies of Gone With the Wind d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ [doesn't] mean Tara was a real plantation.

Snip pic [be]cause these copies can't be compared t̶o̶ [with] the originals for accuracy.

The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature, with over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian.

If I produce a b̶r̶a̶z̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶ [large number of] copies of an errant work, I [end up with] g̶o̶t̶ ̶m̶e̶ a b̶r̶a̶z̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶ [large number of] copies[, perpetuating the errancy] o̶f̶ ̶e̶r̶r̶a̶n̶c̶y̶.̶

Let me know if you'd like more detail, I'm always happy to help when it comes to science.

Will do.

And you be sure to h̶o̶l̶l̶e̶r̶ [reach out to me] when you w̶a̶n̶n̶a̶ [would like to] learn how logic works.

Joey, I'm as unlikely to consult you on matters of logic as I am on matters of grammar.

Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.
Revision is the elimination of solecisms.

[JoeyKnothead]

If I'm convinced then I've confirmed something, if you're not convinced then so what?

You've only confirmed [that] you're convinced.

What'd you do, dig up some body and discover it was a genetic match for Mary and God?

You wasted all that money on t̶h̶e̶m̶ [those presumed] logic classes you're [presumably] so proud of.

Nothing says the Bible is not authoritative, the forum guide says "the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims"

Hence, in this section of this site, Science and Religion, the Bible a̶i̶n̶'̶t̶ [isn't] considered an authoritative source on - now follow me here, it gets tricky - science.

My point here is that the Bible is a poor choice to use when arguing matters of science. Sure, it claims stuff, but, well, there we go.

I referred to the NT as being evidence of an historic claim, not as support for some scientific hypothesis.

So we see, just [be]cause something's [been] writ[ten] down, that d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ [doesn't] make it a scientifically supportable notion [the last sentence needs a complete rewording].

However the scientific claim that the New Testament has more copies from antiquity and that those copies were composed much closer to the events they pertain to than any other ancient document is easily verified without quoting anything from within it:

A b̶r̶a̶z̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶ [large number of] copies of Gone With the Wind d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ [doesn't] mean Tara was a real plantation.

Snip pic [be]cause these copies can't be compared t̶o̶ [with] the originals for accuracy.

The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature, with over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian.

If I produce a b̶r̶a̶z̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶ [large number of] copies of an errant work, I [end up with] g̶o̶t̶ ̶m̶e̶ a b̶r̶a̶z̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶ [large number of] copies[, perpetuating the errancy] o̶f̶ ̶e̶r̶r̶a̶n̶c̶y̶.̶

Let me know if you'd like more detail, I'm always happy to help when it comes to science.

Will do.

And you be sure to h̶o̶l̶l̶e̶r̶ [reach out to me] when you w̶a̶n̶n̶a̶ [would like to] learn how logic works.

Joey, I'm as unlikely to consult you on matters of logic as I am on matters of grammar.

Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.
Revision is the elimination of solecisms.

I type how I talk, or think.

Grammar is the structured use of language to tell something. That you were able to parse my words into the way you like it told indicates you had some inkling as to what I was telling.

But instead of actually refuting my argument, well, ya didn't.

But hey, at least you know how to crayon up a post.

I don't blame ya for not wanting me to school ya on logic - ya can't even recognize the failed logic of your own argument.

[Sherlock Holmes]

If I'm convinced then I've confirmed something, if you're not convinced then so what?

You've only confirmed [that] you're convinced.

What'd you do, dig up some body and discover it was a genetic match for Mary and God?

You wasted all that money on t̶h̶e̶m̶ [those presumed] logic classes you're [presumably] so proud of.

Nothing says the Bible is not authoritative, the forum guide says "the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims"

Hence, in this section of this site, Science and Religion, the Bible a̶i̶n̶'̶t̶ [isn't] considered an authoritative source on - now follow me here, it gets tricky - science.

My point here is that the Bible is a poor choice to use when arguing matters of science. Sure, it claims stuff, but, well, there we go.

I referred to the NT as being evidence of an historic claim, not as support for some scientific hypothesis.

So we see, just [be]cause something's [been] writ[ten] down, that d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ [doesn't] make it a scientifically supportable notion [the last sentence needs a complete rewording].

However the scientific claim that the New Testament has more copies from antiquity and that those copies were composed much closer to the events they pertain to than any other ancient document is easily verified without quoting anything from within it:

A b̶r̶a̶z̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶ [large number of] copies of Gone With the Wind d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ [doesn't] mean Tara was a real plantation.

Snip pic [be]cause these copies can't be compared t̶o̶ [with] the originals for accuracy.

The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature, with over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian.

If I produce a b̶r̶a̶z̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶ [large number of] copies of an errant work, I [end up with] g̶o̶t̶ ̶m̶e̶ a b̶r̶a̶z̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶ [large number of] copies[, perpetuating the errancy] o̶f̶ ̶e̶r̶r̶a̶n̶c̶y̶.̶

Let me know if you'd like more detail, I'm always happy to help when it comes to science.

Will do.

And you be sure to h̶o̶l̶l̶e̶r̶ [reach out to me] when you w̶a̶n̶n̶a̶ [would like to] learn how logic works.

Joey, I'm as unlikely to consult you on matters of logic as I am on matters of grammar.

Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.
Revision is the elimination of solecisms.

I type how I talk, or think.

Grammar is the structured use of language to tell something. That you were able to parse my words into the way you like it told indicates you had some inkling as to what I was telling.

But instead of actually refuting my argument, well, ya didn't.

But hey, at least you know how to crayon up a post.

I don't blame ya for not wanting me to school ya on logic - ya can't even recognize the failed logic of your own argument.

Your "argument" (if we can use such a term for what is nothing more than simple one line rejections of what your opponent writes) has as many weakness as does the grammar you choose to use.

If you think that a good, well argued rational rebuttal can be made using poor English then you are mistaken.

Some of the best arguments are those found a courtroom, you might be surprised when I tell you that you cannot get a Law degree without first rate command of English, its a tool of the trade, a poor use of English will lead to lost cases and likely a short career in the profession.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #42]

If someone is convinced by something then by definition they witnessed a demonstration of it.

Really? So you and millions of other people have witnessed a demonstration of the existence of a god being? I seriously doubt it. You seem to be confusing personal relevation or perception with what it means to be scientifically demonstrated to exist (the section of the website we're in for this debate). A demonstration that a god being actually exists is not that someone is convinced of it personally for whatever reason.

I maintain that no god being has ever been demonstrated to exist, to me or anyone else in the history of humans beings (since we're the only animals who seem to believe in these beings), using the standard dictionary definition of the word demonstrated. To prove me wrong, just cite one instance where this has actually happened ... not someone having a vision or personal revelation ... but a bona fide demonstration that a god being exists. Lots of people would certainly love to see such a demonstration (me included). I'd cease being an atheist immediately.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #42]

If someone is convinced by something then by definition they witnessed a demonstration of it.

Really? So you and millions of other people have witnessed a demonstration of the existence of a god being? I seriously doubt it.

I've witnessed, seen, examined what I regard as convincing evidence of God yes.

You seem to be confusing personal relevation or perception with what it means to be scientifically demonstrated to exist (the section of the website we're in for this debate).

No, I'm not at all confused.

A demonstration that a god being actually exists is not that someone is convinced of it personally for whatever reason.

I maintain that no god being has ever been demonstrated to exist, to me or anyone else in the history of humans beings (since we're the only animals who seem to believe in these beings), using the standard dictionary definition of the word demonstrated. To prove me wrong, just cite one instance where this has actually happened ... not someone having a vision or personal revelation ... but a bona fide demonstration that a god being exists. Lots of people would certainly love to see such a demonstration (me included). I'd cease being an atheist immediately.

You can maintain whatever you like that fact remains that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, don't tell me you were not aware of this basic tenet of debating?