Life as a Deist

[FallentoReason]

The fact that we have this universe and not the equally amazing/mundane blob is what gives the plausibility of there being a(n) God/Creator/Architect. This is the universe that holds the beauty and intricate inner-workings of what a hypothetical all-powerful, all-knowing being would produce.

That's the bias I'm referring to. The assumption that a hypothetical all-powerful, all-knowing being would produce this universe and none other.

And then on the other side of the coin we have the assumption that there is no god. It is what it is!

That's not instinct - that's misapplication of what you've been taught. What you've been taught is to distinguish between natural and artificial design. You don't assume that when you a distinct snowflake pattern or markings of a tropical fish that some guy must have engineered or painted that - you accept that natural laws led to the emergence of that pattern and go on study those natural laws. When you see something that doesn't occur in nature you presume a human mind at work. This understanding comes from distinguishing between different categories by comparing them to each-other. When it comes to the universe itself, there is nothing else to compare it to. So assuming that it looks "thought out" simply has no basis.

It looks thought out because of how everything works in unison based on fundamental laws set in place from the very beginning.

Your bias is not regarding the existence of god, but regarding the special status of human beings as the purpose of universe.

Hmm? No idea where you got this from:

I'm not saying that life is in anyway proof of a Creator/God.

Here's the concept that you should correct. The term "coming from human mind" does not mean that the result could be whatever the person wants it to be or that whatever it pertains to did not exist before. The universe exists and it works in a certain way. It is not governed by specific principles or ideas or concepts. Simply put, it is what it is. Science, philosophy and mathematics are all concepts, ideas or principles that necessarily come from a conscious mind. They form a body of ideas describing how the universe works, but they do not dictate it. The existence of the entity is not dependent upon its description. The natural world has existed along with its mode of operation before we did - but science is the inquiry and understanding of it and therefore came into existence afterwards.

I'm not too sure about one of your fundamental propositions here:

"[The universe] is not governed by specific principles or ideas or concepts. Simply put, it is what it is."

Science is like a flashlight that lights up a room and shows us e.g. the furniture that was already there. I think it's obvious that the universe is governed by laws, whether we give it a label or not. Science has simply shown us those "principles, ideas & concepts" much like the flashlight shows us what was already in that room. So in essence, I agree that the "mode of enquiry" obviously started with us -- the conscious beings -- but what's contained within the findings of this enquiry has always existed i.e. the laws of the universe, which is the point I was first making. They are the things independent of us that are elegant and intricate.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

Equally meaningless. Cause and effect are spatio-temporal by definition. Talking about causes outside the context of space and time makes no sense.

To you it is meaningless because you reject all types of cause except efficient cause. Formal cause, material cause, and final cause all have no reference to space-time relationships. That does not prevent these other types of cause from affecting the flow of one event into the next. In fact they are essential to it.

No one is suggesting that there was a time before time or space beyond space. All I am saying is that the activity of 'quantum vacuum' of the prenatal universe needs an initial and on-going propensity to create and a set of limiting conditions to govern its manifestation.

[genkaus]

And then on the other side of the coin we have the assumption that there is no god. It is what it is!

No one starts from that assumption - it is usually the conclusion one gets at.

It looks thought out because of how everything works in unison based on fundamental laws set in place from the very beginning.

That's the point you are missing. Given that everything is based on the same fundamental laws, it would all necessarily work in unison. If it was some alternate universe based on another set of fundamental laws, then everything in it would be different, but it'll all still work in unison. The only place "thinking-out" is required to make things work in unison is when things which do not occur naturally are brought together to work in a way they wouldn't naturally.

Hmm? No idea where you got this from:

[quote="FtR"]I'm not saying that life is in anyway proof of a Creator/God.

From your assumptions such as an all-knowing being would make this universe and no other. Or the one about products of natural laws working in harmony appear to have thought behind it.

I'm not too sure about one of your fundamental propositions here:

"[The universe] is not governed by specific principles or ideas or concepts. Simply put, it is what it is."

Science is like a flashlight that lights up a room and shows us e.g. the furniture that was already there. I think it's obvious that the universe is governed by laws, whether we give it a label or not. Science has simply shown us those "principles, ideas & concepts" much like the flashlight shows us what was already in that room. So in essence, I agree that the "mode of enquiry" obviously started with us -- the conscious beings -- but what's contained within the findings of this enquiry has always existed i.e. the laws of the universe, which is the point I was first making. They are the things independent of us that are elegant and intricate.

The point you are missing is that these "laws" are the labels we attach to natural processes and events. We are the ones who make these labels and change them if and when better descriptors become available.

---

To you it is meaningless because you reject all types of cause except efficient cause. Formal cause, material cause, and final cause all have no reference to space-time relationships. That does not prevent these other types of cause from affecting the flow of one event into the next. In fact they are essential to it.

The other three causes do have spatio-temporal reference. The material cause refers to what an object is made out of, i.e. referring to something that exists spatially. The formal cause refers to the form of the object, i.e. the spatio-temporal configuration the existent must have. The final cause refers to purpose, something that would occur after the thing comes into existence.

And you are ignoring the basic feature of causality. Any type of cause must temporally exist prior to the consequence.

No one is suggesting that there was a time before time or space beyond space. All I am saying is that the activity of 'quantum vacuum' of the prenatal universe needs an initial and on-going propensity to create and a set of limiting conditions to govern its manifestation.

And how do you go from that to "god is outside time and space"?

[xXUKAtheistForTheTruthXx]

---

And then on the other side of the coin we have the assumption that there is no god. It is what it is!

No one starts from that assumption - it is usually the conclusion one gets at.

It looks thought out because of how everything works in unison based on fundamental laws set in place from the very beginning.

That's the point you are missing. Given that everything is based on the same fundamental laws, it would all necessarily work in unison. If it was some alternate universe based on another set of fundamental laws, then everything in it would be different, but it'll all still work in unison. The only place "thinking-out" is required to make things work in unison is when things which do not occur naturally are brought together to work in a way they wouldn't naturally.

Hmm? No idea where you got this from:

[quote="FtR"]I'm not saying that life is in anyway proof of a Creator/God.

From your assumptions such as an all-knowing being would make this universe and no other. Or the one about products of natural laws working in harmony appear to have thought behind it.

I'm not too sure about one of your fundamental propositions here:

"[The universe] is not governed by specific principles or ideas or concepts. Simply put, it is what it is."

Science is like a flashlight that lights up a room and shows us e.g. the furniture that was already there. I think it's obvious that the universe is governed by laws, whether we give it a label or not. Science has simply shown us those "principles, ideas & concepts" much like the flashlight shows us what was already in that room. So in essence, I agree that the "mode of enquiry" obviously started with us -- the conscious beings -- but what's contained within the findings of this enquiry has always existed i.e. the laws of the universe, which is the point I was first making. They are the things independent of us that are elegant and intricate.

The point you are missing is that these "laws" are the labels we attach to natural processes and events. We are the ones who make these labels and change them if and when better descriptors become available.

---

To you it is meaningless because you reject all types of cause except efficient cause. Formal cause, material cause, and final cause all have no reference to space-time relationships. That does not prevent these other types of cause from affecting the flow of one event into the next. In fact they are essential to it.

The other three causes do have spatio-temporal reference. The material cause refers to what an object is made out of, i.e. referring to something that exists spatially. The formal cause refers to the form of the object, i.e. the spatio-temporal configuration the existent must have. The final cause refers to purpose, something that would occur after the thing comes into existence.

And you are ignoring the basic feature of causality. Any type of cause must temporally exist prior to the consequence.

No one is suggesting that there was a time before time or space beyond space. All I am saying is that the activity of 'quantum vacuum' of the prenatal universe needs an initial and on-going propensity to create and a set of limiting conditions to govern its manifestation.

And how do you go from that to "god is outside time and space"?

---

de·ism (dzm, d-)
n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[French déisme, from Latin deus, god; see dyeu- in Indo-European roots.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

deist n.
de·istic adj.
de·isti·cal·ly adv.

Done.

[EGross]

Don't forget:

de·icide v. The act of killing a God. (See Cruci fiction)

Since Christian theology holds that one can murder a God, then obviously there must be one to murder, unless you only believe in one God or less, in which case...

Done.

[Neo-Scholastic]

And how do you go from that to "god is outside time and space"?

I use the word 'outside' to convey the lack of relation. It's like saying that a criminal is outside the law. It helps to use both the left- and right-side of the brain while applying reason. Try not to rely too much on only analytic thinking. Half of life is understood by association and metaphor.

[FallentoReason]

And then on the other side of the coin we have the assumption that there is no god. It is what it is!

No one starts from that assumption - it is usually the conclusion one gets at.

Hypothetically, one could get to Deism just as easily from the same starting point.

That's the point you are missing. Given that everything is based on the same fundamental laws, it would all necessarily work in unison. If it was some alternate universe based on another set of fundamental laws, then everything in it would be different, but it'll all still work in unison. The only place "thinking-out" is required to make things work in unison is when things which do not occur naturally are brought together to work in a way they wouldn't naturally.

I see what you're saying.

Hmm? No idea where you got this from:

I'm not saying that life is in anyway proof of a Creator/God.

From your assumptions such as an all-knowing being would make this universe and no other. Or the one about products of natural laws working in harmony appear to have thought behind it.

Fair enough.

I'm not too sure about one of your fundamental propositions here:

"[The universe] is not governed by specific principles or ideas or concepts. Simply put, it is what it is."

Science is like a flashlight that lights up a room and shows us e.g. the furniture that was already there. I think it's obvious that the universe is governed by laws, whether we give it a label or not. Science has simply shown us those "principles, ideas & concepts" much like the flashlight shows us what was already in that room. So in essence, I agree that the "mode of enquiry" obviously started with us -- the conscious beings -- but what's contained within the findings of this enquiry has always existed i.e. the laws of the universe, which is the point I was first making. They are the things independent of us that are elegant and intricate.

The point you are missing is that these "laws" are the labels we attach to natural processes and events. We are the ones who make these labels and change them if and when better descriptors become available.

And as I just explained, the labels themselves are irrelevant.

[genkaus]

I use the word 'outside' to convey the lack of relation. It's like saying that a criminal is outside the law. It helps to use both the left- and right-side of the brain while applying reason. Try not to rely too much on only analytic thinking. Half of life is understood by association and metaphor.

You should reflect upon what you are trying to convey before putting it into words. You started the argument specifically with existence of a relation - as in a causal relation. Now you are contradicting it by indicating a lack of relation.

---

Hypothetically, one could get to Deism just as easily from the same starting point.

As did I. But other evidence helps you correct that mistake.

[EGross]

I am assuming from this thread that a Deist is one who believes in a deity, but not like the one describes in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, et al. In other words, without emotion or ego (since such a Being would be at the effect of these), but one that either cares about humans on this planet to the exclusion of anything else in the other 100 billion galexies, or one that equally cares about everything, or one that doesn't care, but just made it happen and is either a participant or non-participant. And as a participant, he either is passivley watching, occasionally poking his nose in it, or even a single blade of grass does not arise without his say-so.

Which would sound to me that Deism would end up having a a fairly decent number of categories to plop different folks into that category.

(I started to make up groupings but gave up at 10 - too many variables).