Am I a Deist? Cosmological Argument seems reasonable to me.

[_Velvet_]

In a dialogue where the other guy is proposing that the only way the cosmos could possibly come into being was if there was an incomprehensable time wizard there to poke the spacetime continuum with a stick, I'm the one who's saying things don't need to make sense to be true.

Progress of a kind I suppose, as long as we've moved past the time wizard.

Its quite unfortunate the way some atheists speak things like that, its that important that you show clearly that you are way smarter than me?

Anyways, my point was that wizards doing magic makes sense... something not-a-wizard doing magic makes no sense.

But yeah, we moved past needing to make sense.

[ApeNotKillApe]

In a dialogue where the other guy is proposing that the only way the cosmos could possibly come into being was if there was an incomprehensable time wizard there to poke the spacetime continuum with a stick, I'm the one who's saying things don't need to make sense to be true.

Progress of a kind I suppose, as long as we've moved past the time wizard.

Its quite unfortunate the way some atheists speak things like that, its that important that you show clearly that you are way smarter than me?

No, but it is important that I type out colourful sentences to amuse myself.

[_Velvet_]

No, but it is important that I type out colourful sentences to amuse myself.

Whatever floats your boat.

Btw ty all you guys for the feedback, cheers.

[Angrboda]

Anyways, my point was that wizards doing magic makes sense... something not-a-wizard doing magic makes no sense.

Why does wizards doing magic make sense? Is it simply because you're more familiar with the concept of wizards?

It seems to me that the idea of beings doing magic is just as fantastical as the idea of something coming from nothing.

I don't think that you've so much found an answer to the paradox that makes sense so much as found one that seems less nonsensical. These type of proofs all go the same way. We can't solve them through ordinary means, so we'll invent something extraordinary as the answer. If you were prepared to accept extraordinary things, why were you attempting to solve it through ordinary means in the first place. It's like being unable to solve the Rubik's cube the normal way, so you take a hammer to it so that you can arrange the pieces anyway you like.

The question is why invisible magic beings are more familiar to us than infinite regresses or somethings coming from nothing? We certainly have no actual experience with beings that can do magic. So why does this idea seem familiar to us, familiar enough to make its way into many fairy tales? Could it be that our brains are predisposed to imagine such creatures? We deal with invisible minds all day long. We can't see the 'person' behind the words and looks and body movements. We imagine an invisible mind coordinating their behavior. A mind with intention. We're predisposed to imagining things have a mind, so that howling storm approaching is a malevolent force. It's not just impersonal weather. It has intent. Does our attributing minds to things that have them lead to our attributing minds to things that don't? I think so. We have a long history of doing so. So we find it easier to imagine a disembodied mind behind the creation of the universe than another cause which doesn't have a mind. It is our habit of inferring minds behind (purposeful) action that makes it more familiar. It makes more sense just out of habit because our brains are built to infer invisible minds at work.

[Losty]

Hello! Welcome to AF

[LastPoet]

Heh, welcome.

To a Deist position, does it matter? It doesn't for me.

[Whateverist]

Cosmological Argument seems reasonable to me.

Can I interest you in a nice bridge over the East river? There are quite a few nice ones to choose from and I can give you a very competitive price.

[Catholic_Lady]

Sounds like a Deist to me. Welcome to the forums btw.

[Pat Mustard]

Also, the cosmological argument is self-defeating. If a god can exist without a prior cause, then why can't the universe?

This is one of the classic refutations that I just don't think it holds.

A god could come to existance without a prior cause because he would be able to do godlike shit like creating himself or some other magical and non-sensical stuff that natural things just can't do (or at least wouldn't be reasonable to expect they would)

While an universe coming into existance without a prior cause doesn't really make sense (not saying its impossible but I just don't think it would make any sense for it do suddenly come into existance)

Yeah, but what makes a god so special that it can exist outside the sum total of our reality? You see, as soon as you try to explain god as a special case you're automatically back in magical pixie dust land.

[The Grand Nudger]

How do you bridge the gap, conceptually, between a first cause and a god?

I don't, I just acknowledge that this cause might be some kind of god, and I feel it would make most sense if it were, just because if it was a natural phenomena it would make sense if it was also caused.

---

Thanks everyone for the feedback = ]

b-mine

NP, NP.  That would be whatever you bridge the gap with.  What makes you feel that way?