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
AquinasForGod
Sage
Posts: 972
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:29 am
Location: USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 71 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #391

Post by AquinasForGod »

Clownboat wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:45 pm
AquinasForGod wrote:Or do you take the position of, excuse my harshness, that of a lazy person that goes, well, I don't care about all that.

How did this universe come about?:
1) I don't know, let's investigate.
2) God did it.

What causes thunder and lighting?:
1) I don't know, let's investigate.
2) The gods!

Why is this person raving mad:?
1) I don't know, let's investigate.
2) Demons!

Which route is truly the easy/lazy route?
Both examples are lazy. I thought you said you agree that belief in God is not unreasonable, yet you think those lazy arguments are why people believe?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #392

Post by William »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #390]
It was achieved for me the first 20 or so years of my life. I was immersed in Christianity from birth and never questioned it, assuming (as I had been taught) that it was the only "true" religion. Then I got older, got an education, met some Hindus and many people who practiced other religions, and decided to study the subject enough to decide for myself whether I believed any of it, or if any of the thousands of gods that humans had invented were actually real, if the possibility of an afterlife was actually a real thing, etc. At the end of the process I was convinced that gods most likely do not exist, humans don't have afterlives, and I've seen nothing since to convince me otherwise.
My point was, that you saw nothing to begin with and that anything you would see, would not convince you.
I may be incorrect of course, but until someone in your position is able to say what it is they might see which will convince them to flip - I think that nothing they see would make the slightest difference.
So it was through my own decisions, but if any god had "paid me a visit" (then, or since) I would change my mind if the episode was convincing enough.
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?
I've simply never seen any evidence for their existence, or for anything supernatural of any kind. I don't believe in gods for exactly the same simple reason I don't believe in ghosts, fairies, the boogieman, spirits, etc. ... no evidence for them.
Is there any evidence about reality that you could show me that would convince me that we do not exist within a created thing?

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #393

Post by Clownboat »

William wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 1:44 pm How did this universe come about?:
1) I don't know, let's investigate.
2) God did it?
3) It did itself?
That would be part of an investigation. Asserting a god would forgo the need to investigate anything else as an answer is pretended to be known already.
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
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #394

Post by William »

Clownboat wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:41 pm
William wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 1:44 pm How did this universe come about?:
1) I don't know, let's investigate.
2) God did it?
3) It did itself?
That would be part of an investigation. Asserting a god would forgo the need to investigate anything else as an answer is pretended to be known already.
True that.

We first have to establish that we are or are not existing within a creation before establishing/pretending to establish the nature of any creator(s.)

What have you been doing re investigating the possibility that we are existing within a creation ?

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #395

Post by Clownboat »

AquinasForGod wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:23 pm Both examples are lazy.

Incorrect.
'Let's investigate' would require work.
'God did it' requires no further work.
Therefore, one could be clasified as lazy, but not the other.
I thought you said you agree that belief in God is not unreasonable
I'm open to any of the gods being real. Can you say the same?
yet you think those lazy arguments are why people believe?
False, I never claimed that is why people believe as I feel that most people believe due to indoctrination by authorities at a young age. You referred to not carring to think about a subject as being lazy. I was just correcting that statement by showing which mechanism is the actual easy/lazy route.
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
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #396

Post by Clownboat »

William wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:23 pm Is there any evidence about reality that you could show me that would convince me that we do not exist within a created thing?
No silly! We don't know if the universe was created or not.
Can you show me any evidence that would convince me that the Vikings did not win the super bowl, next year?
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
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #397

Post by Clownboat »

William wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:44 pm
Clownboat wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:41 pm
William wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 1:44 pm How did this universe come about?:
1) I don't know, let's investigate.
2) God did it?
3) It did itself?
That would be part of an investigation. Asserting a god would forgo the need to investigate anything else as an answer is pretended to be known already.
True that.

We first have to establish that we are or are not existing within a creation before establishing/pretending to establish the nature of any creator(s.)

What have you been doing re investigating the possibility that we are existing within a creation ?
Reading about and debating such an idea. Currently, I have come to the conclusion that we don't know if the universe was created or not. Surely you agree with my 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

User avatar
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 #398

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to William in post #392]
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.

Anyone's belief (or not) in god beings is presumably the result of their being convinced in one way or another of that belief. For me it is simply lack of any kind of convincing evidence, along with the lack of any need to invoke god beings to explain nature (unsolved problems do not default to god explanations). They are superflous IMO.
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

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #399

Post by brunumb »

William wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:23 pm My point was, that you saw nothing to begin with and that anything you would see, would not convince you.
I may be incorrect of course, but until someone in your position is able to say what it is they might see which will convince them to flip - I think that nothing they see would make the slightest difference.
The difficulty lies in not really being able to predict what could or will tip one over from one position of belief to another. Everyone has a different threshold of credulity. Some people might be convinced there is a god because they asked for help and found their car keys. Or they asked for a loved one to be cured of a disease. Or they saw a vision that they were convinced was Jesus. The list goes on and on. The thing is that even if we find none of those as compelling reasons to believe, there may be an unforeseen event or experience that manages to change our mind. That we can't predict or suggest what it might be does not preclude the possibility. The more one is familiar with extraordinary things and the natural behaviour of our universe, the higher the bar moves for us to consider something to only have a supernatural explanation.
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
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #400

Post by William »

[Replying to brunumb in post #399]
The difficulty lies in not really being able to predict what could or will tip one over from one position of belief to another. Everyone has a different threshold of credulity. Some people might be convinced there is a god because they asked for help and found their car keys. Or they asked for a loved one to be cured of a disease. Or they saw a vision that they were convinced was Jesus. The list goes on and on.
Of those things you mention, would it be presumptuous to assume atheistic thinkers [in general] would not accept those things as evidence enough to make them flip?
The thing is that even if we find none of those as compelling reasons to believe, there may be an unforeseen event or experience that manages to change our mind. That we can't predict or suggest what it might be does not preclude the possibility.
Given that may be the overall standard atheistic thinking has on it, the demand for evidence which would make one flip when one has no idea what said evidence would consist of, means that the demands are too obscure to even be considered legitimate.

This in turn, makes the emptiness ring out and the demands for evidence hollow - like a sounding bell...only less melodious.
The more one is familiar with extraordinary things and the natural behavior of our universe, the higher the bar moves for us to consider something to only have a supernatural explanation.
Why would one consider that existing within a creation would be equal to evidence such a thing as 'supernatural' must therefore exist?

Post Reply