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?
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
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.
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
William wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:34 pm
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..."
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
William wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:34 pm
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.
William wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:34 pm
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.
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
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.
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".
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?
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
