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?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #410]

Does the narration below capture the essence of what you are arguing?

Not at all. Dreams and the like are not "malfunctions" but perfectly normal. And they are not delusions but actions of the brain when in a certain state (sleep, or under medication, or any state that may not be fully awake, alert and unhindered consciousness). There are obviously mental illnesses that could be characterized as "malfunctions", but I'm not referring to those. Belief in gods is not a malfunction, or delusional as in "crazy." It is simply a belief many people adopt because they are convinced it is correct.

[William]

If the visitation was as real as anything you think of as real and are convinced is real, you would flip. Is this what you are attempting to convey?
Of course ... what else? Some tangible evidence that the god in question actually exists in reality. It need not be an actual physical "visitation", but some action or event that was so convincing to me that I would conclude that it must be the work of a god being. Something not explainable any other way.
There are stories in abundance that one can examine as evidence of such things happening to others.
Would you be inclined to admit that since this is the case that others are having such experiences and reporting those experiences, that they have justification for concluding that it must be the work of a god being, just as you say that you would, if such happened to you?

Look what my god has done for me! Says the Hindu.
Look what my god has done for me! Says the Muslim.
Look what my god has done for me! Says the Christian.

Can you see why such statements must be meaningless?

I have always maintained - as part of my own investigations and subsequent arguments - that religions "dress up the ghost" to their own specifications, but that does not mean that the 'ghost' therefore doesn't exist or is proven not to exist because of religious differences in apparel.

It's the same evidence for each person, but points to different and competing god concept.

The stories are not necessarily meaningless and we would expect that the same type of alternate experience will be conveyed differently by individual personalities but I can't say I have encountered any information from what I have investigated so far, which shows the NDEer/OOBEer peddling competitive notions of supposed gods...

These stories truly get us nowhere.

...as their stories convey the idea of GOD quiet differently from how religions traditionally do it. So I myself count that as 'getting us somewhere'...

[William]

[Replying to William in post #410]

Does the narration below capture the essence of what you are arguing?

Not at all. Dreams and the like are not "malfunctions" but perfectly normal. And they are not delusions but actions of the brain when in a certain state (sleep, or under medication, or any state that may not be fully awake, alert and unhindered consciousness). There are obviously mental illnesses that could be characterized as "malfunctions", but I'm not referring to those. Belief in gods is not a malfunction, or delusional as in "crazy." It is simply a belief many people adopt because they are convinced it is correct.

The clue re my question was in the bolded parts where the atheistic thinker always returns to the belief "the brain did it"
So I will ask once more;

Does the narration capture the essence of what you are arguing? [The Brain Did It.]

The "delusion" aspect might cover the idea of folk resisting the belief that brains do anything of the sort.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #413]

The clue re my question was in the bolded parts where the atheistic thinker always returns to the belief "the brain did it"
So I will ask once more;

Does the narration capture the essence of what you are arguing? [The Brain Did It.]

You're moving the goal posts. First it is references to malfunctions and delusional thought, now that has been reduced to "The Brain Did It" which is generic for anything and everything a brain could possibly do. I don't think my comments about dreams and the brain operating normally, but in less than fully awake modes, is anything specific to "atheist thought." In fact it has nothing to do with anyone' views on gods or religions. This is like whack-a-mole.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #413]

The clue re my question was in the bolded parts where the atheistic thinker always returns to the belief "the brain did it"
So I will ask once more;

Does the narration capture the essence of what you are arguing? [The Brain Did It.]

The "delusion" aspect might cover the idea of folk resisting the belief that brains do anything of the sort. [The Brain Did It.]

You're moving the goal posts. First it is references to malfunctions and delusional thought, now that has been reduced to "The Brain Did It" which is generic for anything and everything a brain could possibly do. I don't think my comments about dreams and the brain operating normally, but in less than fully awake modes, is anything specific to "atheist thought." In fact it has nothing to do with anyone' views on gods or religions. This is like whack-a-mole.

Okay. In that case, I can disregard the theory "the brain did it" as being a relevant atheistic argument against theistic related experiences.

[brunumb]

I agree that most people hold to a particular view of God because of how they were raised, which is why most people follow the religion of their culture and or family if their family moved to a new place with a different culture.

I do not think this is why people come to believe in God in general, though, more why they later in life after understanding arguments from evil and such retain their belief in God.

Childhood indoctrination produces the majority of believers. Vulnerable minds are inculcated with specific god beliefs. Most of those are imbued with a fear factor that involves dire consequences if you upset or betray your god in some way. That is a powerful force that makes sure believers stick with the program. It is only a relative few that spend time shoring up their belief by considering arguments and alleged evidence. The rest just consume the product, follow the user manual and look forward to their promised reward.

[AquinasForGod]

I agree that most people hold to a particular view of God because of how they were raised, which is why most people follow the religion of their culture and or family if their family moved to a new place with a different culture.

I do not think this is why people come to believe in God in general, though, more why they later in life after understanding arguments from evil and such retain their belief in God.

Childhood indoctrination produces the majority of believers. Vulnerable minds are inculcated with specific god beliefs. Most of those are imbued with a fear factor that involves dire consequences if you upset or betray your god in some way. That is a powerful force that makes sure believers stick with the program. It is only a relative few that spend time shoring up their belief by considering arguments and alleged evidence. The rest just consume the product, follow the user manual and look forward to their promised reward.

That is an interesting view, but I see no reason to accept it. People born in secular societies, raised by non-religious parents come to God, such as in Sweden. But no adults come to Santa.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
But no adults come to Santa.

I don't think that's such the great argument you might think it is.

[brunumb]

I agree that most people hold to a particular view of God because of how they were raised, which is why most people follow the religion of their culture and or family if their family moved to a new place with a different culture.

I do not think this is why people come to believe in God in general, though, more why they later in life after understanding arguments from evil and such retain their belief in God.

Childhood indoctrination produces the majority of believers. Vulnerable minds are inculcated with specific god beliefs. Most of those are imbued with a fear factor that involves dire consequences if you upset or betray your god in some way. That is a powerful force that makes sure believers stick with the program. It is only a relative few that spend time shoring up their belief by considering arguments and alleged evidence. The rest just consume the product, follow the user manual and look forward to their promised reward.

That is an interesting view, but I see no reason to accept it. People born in secular societies, raised by non-religious parents come to God, such as in Sweden. But no adults come to Santa.

I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't know why that is so.

[Clownboat]

Look what my god has done for me! Says the Hindu.
Look what my god has done for me! Says the Muslim.
Look what my god has done for me! Says the Christian.

Can you see why such statements must be meaningless?

I have always maintained - as part of my own investigations and subsequent arguments - that religions "dress up the ghost" to their own specifications, but that does not mean that the 'ghost' therefore doesn't exist or is proven not to exist because of religious differences in apparel.

I never said the ghost therefore doesn't exist.
Clearly, I asked you if you can see why such statements are meaningless. Can you? It's hard to tell because you went off on another topic instead of answer the question that was asked of you.

It's the same evidence for each person, but points to different and competing god concept.

The stories are not necessarily meaningless

Yes they are.
Look what my god has done for me! Says the Hindu.
Look what my god has done for me! Says the Muslim.
Look what my god has done for me! Says the Christian.
They are meaningless due to the fact that such stories in no way shape or form point to a specific god concept. They are used to point to competing god concepts.

Look at evidence X.
It shows us that the color must have been blue.
It also shows that it must have been green.
It also shows that it must have been yellow.
How meaningful is evidence X when trying to determine the color? 'Look what my god has done for me' also doesn't point to a specific god/color and is literally used to justify competing answers.