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?

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #398]

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?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #401]

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?

Sure ... but so far I've had no such experiences and am skeptical of stories of miracles, or prayers being answered, mysterious healing, and those sorts of things. Most (all?) can be explained by some natural event, chance (eg. efficacy of prayer), intoxication by the person involved, or some other non-god explanation.

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #402]

Sure ... but so far I've had no such experiences and am skeptical of stories of miracles, or prayers being answered, mysterious healing, and those sorts of things. Most (all?) can be explained by some natural event, chance (eg. efficacy of prayer), intoxication by the person involved, or some other non-god explanation.

What about NDEs and OOBEs? What of these, which created alternate experiences for those who then share said experiences?

What do you have to say about such things, that in the showing, you could convince them that they need not assume that they exist within a created thing [therefore 'a creator'(s)]?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #403]

What about NDEs and OOBEs? What of these, which created alternate experiences for those who then share said experiences?

I've never experienced either of these so cannot comment beyond speculation. But I think a lot of stories from people who "see a bright light" in near death experiences, and things similar to that, are in a state of semi-consciousness where the brain may be in a dream-like state or otherwise not at full capacity.

Most people dream nightly, often very vividly, and in dreams the brain can create all kinds of unreal scenarios as it apparently pieces together storylines from memory elements in ways that often are not at all realistic. If the brain can do that in normal humans as a regular process, I don't see why it would not or could not create similar effects to explain NDEs and OOBEs. I dont' see why anything supernatural would be needed though, or that we're somehow in a creation with some outside entity pulling the strings.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #395]

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 see. I assumed there wasn't any real investigation because in one example they concluded God must be the cause for lightning, which seems to me only a lazy investigation if we can even call it an investigation at all would lead to that conclusion.

I'm open to any of the gods being real. Can you say the same?

Yes, but I call them demi-gods for I accept the argument from change which leads to God being purely actual. All other ideas of god are to be false gods. But they could exist. Zues could be real or have been real.

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.

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.

[Clownboat]

There are stories in abundance that one can examine as evidence of such things happening to others.

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? It's the same evidence for each person, but points to different and competing god concept. These stories truly get us nowhere.

[Clownboat]

I do not think this is why people come to believe in God in general,

Then you would need to justify the actual cause as to why we have religion by geography as opposed to indoctrination by authorities at a young age.

more why they later in life after understanding arguments from evil and such retain their belief in God.

Careful to not project too much...
Humans are mostly retaining a belief in the god concept they were indoctrinated by authorities at a young age with.

Since most religious people follow the religion they were raised in, and since the believed in god concepts are due to where a person is born mostly, it makes it not very reasonable to 'assume' (see the OP) a creator (because of religion by geopgraphy). Being open to one, yes...

Religion by geography is one reason to not just 'assume' a creator. It is a reason to suspect that all the gods concepts are human ideas though, which is yet another reason to not just 'assume' a creator.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #407]

Here in America, we are also raised to believe in Santa clause and to be good because knew knows if we do good or bad, yet most of use come to know Santa is not real by age 5-7. Nothing ever brings us back to believe or take the idea seriously.

The idea of God is not so easily dismissed, although there is not much difference in being conditioned to the idea. And even if we do dismiss the idea, we sometimes come back to it, as I did. My son is still getting used to it. He is an adult, and I texted him the other day, saying something being a blessing from God. He said, what, God? Sense when do you believe in God? I thought we were like atheists?

What brought me back to God was Aquinas's writings and Aristotle. Aristotle helped me see that God can exist and doesn't need to be a being that is personal or gives revelations. Aquinas then helped me see why it is befitting God to be personal and how the God of Aristotle, the God of classical theism can be personal.

If God were merely an indoctrination like Santa, it would be easily dismissed like Santa.

[Clownboat]

Here in America, we are also raised to believe in Santa clause and to be good because knew knows if we do good or bad, yet most of use come to know Santa is not real by age 5-7. Nothing ever brings us back to believe or take the idea seriously.

This is easily explained.
When we find out that Santa isn't real, it is confirmed by the authorities that had us believe in the idea in the first place. Even the motive behind telling the Santa story may be explained and understood. Therefore, it has been easily explained as to why we don't return to Santa beliefs. Unlike god beliefs where some will tell you that you will burn in hell for disbelieving. There is no hell threat when kids find out that their parents are Santa so no motive to return to said belief.

The idea of God is not so easily dismissed, although there is not much difference in being conditioned to the idea.

Except for the great difference I allude to above, right?

And even if we do dismiss the idea, we sometimes come back to it, as I did.

Unlike Santa beliefs for the reasons explained above.

What brought me back to God was Aquinas's writings and Aristotle. Aristotle helped me see that God can exist and doesn't need to be a being that is personal or gives revelations. Aquinas then helped me see why it is befitting God to be personal and how the God of Aristotle, the God of classical theism can be personal.

It seems that for you, this is enough to not only assume a creator, but to take the leap to a specific creator. I don't feel it is reasonable to not only 'assume' a creator, but a specific one.

If God were merely an indoctrination like Santa, it would be easily dismissed like Santa.

God concept indoctrination is not like Santa indoctrination. When I was 7 and questioning Santa because of something I heard on the bus let's say, and my parents revealed that there isn't a Santa and that they had been behind the presents all these years, that would be nothing like questioning a god belief where your parents are telling you that you will burn in a lake of fire for eternity if you stop your belief. Surely you see the drastic difference and why they are so un-alike?

I never believed in Santa just to be clear.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #403]

What about NDEs and OOBEs? What of these, which created alternate experiences for those who then share said experiences?

What do you have to say about such things, that in the showing, you could convince them that they need not assume that they exist within a created thing [therefore 'a creator'(s)]?

I've never experienced either of these so cannot comment beyond speculation. But I think a lot of stories from people who "see a bright light" in near death experiences, and things similar to that, are in a state of semi-consciousness where the brain may be in a dream-like state or otherwise not at full capacity.

Most people dream nightly, often very vividly, and in dreams the brain can create all kinds of unreal scenarios as it apparently pieces together storylines from memory elements in ways that often are not at all realistic. If the brain can do that in normal humans as a regular process, I don't see why it would not or could not create similar effects to explain NDEs and OOBEs. I dont' see why anything supernatural would be needed though, or that we're somehow in a creation with some outside entity pulling the strings.

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

Atheistic Thinker: Nothing I've learned since the decision I made that Religious Beliefs ARE Delusional, has changed my mind, but if a god being made itself known in some way that was convincing to me ... I'd be happy to flip.

William: I myself doubt that this could ever be achieved for you, due to your making it the way that it is, through your own decisions, rather than through any god failing to pay you a visit.

Any god-being: Okay Atheistic Thinker - I have risen to your challenge. You see me now. Are you ready to flip?

Atheistic Thinker: Of course not! You are simply a product of my brain which obviously is having some kind of malfunction which has caused this delusion.

Any god-being: What if I stripped you naked, pinched you by the scruff and dangled you over the everlasting hellfire and threatened to drop you in it. Would you consider flipping then?

William: I would argue that Atheistic Thinker would continue arguing that his brain was being delusional. That even if he felt the pinch of his neck, the rising heat of the hellfire doom, the pooh running down his legs - he would cling to the belief that Religious Beliefs ARE Delusional and that he would wake up from the nightmare eventually - when his brain settled down again...and remain content not to flip...