Life as a Deist

[genkaus]

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.

I don't like the phrase "leap of faith" when it comes to Deism for the simple reason that to me it seems like an instinct. By that I mean that I have been raised to understand that where there is a design (e.g. car, building, painting) there is a designer (e.g. mechanic, engineer, artist). I'm in no way claiming that instincts are accurate and/or reliable, but it is an understanding of the universe that I can't escape, much like I can't make myself believe a e.g. chair made itself. To me, the building blocks of the universe look like they were thought out.

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.

Oh p.s. I answered twice to those posts because I still can't see my own post. Looks like everyone else could see my post just fine though...

Only when they click on the reply button.

I don't know how it could be special pleading. I'm not being biased in the evidence I'm considering because there is no direct evidence for a god. I've simply stated what is arguably just a philosophical standpoint for the time being.

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

I've sort of addressed the first point, so I'll leave it. The second point: philosophy might come from the human mind, but science certainly doesn't. Did e.g. physics begin to work (or be a part of reality) when we finally learned how to describe it mathematically? "Science" is the term we use for the enquiry of the natural world around us which obviously has existed even before we did.

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.