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?

[AquinasForGod]

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?

[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?

[Clownboat]

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.

[William]

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 ?

[Clownboat]

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.

[Clownboat]

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?

[Clownboat]

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.

[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.

[brunumb]

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.

[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?