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?

[Clownboat]

...belief in invisible, supernatural agents - such as ghosts, angels, dead ancestors, and gods...

Those things have been made visible, through human conceptualizing and dressing up the mind behind creation that I was speaking about.

You war with language.
Ghosts, angels, dead ancestors and gods are in fact not visible and things do not become visible by conceptualizing them.

I know you desire for there to be a creator, but what is your take on the psychological reason for why it is claimed that humans assign agency to things?
For example, why are we here?
1. The gods.
2. We are in a simulation.
3. We don't know but humans tend to assign agency to such questions, which leads us to the god concepts and other explanations.

All could be valid, but humans assigning agency is the only one with real world evidence.

Much in the same way The Flying Spaghetti Monster has been made visible - dressing it up through conceptualizing in order to produce a visible image that one can show to another.

I could provide an image of Nessy for you to conceptualize. Nessy has not been made visible.
vis·i·ble
adjective
1.
able to be seen.

My position has it that the agency of the mind behind creation...

And here is where you lose me. First, you assume a creation, then you assign agency. All too 'human' of a mechanism for me and it explains things as well as inserting a god concept.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #431]

Ghosts, angels, dead ancestors and gods are in fact not visible and things do not become visible by conceptualizing them.

The very act of conceptualizing such things, makes them visible to you, otherwise you would not be able to understand what you are attempting to convey or be understood when you are making mention of them and folk would not be able to differentiate between your mention of a ghost and your mention of the flying spaghetti monster, or an invisible God and a Greek god.

Even if you were to counteract that by referring to such as simply "invisible entities", you are still referring to mindful concepts - only would not be able to make any further differentiation, so by differentiating in your argument that these things are 'all the same thing' as far as you are concerned, you also have to ignore that conceptionally, they are not, and so your argument is a strawman.

First, you assume a creation, then you assign agency.

More straw. I have not said that I assume we exist within a creation. A good practice is not to make claims as to what others say or do, but to quote where they said or did and comment about that.

[Clownboat]

Ghosts, angels, dead ancestors and gods are in fact not visible and things do not become visible by conceptualizing them.

The very act of conceptualizing such things, makes them visible to you,

The problem is yours as you are at war with the English language. Please correct your incorrect understanding of the word 'visible'.

vis·i·ble
adjective
1.
able to be seen.

con·cep·tu·al·ize
verb
form a concept or idea of (something).

im·ag·ine
verb
1.
form a mental image or concept of.

I have not said that I assume we exist within a creation.

Super, as that would not be a justifiable statement to make! Glad you are not making it.

A good practice is not to make claims as to what others say or do, but to quote where they said or did and comment about that.

Super duper! Care to comment on what I did say?
"I could provide an image of Nessy for you to conceptualize. Nessy has not been made visible.
vis·i·ble
adjective
1.
able to be seen."

I'm even tried to hold your hand above when I provided a definition of visible and explained how Nessy as in the example has not been made visible.
Rather than commenting on something I did say, you continue on with your lack of undstanding about the word visible. Oh hum... You can lead a horse to water...

[Clownboat]

More straw. I have not said that I assume we exist within a creation.

Gah!
Post 426 William statetd: "My position has it that the agency of the mind behind creation..."

[William]

More straw. I have not said that I assume we exist within a creation.

Gah!
Post 426 William statetd: "My position has it that the agency of the mind behind creation..."

Quote-mining and then commenting out of context is creating a strawman argument Clownboat.

Please consider desisting with such tatic.

For the reader;

What I wrote in context was;

My position has it that the agency of the mind behind creation doesn't cease to exist as a possibility, simply because the costumes are inappropriate imagery.

This is not me stating that I assume we exist within a creation, but that I have not closed the door on that possibility, just because some folk dress it in particular religious garb.

[Clownboat]

More straw. I have not said that I assume we exist within a creation.

Gah!
Post 426 William statetd: "My position has it that the agency of the mind behind creation..." doesn't cease to exist as a possibility. (Underline added).

Quote-mining and then commenting out of context is creating a strawman argument Clownboat.

Get off your cross, we need the wood!
It is a fact, that your position is that we exist within a creation. At least as far as we can tell from your words. See the bolded part above for the evidence. That the agent behind this creation remains a possibility does not remove your claim that you do in fact assume that we exist within a creation.

This is not me stating that I assume we exist within a creation,

You assume creation, the mind behind it you are open to being possible, this we get from your own words.
Perhaps you were not careful enough with the words you used, but that would not be my fault.

As of now, your words "the mind behind creation doesn't cease to exist as a possibility" clearly informs us that your position is one of a creation. That you are open to the mind that you claim might be behind it being a possibility helps you not with the claim you do in fact make about the creation. Please turn in your wood.

[William]

More straw. I have not said that I assume we exist within a creation.

Gah!

Post 426 William statetd: "My position has it that the agency of the mind behind creation..." doesn't cease to exist as a possibility. (Underline added).

Quote-mining and then commenting out of context is creating a strawman argument Clownboat.

[Replying to Clownboat in post #436]

Get off your cross, we need the wood!

Facetious impertinence noted.

It is a fact, that your position is that we exist within a creation.

If the reader has been following my posts, they will know that my position is that I think it highly likely that we exist in a simulated reality.

That the agent behind this creation remains a possibility does not remove your claim that you do in fact assume that we exist within a creation.

Incorrect. I assume nothing of the sort, as I am still compiling the evidence. In that, as I continue to show, the evidence appears to strongly suggest that this is the case. The suggestion is strong enough that I can examine the various Creator-Claims to see if any of them "fit the bill" re the evidence.

As of now, your words "the mind behind creation doesn't cease to exist as a possibility" clearly informs us that your position is one of a creation.

This is an incorrect analysis Clownboat. My position is still one of possible creation. It is a possibility, and therefore worth investigation.

That you are open to the mind that you claim might be behind it being a possibility

There is no other way in which one can approach re investigation. If a mind does exist, then I am open to hearing from it.

helps you not with the claim you do in fact make about the creation.

You conflate my position as one of 'claiming' when it is one of 'thinking it possible' - That is not my "bad".

Please turn in your wood.

[Clownboat]

This is an incorrect analysis Clownboat.

Got it. So it is your position that there is in fact not a mind behind a creation?

My position has it that the earth being flat doesn't cease to exist as a possibility.
What is my position on the shape of the earth in this thought experiment? Have you concluded that I think it to be a sphere, or is my wording sloppy?