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?

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

Things like writing or engineered constructions have existing precedents for comparison so it is not unreasonable to take it for granted these are the work of intelligence.

Of course, I know that.

Then why present an argument that you know has no merit?

Why present an argument at all when people don't read all of it.

[Purple Knight]

It seems to me, reasonable that these laws have more in common with something a mind would produce rather than just undirected forces, is this not reasonable?

The only thing missing is a basis for comparison. We would need to look at and examine something that really was random and uncreated, undirected, to get anything meaningful out of looking at something and thinking it's the work of an intelligent creative force.

And what's really troubling is that our whole basis for thinking this way in the first place - here is a piece of poop this is obviously not intentionally designed and is just refuse, but here is a clock and this was clearly designed - is rendered non-functional since if the universe really was created down to the last piece of poop, everything was designed and our ability to pick out the designed from the random is proven meaningless, and indeed wrong.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It seems to me, reasonable that these laws have more in common with something a mind would produce rather than just undirected forces, is this not reasonable?

The only thing missing is a basis for comparison. We would need to look at and examine something that really was random and uncreated, undirected, to get anything meaningful out of looking at something and thinking it's the work of an intelligent creative force.

I agree, well said, is there anything matching that description (random and uncreated, undirected)?

And what's really troubling is that our whole basis for thinking this way in the first place - here is a piece of poop this is obviously not intentionally designed and is just refuse, but here is a clock and this was clearly designed - is rendered non-functional since if the universe really was created down to the last piece of poop, everything was designed and our ability to pick out the designed from the random is proven meaningless, and indeed wrong.

You raise some interesting points (about time somebody here did) how can we prove that anything wasn't designed?

But please excuse me, I'm working now on my steampunk workshop (a project I've been pursuing for some months) and I must decide on the kind of wall clock I want...

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #8]

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?

Of course not. As brunumb commented, we have a lot of experience recognizing what humans and other animals have "designed." Ancient structures, beaver dams, bird nests, and many other examples fit into that category so we have a sound basis for knowing not only that they were designed, but who/what the designer was. We can also see rivers, grand canyons, mountain ranges, etc. and know how those came about naturally without having to attribute them to some kind of intelligence. Then we look out at the universe and can't answer all the questions yet, but it doesn't default that some intelligence was involved.

Given all this surely its reasonable to allow for the possibility that the universe too is the result of intelligence?

It could be, but there's just no evidence for the source of this intelligence. Sure ... keep looking for it or any evidence of its existence ... but until it is found it is just an unsupported hypothesis.

Once again the intelligence idea is a scientific hypothesis and why do you keep bringing up god?

I specifically said in post 6 (the one you responded to with the above comment):

"Gods or some other intelligence (call it what you like)..."

So if you don't like the word "god", replace it with "some kind of intelligent being" and type that out instead. Not sure why you've brought up several times in this thread that you specifically didn't mention god/God in the OP. Given your post history, what other intelligence could you possibly be referring to? Why not just call it lowercase "god" as a generic word to encompass all of the potential prospects?

[Tcg]

Of course not. As brunumb commented, we have a lot of experience recognizing what humans and other animals have "designed." Ancient structures, beaver dams, bird nests, and many other examples fit into that category so we have a sound basis for knowing not only that they were designed, but who/what the designer was. We can also see rivers, grand canyons, mountain ranges, etc. and know how those came about naturally without having to attribute them to some kind of intelligence. Then we look out at the universe and can't answer all the questions yet, but it doesn't default that some intelligence was involved.

This reminds of that watch on a beach argument. Some dude is walking on a beach and sees a watch and concludes it must have been created. Sure, by humans. The argument is never that some dude is walking on a beach a sees sand and concludes it must have been created. No intelligence is needed to form sand and thus this famous "argument for God" has to create the idea of a watch on a beach. Who would pick up a handful of sand and conclude, God must of done it.


Tcg

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #8]

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?

Of course not. As brunumb commented, we have a lot of experience recognizing what humans and other animals have "designed." Ancient structures, beaver dams, bird nests, and many other examples fit into that category so we have a sound basis for knowing not only that they were designed, but who/what the designer was. We can also see rivers, grand canyons, mountain ranges, etc. and know how those came about naturally without having to attribute them to some kind of intelligence. Then we look out at the universe and can't answer all the questions yet, but it doesn't default that some intelligence was involved.

So, do Maxwell's equations not carry an implication of some kind of design, akin to human writing or carved objects and so on? When you examine the equations what goes through your mind?

Given all this surely its reasonable to allow for the possibility that the universe too is the result of intelligence?

It could be, but there's just no evidence for the source of this intelligence. Sure ... keep looking for it or any evidence of its existence ... but until it is found it is just an unsupported hypothesis.

Well not knowing what the source was doesn't prove that something was not designed, not to me anyway.

Once again the intelligence idea is a scientific hypothesis and why do you keep bringing up god?

I specifically said in post 6 (the one you responded to with the above comment):

"Gods or some other intelligence (call it what you like)..."

So if you don't like the word "god", replace it with "some kind of intelligent being" and type that out instead. Not sure why you've brought up several times in this thread that you specifically didn't mention god/God in the OP. Given your post history, what other intelligence could you possibly be referring to? Why not just call it lowercase "god" as a generic word to encompass all of the potential prospects?

There have been attempts already to divert the discussion toward religion and theology, so I'm on the look out for such attempts.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Of course not. As brunumb commented, we have a lot of experience recognizing what humans and other animals have "designed." Ancient structures, beaver dams, bird nests, and many other examples fit into that category so we have a sound basis for knowing not only that they were designed, but who/what the designer was. We can also see rivers, grand canyons, mountain ranges, etc. and know how those came about naturally without having to attribute them to some kind of intelligence. Then we look out at the universe and can't answer all the questions yet, but it doesn't default that some intelligence was involved.

This reminds of that watch on a beach argument. Some dude is walking on a beach and sees a watch and concludes it must have been created. Sure, by humans. The argument is never that some dude is walking on a beach a sees sand and concludes it must have been created. No intelligence is needed to form sand and thus this famous "argument for God" has to create the idea of a watch on a beach. Who would pick up a handful of sand and conclude, God must of done it.


Tcg

I'm sure there are people who've done that with sand just as there are people who look at Maxwell's equations and draw conclusions about what it means, how it came to be what it is.

[Jose Fly]

There have been attempts already to divert the discussion toward religion and theology, so I'm on the look out for such attempts.

And that raises the question I asked earlier (and I guess you missed)....are you proposing this as a scientific hypothesis?

[Sherlock Holmes]

There have been attempts already to divert the discussion toward religion and theology, so I'm on the look out for such attempts.

And that raises the question I asked earlier (and I guess you missed)....are you proposing this as a scientific hypothesis?

I don't think technically it is - as stated anyway, not without some firmer way to distinguish created structures from non-created.

I'm more concerned with its reasonableness and arguments for/against that claim, that it is reasonable.

[Jose Fly]

There have been attempts already to divert the discussion toward religion and theology, so I'm on the look out for such attempts.

And that raises the question I asked earlier (and I guess you missed)....are you proposing this as a scientific hypothesis?

I don't think technically it is - as stated anyway, not without some firmer way to distinguish created structures from non-created.

I'm more concerned with its reasonableness and arguments for/against that claim, that it is reasonable.

So more of a thought exercise. Thanks for clarifying.