FallentoReason 2.0

[The Grand Nudger]

Well the Deistic assumption is that it all eventually came from this divine being thing, so the reason for the forces of nature being the way they are is because they were made to be that way. So from the big bag, matter was going to act according to the laws that were set in place, eventually giving us a universe that we observe today. I don't really know how else to explain it...

As for evolution, I think it's all supported by "simpler" laws that made evolution possible in the first place via laws of physics etc...

Simpler laws that were "made to be that way". It's difficult for me to conceptualize how a creator with such exact control over the parameters wouldn't have ended up with precisely the monkeys he intended to, if we grant that this was the case.

There's none to be found. Only reasoning based on what we observe today.

Observed things doesn't qualify as evidence? I'm going to be very blunt here. I haven't seen any reason applied to this either, only an assumption, gut feelings, inclinations, etc.

Arguably, my recent inclinations towards concluding that there's a greater being in a different dimension are affected by my "biological bias" where my cognition simply makes me arrive at this conclusion because I'm exposed to a world where the "painting" required a "painter".

Not to mention that as a "painter" you are inclined to perceive the world around you in a manner that is recognizable to your "painters mechanisms of perception" - better way to explain your bias than to assume a painting (though assuming a painting is a candidate for bias to begin with). That you've assumed a painting at all is a bit shaky. Bit like manufacturing a question so that you can insert an explanation.

Or, I'm correct in being able to extrapolate what I observe and coming to a conclusion that is more or less true. I don't know which one it is, but all I have is my own thoughts and my surroundings as they are, but no evidence.

You mentioned that we had observations, so again, that would seem to me to be evidence. Perhaps if we explored these observations more thoroughly? Nevertheless, these two options probably aren't our only options. You may, by the way, have reached a "correct" conclusion for the wrong reasons. That -does- happen. Do I think so? No, clearly I don't. But if we could find "the right reasons" it would be difficult for me to argue against wouldn't it?

Yeah, good point. I'll let you know right now that I'm fairly new to Deism and I haven't figured it out enough to explain myself coherently. Therefore I will most likely say things that contradict without realising, but that's ok because then you guys can help me see that and I can refine better what's logical and what isn't (in a philosophical sense more than anything... I think).

Happy to be your sounding board, truly.

When I said "our bodies were never meant to be treated that way" I'm specifically speaking about this day and age. As of right now, our bodies can't cope with some substances. But like I said in the other bolded bit, this triviality (and I mean that in every sense of the word) about life wasn't planned out because I'm pretty sure that would imply this Creator stuck his supernatural hand into the natural world and messed around with it.

Or, just set things at the very outset to conform to his plan for the future.

I think the "never" came from a place within me (like a gut feeling) that tells me science is saying I should not treat my body that way. The atheist might think, "yeah, I'm aware of that, but this is it. This is all there is and so I will choose whether I do drugs or not, because I might choose to live my only life in that way" which to me is fine I guess, but the "never" I speak of is not time related, but rather... hmm... let me try this: because science can be said that it is the tool to observe what was created by the Creator (in a Desitic framework of course), then it would make sense to trust that "science knows best". So the chemicals in drugs and our bodily composition were never meant to be together. No matter what the circumstance, the combination of those two will produce a negative effect (in light of evolution and wanting to survive). So I think the subtlety there with the "never" was that I was speaking in a scientific sense, that because of the way nature turned out to be, we can conclude that certain things will always consistently give us the same results.

Does that sort of clear up your question?

Sure, it clears up what you meant, but I don't know that it leaves the one proposition any less at odds with the other. I'm not entirely certain that science deals in "should"s by the way. But you're clearly free to feel this way yourself.

I think the above helps summarise what I see as the motivation behind wanting to use nature to our advantage. I think Deism in a way makes me take scientific discoveries more seriously because if we assume science is our way to understand what the Creator left behind, then there's hope(?) that it will show us the way to live as best we can. The atheist can obviously do the same without believing in a creator, but I can't help but see a more nihilistic outcome of "so what if (e.g.) drugs are bad"? To me, it's like there's someone out there saying "I told you so!" when I don't listen to what we have discovered, and that in a way gives me direction for my life. Call it a sort of placebo if you have to, because that could very well be the case I suppose.

You see a nihilistic interpretation of the status of drugs as a result of atheism? What about atheism has anything to do with drugs? Belief in a creator is not required to hold the position that one might not want to mainline a lethal dose (or any dose) of heroin. Despite all my joking I'm not being pulled around my house by the nose from one line of coke to another or anything. I've got a family, mouths to feed, people who care about me and depend on me (not to mention being pretty fond of remaining alive and healthy). There are probably mountains of reasons one might want to avoid meth without invoking the intentions of some wispy creator. Again, we see things for which the notion of a creator is not required, and from where I sit, things where the notion of a creator adds nothing to the discussion-has nothing to say-. All of this, mind you, from within a framework where the existence of this particular creator is indistinguishable from it's non-existence.

Excepting, of course, that you feel that "someone somewhere" is speaking to you. Maybe someone somewhere is speaking to you. In this case I'm pretty confident that the someone is you, and the somewhere is between your ears. None of what you've put here requires anything but yourself to begin with. I find it simpler to explain your positions on drugs (for example) by reference to you, and your own ability to manufacture reasons....because the path from you to your positions is a simple and straightforward one. No need to invoke an un-evidenced (?) creator..a lengthy and ill-explained pathway to you via examples with little in the way of elaboration...and then finally passing through the obstruction of your mind message intact. I can just say -"FTR thinks drugs are bad, mmkay." Sure, you attached your creator to it, but only after explaining why they're bad - to you- without the need for the creator in the first place.