Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Sherlock Holmes

Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #1

Post by 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:

Image

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?

Image

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

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2226
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 44 times
Contact:

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #261

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to brunumb in post #0]

[Replying to brunumb in post #251]
Who cares about early creeds. As far as miraculous events go, the Bible is merely a book of claims. It is not evidence that those claims are true.
The Bible was written as a narrative describing events that occurred. If you would like to claim that the Bible does not accurately claim what it says it is then we cannot know anything about what happened in antiquity.

How does the Bible compare to other ancient literature?
Number of manuscript copies:

Note: These numbers increase with ongoing discoveries in archeology. The most commonly used numbers in Christian Apologetics are based on data from about twenty years ago below in black. Thanks to Karl Udy and Dr. Clay Jones from Biola University, the updated numbers as of 2013, are in red:

In the discipline of philosophy:
Aristotle’s work has 5 manuscripts dated 1400 years from the events. Updated: 1000 manuscripts dated 1200 years from the events, written 384-322 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 850
Plato’s work (Tetralogies) has 210 (previously 7) manuscripts dated 1200 years from the events, written 427-347 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900.
In the discipline of history:
Pliny the younger’s work (Letters) has 7 (unconfirmed) manuscripts dated 750 years from the events, written A.D. 61-113, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 850.
Pliny the Elder (Natural History) has 200 (previously 7) manuscripts, dated 900 years from the events, written A.D. 23-79, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 1000.
Herodotus’ work has 8 manuscripts dated 1300 years from the events. Updated: 109 manuscripts dated 1350 years from the events, written 480-425 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900.
Caesar’s firsthand account of the Gallic Wars has 10 manuscripts, dated 1000 years from the events. Updated: 251 manuscripts, dated 900 years from the events, written 10-44 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 1000.
Tacitus’ Greek history (Annals) has 20 manuscripts, dated 1000 years from the events. Updated: 33 manuscripts, dated 750 years from the events, written in A.D. 100, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 850.
Thucydides’ work has 50 manuscripts, dated 1300 years from the events, written 460-400 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900.
Sophocles’ work (Tragedies) has 193 manuscripts (previously 100), dated 1200 years from the events, written 496-406 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900.
Livy’s work (History of Rome) has 150 manuscripts (previously 19), dated 400 years from the events, written 59 B.C.- A.D. 17, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 400.
Demosthenes’ Speeches has 340 manuscripts (previously 200), dated 1400 years from the events, written 300 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 1100.
In second place is Homer’s Iliad, the history of the Trojan War, has 900 manuscripts, dated 950 years from the events. Updated: 1757 manuscripts, dated 400 years from the events, written 800 B.C., with the earliest copy dated 400 B.C.
***In first place is the Bible’s New Testament! The total count for early New Testament Manuscripts available today is over 25,000! (previously 24,000) and Josh McDowell has recently claimed that we have closer to 66,000 with the advent of many discoveries in artifacts, like mummy wrappings, that contain Biblical manuscript fragments. Numbers include:
5795 (up from 5366) Greek Manuscripts dated 30 to 150 years from the events, written A.D. 49-95 with the eariest copy dated A.D. 117 (and a few that are possibly dated first century still under review).
Over 7974 manuscripts in other languages (Armenian, coptic, Gothic, Ethiopian, Syriac, Georgian and Slavic) dated early second century and on (100-150 years)
Over 10,000 manuscripts in the Latin Vulgate dated from the third century and on (300-350 years)
The Bible, and the New Testament in particular, has only primary source authors who were eyewitnesses or who were alive at the time of the events.
The New Testament autographs were complete and in use by the end of the first century A.D. and has surviving manuscripts and fragments dated within 25 to 150 years of the events.

https://truthfaithandreason.com/case-ma ... documents/

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2226
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 44 times
Contact:

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #262

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #260]
And can't show their god to exist to be the eternal they can't show he'd be if he did exist.
Still waiting for that evidence that there is some sort of eternal material universe outside of this universe. Or are you going to take the agnostic path also?

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #263

Post by JoeyKnothead »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:24 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #260]
And can't show their god to exist to be the eternal they can't show he'd be if he did exist.
Still waiting for that evidence that there is some sort of eternal material universe outside of this universe. Or are you going to take the agnostic path also?
Still trying to get some of y'all to understand I'm under no obligation to support claims I don't make.

I don't claim to know how the universe came to be, whether by external, eternal, or godly means.

But I do note how goofy of thought it is for the bible bunch to claim a god did it, sans confirmatory evidence, and how, sans confirmatory evidence, that god there's all eternal and all.

Your request for evidence of eternality seems solely linked to biblist claims, sans evidence, that their favored god had him something to do with it.

It may well be the universe has existed 'eternally'. At least with that notion we get persimmons.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #264

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

<DELETED>

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2226
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 44 times
Contact:

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #265

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #263]
Still trying to get some of y'all to understand I'm under no obligation to support claims I don't make.
That is your point isn't it, not to make any claim about anything and defend nothing. The French would call a person like this a provocateur.
I don't claim to know how the universe came to be, whether by external, eternal, or godly means.
So when you know something about anything let me know and we will talk again.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #266

Post by JoeyKnothead »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 4:04 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #263]
Still trying to get some of y'all to understand I'm under no obligation to support claims I don't make.
That is your point isn't it, not to make any claim about anything and defend nothing.
Would ya prefer I made claims I knew I couldn't support?
The French would call a person like this a provocateur.
Hillbillies'd call em honest.
So when you know something about anything let me know and we will talk again.
I know the theist can't show their favored god had him a hand in any of it.

Or maybe you'll be the first'n to put truth to it?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 10012
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 1216 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #267

Post by Clownboat »

JoeyKnothead wrote:Still trying to get some of y'all to understand I'm under no obligation to support claims I don't make.
That is your point isn't it, not to make any claim about anything and defend nothing. The French would call a person like this a provocateur.

Holy crap! No, that is not the point! The point is that no person should have to defend claims that they haven't made. Wow!
I don't claim to know how the universe came to be, whether by external, eternal, or godly means.
So when you know something about anything let me know and we will talk again.
What meaningless words. If only you had a god on your side helping you to defeat the ungoldy here in debate. Would sure lend credence to the god of the Bible if followers debated like they had some help. Wouldn't prove the god persay, but it would sure be noted how Bible God followers seem better equipped. What a shame that such an opportunity is not taken by the said god. The god concept not existing would explain such a thing. It being a god of love for its creations doesn't.
Take from that what you will readers.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6892 times
Been thanked: 3244 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #268

Post by brunumb »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:19 pm The Bible was written as a narrative describing events that occurred. If you would like to claim that the Bible does not accurately claim what it says it is then we cannot know anything about what happened in antiquity.
When one knows so little about who wrote the Bible stories and when they were written, it is presumptuous to claim anything about what it accurately describes or the motives of the authors in writing their narratives. I agree that we cannot know anything about what happened in antiquity to any degree of certainty. But how does any of it really matter when it does not have the same intended clout or impact as religious propaganda? If Julius Caesar didn't really exist or carry out any of his alleged exploits, so what? No one is demanding we completely run our lives around belief in that particular JC.

As for the numbers of publications concerning different historical figures, what does that prove? Nothing.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6892 times
Been thanked: 3244 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #269

Post by brunumb »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:19 pm The Bible, and the New Testament in particular, has only primary source authors who were eyewitnesses or who were alive at the time of the events.
Now that is a significant claim that you will have to support. Please identify the authors and demonstrate that they were indeed eyewitnesses.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3791
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 4089 times
Been thanked: 2434 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #270

Post by Difflugia »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:19 pmThe Bible was written as a narrative describing events that occurred. If you would like to claim that the Bible does not accurately claim what it says it is then we cannot know anything about what happened in antiquity.
Nonsense. The Bible is terrible as history by the standards of historians. The arguments attempting to equate it with the efforts of classical Greco-Roman historians are little more than contrived slippery slope arguments. I've dealt with this argument a few times in the past of this forum, but if you think you have new arguments, feel free to present them.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:19 pmHow does the Bible compare to other ancient literature?
Number of manuscript copies:
You're confusing your apologetic arguments. Number of extant copies is a measure of assurance that the words we have are reasonably close to the words as penned by the authors. No simple number of manuscripts, however, will turn the New Testament into good history. It's not a matter of how reliable our reconstructions of original texts are, but a genre discussion. I'm quite certain that my copy of Wind in the Willows matches the original, but I don't think that a historical Mr. Toad actually had a brand-new motorcar.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Post Reply