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?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #299]

Revelation
- Scholars have described the theology of Heaven's Gate as a mixture of Christian millenarianism, New Age, and ufology
- On March 26, 1997, deputies of the San Diego County Sheriff's Department discovered the bodies of the 39 active members of the group, including that of Applewhite, in a house in the San Diego suburb of Rancho Santa Fe. They had participated in a mass suicide, a coordinated series of ritual suicides, coinciding with the closest approach of Comet Hale–Bopp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27 ... ous_group)

Now why would they die for a lie?

The point is they did not think it was a lie.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]

Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

To win over atheists all you need to say is that the Creator is impersonal. No one can argue with that since everything comes from something, whether it be a being or non-being.

Not won over.

From where comes this creator, if everything comes from something?

[Tcg]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]

Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

To win over atheists all you need to say is that the Creator is impersonal. No one can argue with that since everything comes from something, whether it be a being or non-being.

Not won over.

From where comes this creator, if everything comes from something?

Whoever's creating the turtles better keep busy cause we're going to need a bunch of them.


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]

Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

To win over atheists all you need to say is that the Creator is impersonal. No one can argue with that since everything comes from something, whether it be a being or non-being.

Not won over.

From where comes this creator, if everything comes from something?

Whoever's creating the turtles better keep busy cause we're going to need a bunch of them.


Tcg

Lompoc

It amuses me that folks'd try such argument, seemingly oblivious to the obvious problem with it.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #302]

Not won over.

Yep. Silly to even suggest that such a thing is possible...

From where comes this creator, if everything comes from something?

A closed loop system ought to be able to do it. Each created the other/neither created the other.

They have always existed eternally not 'together' but 'as one thing'.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]

Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

To win over atheists all you need to say is that the Creator is impersonal. No one can argue with that since everything comes from something, whether it be a being or non-being.

Not won over.

From where comes this creator, if everything comes from something?

Whoever's creating the turtles better keep busy cause we're going to need a bunch of them.


Tcg

Lompoc

It amuses me that folks'd try such argument, seemingly oblivious to the obvious problem with it.

Hey, look over here at this watch I found on a beach. Someone must have made it right?

Sure. What do you reckon about the beach?

That's just sand. I can't make an argument about that. But look at this watch.

Hey, look. Another turtle.


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]

Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

To win over atheists all you need to say is that the Creator is impersonal. No one can argue with that since everything comes from something, whether it be a being or non-being.

Not won over.

From where comes this creator, if everything comes from something?

Whoever's creating the turtles better keep busy cause we're going to need a bunch of them.


Tcg

Lompoc

It amuses me that folks'd try such argument, seemingly oblivious to the obvious problem with it.

Hey, look over here at this watch I found on a beach. Someone must have made it right?

Sure. What do you reckon about the beach?

That's just sand. I can't make an argument about that. But look at this watch.

Hey, look. Another turtle.


Tcg

Pretty thing (and me) says you're hilarious. You really just nailed that whole train of thought.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]

Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

To win over atheists all you need to say is that the Creator is impersonal. No one can argue with that since everything comes from something, whether it be a being or non-being.

Not won over.

From where comes this creator, if everything comes from something?

Whoever's creating the turtles better keep busy cause we're going to need a bunch of them.


Tcg

Lompoc

It amuses me that folks'd try such argument, seemingly oblivious to the obvious problem with it.

Hey, look over here at this watch I found on a beach. Someone must have made it right?

Sure. What do you reckon about the beach?

That's just sand. I can't make an argument about that. But look at this watch.

Hey, look. Another turtle.


Tcg

Pretty thing (and me) says you're hilarious. You really just nailed that whole train of thought.

Regards to both you and your pretty thing. Sometimes things just come to me, and I hope they make sense. It's not uncommon for me to read them again to see if I can understand what I was talking about. I think it's about why someone would wonder about the watch, which we know was made by somebody, and not the sand. There's no mystery about the watch. The sand? That's something to ponder about.


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

...
From where comes this creator, if everything comes from something?

A closed loop system ought to be able to do it. Each created the other/neither created the other.

They have always existed eternally not 'together' but 'as one thing'.

Dangit William, I come here to argue, not to think

Your notion here does seem logical. As relates to both the BBT, and your Cosmic Mind notion, I don't see a way to disagree.

[Diogenes]

I think it's about why someone would wonder about the watch, which we know was made by somebody, and not the sand. There's no mystery about the watch. The sand? That's something to ponder about.

Tcg

Yes, and we have a pretty good idea about the sand too, the natural product of erosion, winds and waves, tides and rocks rubbing rocks. And we also have a pretty good idea where the rocks come from and so on, all the way back step after step without ONCE having to invoke our imagination on rocket fuel and invent a giant version of ourselves, but with magic. But suddenly, the theist says "but NOW! you can step no further so ... IT MUST HAVE BEEN GOD!"

Why? When every step of regression yields a natural cause with no need to invoke magic, personality, or imaginary Dingus, WHY should we now, suddenly posit a completely alien cause? Doesn't it make more sense to use the same type of natural, mechanical causation that has proved right for millennia, than to leap to a 'cause' of a different order?