FallentoReason 2.0

[FallentoReason]

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.

You make it sound like we're special. I don't really think we are. The only way of knowing is if we knew why everything was created, which is something we all know Deism can't answer.

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.

Well, you're right. If we take the "true" definition of evidence, then I would say the order of how the universe works might be evidence for something greater existing outside of our universe. It's not direct evidence for it and I see it more as reasoning. Maybe that makes "GOD" a more philosophical concept than anything, which I think could be the case.

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.

Yeah, it could very well be that I'm pretty much seeing something that simply isn't. Being agnostic, I can't be certain but can only rely on my limited abilities to comprehend the universe I live in. I wouldn't know how to be certain that the universe's order isn't something special, you know what I mean? It's a "gut feeling" I can't escape at the moment even if I wanted to.

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?

That's well put!

Going back to the observations, I'll explain again what started giving me the feeling of a Creator; I was driving home from work and the sunset was in front of me. Then it struck me how convenient it is that we have this gas giant exploding and sending off (arguably) the main requirement for life in all directions. Then we have this rock we're sitting on conveniently being pulled towards the gas giant in such a way that it stays basically at the same distance from it at all times. It's a rather special relationship between the two I find. A relationship that made me... appreciate... how well things work out.

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.

That could be the case, but I wouldn't have any real way of knowing what the "plan" is as such, so I'm not sure how to respond...

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 can't quite think of how my above bit didn't clear up the two things you highlighted before. Could you please elaborate?

I know that science isn't a conscious mind or anything and that the "should" comes purely from us (or me I guess), but personally I find that knowing something scientific and then assuming this Creator leads me to think "it knows best" and I therefore want to conform to what "works best". It's almost as if this Creator was a buddy at school who gave me the answers to a test and it would be silly for me not to utilise that to my advantage. It might not be the best example because it has some negative connotations, like not being honest, but it's the closest way I can describe why/how I feel like there's a "should" for me.

You see a nihilistic interpretation of the status of drugs as a result of atheism? What about atheism has anything to do with drugs?

It's all about the mindset:

Atheism - no purpose to our existence.
Deism - we are here because of some sort of Creator.
Theism - we are here because of [insert myth] and our purpose is [insert relative doctrine] and if you don't follow this then [insert relative threats].

With atheism, I pretty much see it as 50/50 as to why someone would/wouldn't do drugs. There's just as many good reasons to do them as reasons for not doing them. With Deism arguably there's no real purpose to us being here either, but assuming that there's a Creator, it makes me want to act the way in which I explained before. I can't explain 100% why that is, but I hope what I wrote before gave you a glimpse of how it fundamentally changes how I interact with the world around me.

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.

I agree that there's many reasons why an atheist wouldn't do drugs, and they're perfectly logical. I think more than anything, this whole drug analogy is more for me than anyone else. I have nothing against how people decide to treat themselves and my Deistic tendencies aren't something that would make me go out and "preach" to people. Like I explained before, it changes how I interact with the world and that's really it. If someone understands what I mean and they see reasons for why I feel this way then that's good for them.

Agreed about the last sentence. I'm simply coming to a different conclusion about the same universe we observe and I really don't know why.

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.

Yep. I fully accept the possibility that I've outdone myself this time and I've got it all backwards. Simply put, it's like the Creator is a positive charge and when one assumes it exists, one becomes negatively charged and one is pulled "in the right direction" whereas the atheist is a neutron who is unaffected and will have valid reasons for whatever direction they decide to take. This feeling is beyond me to be able to put into words.