Okay, Nerdy Keith, I'll bite: Why would someone be a deist?

Homepage Forums Theism Okay, Nerdy Keith, I'll bite: Why would someone be a deist?

This topic contains 39 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 5 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 40 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1660

    Unseen
    Participant

    Well I actually never said God isn’t done yet; the process the God of Nature triggered is not complete; its still occurring in nature.

    So he’s inactively not done? Not done without interceding?

    #1661

    Nerdy Keith
    Participant

    Hi Keith, good to hear from you again. Would it be more accurate if I reworded your opening sentence to read…..Deism is just where I’m at intellectually?

    Hello again Reg; good to see you again too. Yes that sounds like a fair description to me.

    #1662

    Nerdy Keith
    Participant

    So he’s inactively not done? Not done without interceding?

    In a sense I suppose you could say that. However I am open to the idea that it (God) could be performing a similar process (or first cause) in another universe (if the multiverse theory is correct)

    #1663

    Unseen
    Participant

    One of my biggest problems with theism transfers to deism as well, and that is that God needn’t exist due to Occam’s Razor. His existence makes explaining things more complicated and raises more questions than simply believing that things are as they are for reasons we may never know.

    The idea of a first cause presumes that causality as we know it traces backward to infinity—even before the inception of the univers—but there is no evidence for that and a lot of reason to think that causality as we know it came into being during the formation of the universe and that before then some other physical laws (or perhaps total physical lawlessness) preceded it.

    What is your response?

    #1664

    Unseen
    Participant

    In a sense I suppose you could say that. However I am open to the idea that it (God) could be performing a similar process (or first cause) in another universe (if the multiverse theory is correct)

    Oh, so “it” might be busy creating other universes. Tell me: if universes need a first cause, but “it” doesn’t, then why do universes need a first cause?

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 2 months ago by  Unseen.
    #1666

    Davis
    Participant

    OK. I’m sort of dizzy after reading that response…and unfortunately I feel like I understand your view of the deist universe even less. Your last sentence is a very bold claim. I think you’ve shifted away from imperfections in an ongoing process now to a universal balance (that is…explaining away flaws through cosmic balance instead of the earlier analogy of problems until completion).

    There is a lot we just don’t know about the rest of the universe; so I would argue that it is likely that the harshness of nature may be actually essential to maintain balance and order within the universe itself.

    You argue that x is likely because we do not know stuff (with a likely followed by a maybe). Maybe you could expand a little on this concept of balanc (you must admit it is rather vague). And more importantly how you make the leap from us not knowing stuff to “harshness of nature being essential because…cosmic balance”.

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 2 months ago by  Davis.
    • This reply was modified 5 years, 2 months ago by  Davis.
    #1668

    Unseen
    Participant

    I’m not so sure if we can ever be at a point to say “Ok the universe is done now”. I believe it is an ongoing process.

    It certainly appears that this universe is in a runaway expansion, expanding faster and faster, so the ultimate perfection of the universe would seem to be when it more or less stops existing by suffering a temperature death, which will happen an unimaginably long time after conditions for life have ceased everywhere in the universe, so many years in the future that the number of years will exceed the number of atoms in the universe, if Cosmologist Brian Cox is right.

    And long before the temperature death, what galaxies remain will be so far away from each other that they won’t be able to see each other.

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 2 months ago by  Unseen.
    #1672

    Nerdy Keith
    Participant

    One of my biggest problems with theism transfers to deism as well, and that is that God needn’t exist due to Occam’s Razor. His existence makes explaining things more complicated and raises more questions than simply believing that things are as they are for reasons we may never know.

    The idea of a first cause presumes that causality as we know it traces backward to infinity—even before the inception of the univers—but there is no evidence for that and a lot of reason to think that causality as we know it came into being during the formation of the universe and that before then some other physical laws (or perhaps total physical lawlessness) preceded it.

    What is your response?

    Well thats a fair point. But the way I see it is; the universe (how it all happened); may not be as simple as we currently imagine or understand it to be. Yes deism does open up more questions than answers. My argument is that perhaps those questions need to be asked. I suppose in an interesting way it keeps scientists on their toes; to seek out answers to these new questions we (all of us; deist or otherwise) open ourselves up to. As we understand more and more about the universe; there is always going to be more questions when we discover more about the universe.

    I agree that there is no shame in ignorance (not knowing). And while I have no issue with agnosticism (as a regard myself as an agnostic deist). I don’t embrace eternal agnosticism. To me its a lack of knowledge based on what we currently know. So I can’t say I’m that open to us never knowing more about the universe.

    Yes you are totally correct about causality; no disagreement there. I’m not going to pretend I know anymore beyond that; I have to be honest with you here. At the moment I have to say that I have yet to fully investigate this area. As I’ve pointed out I’m still in the process of educating myself on all aspects to my beliefs. So I’ll have to get back to you on that when I am more informed on this.

    #1677

    Unseen
    Participant

    NK, I can tell you haven’t heard Prof. Lawrence Krauss’s lecture on “A Universe From Nothing.”

    Universes can just happen.

    #1679

    Nerdy Keith
    Participant

    NK, I can tell you haven’t heard Prof. Lawrence Krauss’s lecture on “A Universe From Nothing.”

    Universes can just happen.

    Cool; I’ll check that out at some point when I have time to listen through it in full.

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 2 months ago by  Nerdy Keith.
    #1680

    Humans have an instinctive urge to make sense of the workings of the natural world. The Design Argument made sense when we were less well informed about our origins and the planet we live on. It made sense until only very recently to think the Universe was made up of what we can observe. Now we know Earth is only one of several hundred billion planets within our galaxy and that our galaxy is just one of several hundred billion galaxies within the Universe.

    Darwin’s theory of evolution was the first real attempt at providing a more naturalistic explanation as an alternative to a deistic one. When we (humans) lack explanations for natural phenomena we are quick to fill in the blanks in anthropomorphic terms. Modern evolutionary theory proves beyond doubt that we are an evolved species. Evolution is unaware of us. It has removed the need for a god hypothesis. We are not designed. We are evolved from ugly fish…Lol.

    The Universe too can be explained without it being designed. I suppose as a deist you could argue that if (a) god created the Universe then He would have created it for his own reasons but you cannot then argue that He created it for us. What would the point be of creating 500 billon stars in just our galaxy alone so He could endow just one of the millions of species “He created” to become self-aware?

    To attribute what we do not yet understand or to say that if something is not explained by science it must therefore imply “god” is an argument from ignorance. Spinoza wrote of the “sanctuary of ignorance” where the “God did it” argument fails if we are content to allow answers to satisfy our imagination instead of our intellect.

    Maybe the fish were beautiful and not in any way ugly. Either way the description is entirely subjective. When someone talks of the “order” they see in nature they are also being subjective. The moon may appear to circle the Earth in an orderly way but the moon way born from a violent collision with Earth and is moving away from us (3 inches every 10 years??). This also can appear orderly but it is the process of Entropy and at some point its gravitational effect on us will be so weak that our own planet will tilt and we will become extinct. The expansion of the Universe is accelerating – or at least the dark matter between massive objects is expanding – and at some point in the future (if we are still in existence) someone will look up at the night sky and see nothing. There will be no light out there. No stars and no concept of order or design. That is because it was not designed. Evolution does not know we exist. The Universe does not care that we do.

    #1681

    Keith – he was in Trinity earlier this year with Dawkins. He is very knowledgeable and passionate about it so that makes him a good teacher.

    #1683

    Nerdy Keith
    Participant

    Oh, so “it” might be busy creating other universes. Tell me: if universes need a first cause, but “it” doesn’t, then why do universes need a first cause?

    Are you asking me who created the creator? The only answer I have for you regarding this; is that the God of Nature is likely eternal. Some atheists have a similar view on our universe itself and claim that the universe is eternal.

    #1685

    Thomas Paine
    Participant

    OK, Deism evolved during the Age of Enlightment – many Philosophers and thinkers of that age, my favorites include Hume and Thomas Paine, espoused this concept.

    Yes, they posited that there as a creator who set up the rules of nature, then gave it a spin, letting it operate under its own steam.

    Where they had a grind was with organized religion and all of the bible. The Bible being one giant pile of BS without any proof that a fucking thing in it was little more than untraceable, hearsay, fairy tales and shitty poetry.

    If you’ll take the time to read Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason ,even if only a few chapters,you really get a wonderfullly cogent and brilliant argument that far surpasses anything you’ll find on any blog or podcast dealing with disbelief.

    That said, I feel that most men of he Enlightenment simply wanted to avoid prison or e en death for being atheists. By disconnecting an activists intervening God from Nature it isn’t a great leap to why do we need a church or religion at all?

    #1686

    Thomas Paine
    Participant

    @ Unseen — I agree w/ Krause; there is every reason to believe that something can spring from nothing. There is NO requirement for a higher intelligence to do this.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 40 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.