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?
Is it reasonable to assume a creator?
Moderator: Moderators
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?
Post #2[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]
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.
It is reasonable as a hypothesis, but so far has failed the next step which is observational and experimental support for the hypothesis that such an intelligence exists (in the form of a god being, or something else). Humans have invented literally thousands of gods meant to explain the universe, how it came to be, natural phenomena they did not understand at the time, etc. But so far no such being has ever made itself known in any concrete, verifiable way that is compatible with experiment and obsevation (science).So isn't this all reasonable? is there anything unreasonable about this position?
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.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?
Post #3So you agree it is a reasonable hypothesis, just as reasonable as the hypothesis "it just so happens to exist with all these laws, patterns just there, with all that takes place in the universe just being fluke".DrNoGods wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:31 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]
It is reasonable as a hypothesis, but so far has failed the next step which is observational and experimental support for the hypothesis that such an intelligence exists (in the form of a god being, or something else). Humans have invented literally thousands of gods meant to explain the universe, how it came to be, natural phenomena they did not understand at the time, etc. But so far no such being has ever made itself known in any concrete, verifiable way that is compatible with experiment and obsevation (science).So isn't this all reasonable? is there anything unreasonable about this position?
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.
Do you think for this other hypothesis too, that there's no "observational and experimental support for the hypothesis"? Do you think this is true of both hypotheses?
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9389
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1262 times
Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?
Post #4The ONLY reasonable conclusion we can come to in regards to the beginning of our universe is that we don't know.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:35 am 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?
Speculate what you will to be the cause (I note you choose your preferred religious God as the cause, no suprise as this is very common), but speculating a cause doesn't make an unknown to be known. We just don't know what we don't know and we don't know if gods were involved or not involved with our universe if we are being honest.
Positing any of the gods justs adds more layers of questions. Like, what created/caused the gods. So the gods as explanitory has faults of its own.
I acknowledge that humans have created all the available god concepts. What's your thoughts on where all the god concepts came from? Do you think civilizations made them to provide answers to unknowns, for example, like how did we get a universe as we now discuss? Humans creating god concepts does explain how we got each and every available god conept, surely you see this. Doesn't mean one can't be true of course, that idea just doesn't 'explain' things very well.
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
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
Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?
Post #5You are incorrect, my OP does not even contain the term "God" others have used that term in their replies but that's their choice, I certainly have made no mention of it.Clownboat wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 2:01 pmThe ONLY reasonable conclusion we can come to in regards to the beginning of our universe is that we don't know.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:35 am 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?
Speculate what you will to be the cause (I note you choose your preferred religious God as the cause, no suprise as this is very common),
So are you saying neither hypothesis is reasonable?
Reasonable doesn't mean asserting it is true, it just means that it appears to be something that could be true, we have no reason to really say it can't be true. What we see appears to be compatible with the hypothesis.
Nor did I say otherwise.
EXactly.
Yes, each hypothesis raises a further set of questions, that's true and not unique to any one hypothesis.
That's outside the scope I think of this thread, this thread is trying to establish if it is reasonable to take the view that everything is the work of some kind of intelligence rather than something devoid of intelligence.Clownboat wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 2:01 pm I acknowledge that humans have created all the available god concepts. What's your thoughts on where all the god concepts came from? Do you think civilizations made them to provide answers to unknowns, for example, like how did we get a universe as we now discuss? Humans creating god concepts does explain how we got each and every available god conept, surely you see this. Doesn't mean one can't be true of course, that idea just doesn't 'explain' things very well.
I don't want to speculate on the different beliefs there are about the nature of that intelligence, not in this thread anyway.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?
Post #6[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #3]
Gods or some other intelligence (call it what you like) are purely hypothesized to exist and have no track record of ever having been discovered or shown to actually exist. So no ... I'd say the god/intelligence hypothesis is less reasonable than an eventual natural explanation for whatever unsolve problem you want to choose.
I would not say "just as reasonable" for the simple reason that one has some basis while the other is pure speculation. Science has a very good track record of explaining nature to date, despite there being many unanswered questions (origin of universe mechanism(s), origin of life mechanism(s), dark matter and energy, how to cure cancers, etc.). Advances are made every day and some of the technological and medical knowledge we have today would not have been imagined 200 years ago, or even 100 year ago.So you agree it is a reasonable hypothesis, just as reasonable as the hypothesis "it just so happens to exist with all these laws, patterns just there, with all that takes place in the universe just being fluke".
Gods or some other intelligence (call it what you like) are purely hypothesized to exist and have no track record of ever having been discovered or shown to actually exist. So no ... I'd say the god/intelligence hypothesis is less reasonable than an eventual natural explanation for whatever unsolve problem you want to choose.
See above ... science has a track record, while god concepts or intelligence behind it all (so far) does not. It remains pure speculation.Do you think for this other hypothesis too, that there's no "observational and experimental support for the hypothesis"? Do you think this is true of both hypotheses?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3539
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1142 times
- Been thanked: 735 times
Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?
Post #7Sure it's reasonable.
And I have no objection to treating it as if it is true until we come to an impasse.
But that doesn't mean the creator is alive now. It may have been a product of chaos that decided in its one instant of consciousness to create a logical universe and done so, then flickered right back out of existence again.
And I have no objection to treating it as if it is true until we come to an impasse.
But that doesn't mean the creator is alive now. It may have been a product of chaos that decided in its one instant of consciousness to create a logical universe and done so, then flickered right back out of existence again.
Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?
Post #8I see, that's an interesting opinion.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 2:42 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #3]
I would not say "just as reasonable" for the simple reason that one has some basis while the other is pure speculation.So you agree it is a reasonable hypothesis, just as reasonable as the hypothesis "it just so happens to exist with all these laws, patterns just there, with all that takes place in the universe just being fluke".
But hold on, both hypotheses are scientific and the intelligence one is more so. It ascribes intelligence to things we recognize as requiring intelligence, like structure languages and so on, the other hypothesis seems less scientific to me.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 2:42 pm Science has a very good track record of explaining nature to date, despite there being many unanswered questions (origin of universe mechanism(s), origin of life mechanism(s), dark matter and energy, how to cure cancers, etc.). Advances are made every day and some of the technological and medical knowledge we have today would not have been imagined 200 years ago, or even 100 year ago.
What do you mean "no track record"? every time we've found things like writing or engineered constructions in archeology we take it for granted these are the work of intelligence. We never claim that these arose all by themselves, do we? are you saying that archeologists are unreasonable and should assume these are all natural things, where intelligence played no part whatsoever?DrNoGods wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 2:42 pm Gods or some other intelligence (call it what you like) are purely hypothesized to exist and have no track record of ever having been discovered or shown to actually exist. So no ... I'd say the god/intelligence hypothesis is less reasonable than an eventual natural explanation for whatever unsolve problem you want to choose.
Given all this surely its reasonable to allow for the possibility that the universe too is the result of intelligence?
Once again the intelligence idea is a scientific hypothesis and why do you keep bringing up god?DrNoGods wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 2:42 pmSee above ... science has a track record, while god concepts or intelligence behind it all (so far) does not. It remains pure speculation.Do you think for this other hypothesis too, that there's no "observational and experimental support for the hypothesis"? Do you think this is true of both hypotheses?
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?
Post #9I'll repeat....assume and hypothesize all you like....no one will stop you. But if you're hoping to have an impact in the world of science you'll have to do more than that.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:35 am So isn't this all reasonable? is there anything unreasonable about this position?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?
Post #10What a strange response to post. Why ever would you think that discussing a subject in a small forum like this would be an attempt to "impact the world of science"? strange, very strange.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 3:53 pmI'll repeat....assume and hypothesize all you like....no one will stop you. But if you're hoping to have an impact in the world of science you'll have to do more than that.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:35 am So isn't this all reasonable? is there anything unreasonable about this position?