(February 28, 2013 at 7:33 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: Don't you think this is a little bit of an ironic explaination relative to your sig block?

Not at all. God is the something on which all other things that come into being are contingent. The sig block is just a silly way of expressing the philosophical truth that "Out of nothing, nothing comes."

(February 28, 2013 at 7:33 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: If god can be eternal, why can't the universe be eternal?

Because it's not. It had a beginning called the 'Big Bang'.

(February 28, 2013 at 8:00 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(February 28, 2013 at 7:33 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: Don't you think this is a little bit of an ironic explaination relative to your sig block?

Not at all. God is the something on which all other things that come into being are contingent. The sig block is just a silly way of expressing the philosophical truth that "Out of nothing, nothing comes."

(February 28, 2013 at 7:33 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: If god can be eternal, why can't the universe be eternal?

Because it's not. It had a beginning called the 'Big Bang'.

No, the Big Bang does not show that the mass/energy of the universe can not be eternal. It may be cyclic.

(February 28, 2013 at 10:54 am)Chas Wrote: [quote='FallentoReason' pid='407451' dateline='1362062664']
I feel like I'm going to start a series of threads where I openly talk about the thoughts I have on Deism. Since there's no doctrine for Deism telling me what to do, I think it would be good for me to figure it all out through discussion.

I was wondering today about the foundations of Deism and whether there's reason to think Deism is more than a hypothetical philosophy. Why does our universe exist, but exist with a certain structure? Could it have been possible for matter to appear from nowhere but remain a meaningless blob floating about for eternity? Not only did the universe appear, but it appeared with specific "laws" that we have now identified and they served to shape what we have to the extent that a collective consciousness (us) could be sustained and then able to wonder about its existence.

I'm not saying that life is in anyway proof of a Creator/God. We are here now, which simply means we can bring up questions like "why didn't the universe start off as a blob of matter and stay a blob of matter for all eternity"? The universe quite clearly has some pretty amazing properties and within it are embedded some elegant truths such as those found in mathematics & physics. Why did such complex things get created along with the matter itself at the dawn of spacetime?

I think the major problem with deism is that it doesn't actually answer any of your questions.
If you ascribe the creation of it all to a creator, from whence the creator?

Simplify and leave out the creator.
[/quote]

By definition, "GOD" is the first uncaused cause. I think that's the standard understanding of the concept since monotheism.

---

(February 28, 2013 at 11:09 am)Baalzebutt Wrote: Fallen, I am going to direct you to a book that I am currently reading that addresses these very issues. It is by Laurence Krauss and it is called A Universe From Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing.
A Universe From Nothing

Check it out. I think it will be very enlightening for you.

Thanks! I'll get it from my favourite website: the book depository!

---

(February 28, 2013 at 12:12 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: [quote='FallentoReason' pid='407451' dateline='1362062664']
I feel like I'm going to start a series of threads where I openly talk about the thoughts I have on Deism. Since there's no doctrine for Deism telling me what to do, I think it would be good for me to figure it all out through discussion.

I was wondering today about the foundations of Deism and whether there's reason to think Deism is more than a hypothetical philosophy. Why does our universe exist, but exist with a certain structure? Could it have been possible for matter to appear from nowhere but remain a meaningless blob floating about for eternity? Not only did the universe appear, but it appeared with specific "laws" that we have now identified and they served to shape what we have to the extent that a collective consciousness (us) could be sustained and then able to wonder about its existence.

I'm not saying that life is in anyway proof of a Creator/God. We are here now, which simply means we can bring up questions like "why didn't the universe start off as a blob of matter and stay a blob of matter for all eternity"? The universe quite clearly has some pretty amazing properties and within it are embedded some elegant truths such as those found in mathematics & physics. Why did such complex things get created along with the matter itself at the dawn of spacetime?

So you fell to reason...

...and then lost your reason again, because you shit your pants and decided to believe that there is something after all. For no good reason other that there are unanswered/unanswerable questions.

Quote:It isn't so much about the unanswered questions but rather the observations of nature. Like Thomas Paine, my "doctrine" comes from nature itself which is the one thing man cannot alter for his greedy purposes (unlike the Bible, Qu'ran etc). Instead of looking to an ancient book for answers on how to do things, we have to recognise that since we inhabit this universe, we already have everything we need at our disposal: the different branches of science to answer practical problems and then we have philosophy to solve ethical problems. I think these intricate truths must have come from somewhere.

[quote]
You might as well go back to church.

That place is against reason. I might die.

---

Derp... I just took a half hour to respond to you guys but I can't see it... maybe it's just my phone..?

(February 28, 2013 at 8:22 pm)Chas Wrote: No, the Big Bang does not show that the mass/energy of the universe can not be eternal. It may be cyclic.

You're right, it could be. It's not the majority theory though. From a Deistic perspective I'm not sure that it matters. The idea is that the universe has many constants, like the speed of light, that could conceivably be different than they are now. The question becomes why does our universe have this particular structure and not another? What are the rules that govern the formation of universes and where do these rules come from? They could not have come from the universe itself because that creates a viscous circle.

(February 28, 2013 at 10:44 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I feel like I'm going to start a series of threads where I openly talk about the thoughts I have on Deism. Since there's no doctrine for Deism telling me what to do, I think it would be good for me to figure it all out through discussion.

I was wondering today about the foundations of Deism and whether there's reason to think Deism is more than a hypothetical philosophy. Why does our universe exist, but exist with a certain structure? Could it have been possible for matter to appear from nowhere but remain a meaningless blob floating about for eternity? Not only did the universe appear, but it appeared with specific "laws" that we have now identified and they served to shape what we have to the extent that a collective consciousness (us) could be sustained and then able to wonder about its existence.

I'm not saying that life is in anyway proof of a Creator/God. We are here now, which simply means we can bring up questions like "why didn't the universe start off as a blob of matter and stay a blob of matter for all eternity"? The universe quite clearly has some pretty amazing properties and within it are embedded some elegant truths such as those found in mathematics & physics. Why did such complex things get created along with the matter itself at the dawn of spacetime?

Those are pretty much the same questions that I used to justify my deism. I used to think that while these ideas could not be considered proof or evidence in a "creator's" favor, they could certainly be regarded as a point in his favor. And this is why I was wrong:

The idea that somehow the properties of our universe are "amazing" and that they have "elegant" truths is a biased view. Even if it had started off as a blob of matter and stayed a blob of matter, it'd still have been governed by some laws of nature (different than our own), that would have been equally amazing or equally mundane.

As I found out, these questions are being asked. Scientists are looking for a theories for explain these facts of nature - and unless they find an answer, it'd be folly to assume one based on biased perspective. The thing is, even if there is a reason - and I strongly believe there is - there is no reason to assume its sentience. That is the unjustified "leap of faith" that you have to make to get from asking a valid scientific question to get to the foundation of deism.

---

(February 28, 2013 at 7:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The answer is that God is outside of time and space, i.e. He's always been there.

That statement is meaningless. 'Always' has a temporal context and 'there' has a spatial one. Something that has 'always been there' is by definition inside space and time.

---

(February 28, 2013 at 8:00 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Because it's not. It had a beginning called the 'Big Bang'.

Big Bang does not indicate the beginning of universe.

(February 28, 2013 at 9:14 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(February 28, 2013 at 8:22 pm)Chas Wrote: No, the Big Bang does not show that the mass/energy of the universe can not be eternal. It may be cyclic.

You're right, it could be. It's not the majority theory though. From a Deistic perspective I'm not sure that it matters. The idea is that the universe has many constants, like the speed of light, that could conceivably be different than they are now. The question becomes why does our universe have this particular structure and not another? What are the rules that govern the formation of universes and where do these rules come from? They could not have come from the universe itself because that creates a viscous circle.

'Why?' is a human question, a human need. The universe does not need to have a reason; the question may be inapplicable. The 'rules' are merely the observed properties, nothing circular about it.

(February 28, 2013 at 8:28 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: By definition, "GOD" is the first uncaused cause. I think that's the standard understanding of the concept since monotheism.

It is also the fallacy of special leading.

(February 28, 2013 at 8:28 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: It isn't so much about the unanswered questions but rather the observations of nature. Like Thomas Paine, my "doctrine" comes from nature itself which is the one thing man cannot alter for his greedy purposes (unlike the Bible, Qu'ran etc). Instead of looking to an ancient book for answers on how to do things, we have to recognise that since we inhabit this universe, we already have everything we need at our disposal: the different branches of science to answer practical problems and then we have philosophy to solve ethical problems. I think these intricate truths must have come from somewhere.

Two things about that. First, your doctrine, as I indicated, is based on bias that somehow the current form of universe is amazing or elegant or somehow better than any other form that could've been. Secondly, all that we have at our disposal - science, philosophy etc. comes from our minds. Why would you need to look anywhere else for their source?

(February 28, 2013 at 8:28 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Derp... I just took a half hour to respond to you guys but I can't see it... maybe it's just my phone..?

Nope. Your quote tags must be off.

(February 28, 2013 at 12:12 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: So you fell to reason...

...and then lost your reason again, because you shit your pants and decided to believe that there is something after all. For no good reason other that there are unanswered/unanswerable questions.

You might as well go back to church.

That seems a little harsh as well as paranoid. Is atheism so hard or important to sustain that we should guard against falling away from it? I think I am just an atheist out of lack of sufficient reason to form any beliefs about gods, whatever to hell those might be. I say keep your eyes wide open and let the chips fall where they may. If deism doesn't work, he'll give it up. If he finds enough fit there, he'll stay there. What do we care?

(February 28, 2013 at 9:42 pm)genkaus Wrote: Big Bang does not indicate the beginning of universe.

Enlighten me.

---

(February 28, 2013 at 9:42 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(February 28, 2013 at 7:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The answer is that God is outside of time and space, i.e. He's always been there.

That statement is meaningless. 'Always' has a temporal context and 'there' has a spatial one. Something that has 'always been there' is by definition inside space and time.

Admittedly that statement was poorly worded. Aquinas said it much better. I'm paraphrasing..."God is not in time. God is the cause that time is. Nor is God in space. God is the cause that space is." Something to that effect.

(February 28, 2013 at 8:00 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Because it's not. It had a beginning called the 'Big Bang'.

The Big Bang is the beginning of the universe as we know it. There is no indication what was going on prior to that event, assuming that time operated in any way we would recognize.

It is only theists who take 'something from nothing' literally seriously. The accurate way to describe it would be 'something from we have no idea what'.