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?

[Sherlock Holmes]

There have been attempts already to divert the discussion toward religion and theology, so I'm on the look out for such attempts.

And that raises the question I asked earlier (and I guess you missed)....are you proposing this as a scientific hypothesis?

I don't think technically it is - as stated anyway, not without some firmer way to distinguish created structures from non-created.

I'm more concerned with its reasonableness and arguments for/against that claim, that it is reasonable.

So more of a thought exercise. Thanks for clarifying.

No, I didn't describe it as a "thought exercise" nor would I, it is what the OP states clearly it is, an attempt to discuss whether inferring design is a reasonable thing to do, whether it is more or less or just as, reasonable as inferring not-design. You seem continually confused about this, just read the OP and pay attention to what it says.

[Jose Fly]

There have been attempts already to divert the discussion toward religion and theology, so I'm on the look out for such attempts.

And that raises the question I asked earlier (and I guess you missed)....are you proposing this as a scientific hypothesis?

I don't think technically it is - as stated anyway, not without some firmer way to distinguish created structures from non-created.

I'm more concerned with its reasonableness and arguments for/against that claim, that it is reasonable.

So more of a thought exercise. Thanks for clarifying.

No, I didn't describe it as a "thought exercise" nor would I, it is what the OP states clearly it is, an attempt to discuss whether inferring design is a reasonable thing to do, whether it is more or less or just as, reasonable as inferring not-design. You seem continually confused about this, just read the OP and pay attention to what it says.

So it's not a religious issue, it's not a scientific hypothesis, and it's not a thought exercise. It's a discussion point.

The only reason I was asking was because if you were proposing it as a scientific hypothesis that would introduce some unique requirements. But since it's not, it doesn't matter.

[Sherlock Holmes]

There have been attempts already to divert the discussion toward religion and theology, so I'm on the look out for such attempts.

And that raises the question I asked earlier (and I guess you missed)....are you proposing this as a scientific hypothesis?

I don't think technically it is - as stated anyway, not without some firmer way to distinguish created structures from non-created.

I'm more concerned with its reasonableness and arguments for/against that claim, that it is reasonable.

So more of a thought exercise. Thanks for clarifying.

No, I didn't describe it as a "thought exercise" nor would I, it is what the OP states clearly it is, an attempt to discuss whether inferring design is a reasonable thing to do, whether it is more or less or just as, reasonable as inferring not-design. You seem continually confused about this, just read the OP and pay attention to what it says.

So it's not a religious issue, it's not a scientific hypothesis, and it's not a thought exercise. It's a discussion point.

The only reason I was asking was because if you were proposing it as a scientific hypothesis that would introduce some unique requirements. But since it's not, it doesn't matter.

Good, glad to see your comments are irrelevant to the thread's topic, thanks for clarifying.

[Jose Fly]

There have been attempts already to divert the discussion toward religion and theology, so I'm on the look out for such attempts.

And that raises the question I asked earlier (and I guess you missed)....are you proposing this as a scientific hypothesis?

I don't think technically it is - as stated anyway, not without some firmer way to distinguish created structures from non-created.

I'm more concerned with its reasonableness and arguments for/against that claim, that it is reasonable.

So more of a thought exercise. Thanks for clarifying.

No, I didn't describe it as a "thought exercise" nor would I, it is what the OP states clearly it is, an attempt to discuss whether inferring design is a reasonable thing to do, whether it is more or less or just as, reasonable as inferring not-design. You seem continually confused about this, just read the OP and pay attention to what it says.

So it's not a religious issue, it's not a scientific hypothesis, and it's not a thought exercise. It's a discussion point.

The only reason I was asking was because if you were proposing it as a scientific hypothesis that would introduce some unique requirements. But since it's not, it doesn't matter.

Good, glad to see your comments are irrelevant to the thread's topic, thanks for clarifying.

Looks that way. Again, my apologies for the diversion.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #2]

The only "verification" is in the opinions of people who claim they have experienced god (or God ... the one they happen to believe in out of thousands), or that god has revealed itself to them in some way, etc. Science cannot address this sort of thing because it is outside the realm of science, and properly belongs in the separate field of religion. So sure ... hypothesize gods all day long, but keep it on the religious side of the debate until some experimental or observational evidence can be produced that confirms their existence beyond personal experience and opinion.

Wow! and you tell me I need new talking points. At least I can support my talking points.

You cannot defend this statement.

Aristotle logically deduced that there has to be a God who he called the "Prime Mover and Unmoved Mover". Basically, a cause-and-effect argument that still holds true today. Kant's argument against Aristotle's proof that there has to be a God, was a denial of the cause and effect relationship. He called the cause and effect relationship an illusion. So for someone to believe that there is no God they have to depart from reality and believe that events have no cause.

So your belief that there is no God fails the logic test and the science test.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #35]

Not to mention that denying cause and effect equates to abandoning science itself which is predicated on cause and effect.

You can lead a horse to water...

[brunumb]

Aristotle logically deduced that there has to be a God who he called the "Prime Mover and Unmoved Mover". Basically, a cause-and-effect argument that still holds true today.

Aristotle also dismissed the particle theory of matter setting it back about 2000 years. Way to go Ari.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #35]

Wow! and you tell me I need new talking points. At least I can support my talking points.

You cannot defend this statement.

There's nothing to defend. No god beings have ever been demonstrated to actually exist, so until that happens it is reasonable to assume that they don't. Or do you have some proof that they do exist that isn't what I described?

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), or some effect like Z-pinch as an explanation for the distribution of radioactive elements on Earth when that clearly is ridiculous for the amounts of such material that exists. And there is sometimes reference to the occasional real science article that is cherry picked, quote mined or misinterpreted. These are all very weak defenses ... but proof of the existence of god beings I don't think has ever appeared in your posts.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
At least I can support my talking points.
...

About that.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #35]

Wow! and you tell me I need new talking points. At least I can support my talking points.

You cannot defend this statement.

There's nothing to defend. No god beings have ever been demonstrated to actually exist, so until that happens it is reasonable to assume that they don't.

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.

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.

Or do you have some proof that they do exist that isn't what I described?

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), or some effect like Z-pinch as an explanation for the distribution of radioactive elements on Earth when that clearly is ridiculous for the amounts of such material that exists. And there is sometimes reference to the occasional real science article that is cherry picked, quote mined or misinterpreted. These are all very weak defenses ... but proof of the existence of god beings I don't think has ever appeared in your posts.

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?