Deism for non-believers

[FallentoReason]

Yes, but your thread started taking on the stance that atheists are left with no option but a belief in some plausible God when they get however far down your scale it takes for that version of G-d to be unfalsifiable, and that is simply wrong, is it not?

Yeah I think it's reasonable to say I assumed too much to begin with. After discussing this more thoroughly so far, I think my scale deals only with plausibility and that's it. The only thing one could do after determining where to stop on the scale is then have the faith that said god indeed exists. Well.. that's not where I want discussion to be headed really. I thought that through philosophy and reason it could be shown that a deist-type god had to exist.

The probability of a God existing and its existence are separate, and you seem to be bordering on an argument from ignorance in that you are saying that a plausible God is a likely God.
Like I said before, just because you can create a mental God who fits the criterion the universe arbitrates doesn't make that particular God or any Gods like it any more likely to exist than Russell's teapot.

I see it the same way as when people say life most likely exists on other planets because there's billions upon billions of planets out there. The probability that there is life then becomes rather high. My scale I believe has heaps of definitions of gods that don't contradict reality, which in turn means that one of them could eventually exist. Am I being fallacious without knowing it?

Mentioned as a way of judging belief in a higher power in The God Delusion, Richard Dawkin's scale determines to what extent you can hold to the belief that a given God exists. Varying degrees require varying certainty, and while God can exist in a personally satisfactory way, or rather, be more likely when he has reached a level of plausibility that satiates the palette of the individual, that God cannot rise above a 1 because he lacks evidence. And this might be rather haphazard of me, but in order to prove anything, including God, you need evidence.
(Evidence can be logical, as long as it is based on reality and not some metaphysical daydream, abstracted and sundered from any trace of actuality.)

Huh, that's pretty interesting. I've never been fond of the four horsemen of atheism but I might look into that argument some more.

I agree that evidence is necessary to be able to come to a conclusion that something is true. When you say the evidence has to be based on reality, do you mean it in a material way? Because plausible gods that are immaterial by definition can't be shown to exist through material means.

---

If we follow the logic of the No Free Lunch theorem with respect to evolutionary algorithms, and don't bind our notion of a Deist god by the shell of the past, the probability ends up being that the most likely god is of the Lovecraftian sort, about which we're probably better off not knowing.

Did you ever pause to consider how many more malevolent and evil gods are compatible with the world we see, than any gods possessed of good nature?

Wow.. I'm feeling especially dumb today. Sorry, I couldn't understand how the No Free Lunch theorem ties in with Deist gods!

I haven't considered malevolent and evil gods. I haven't taken into consideration the intentions of these gods though. I was focusing more on their definitions and whether their hypothetical existence would contradict reality.

In a sense, I see Deism falling into the same trap as agnosticism — attempting to break free of tradition only to create a new tradition that is a synthesis of the old and some noble sentiments; they never reach escape velocity to break free of the problems of the past. Just ask yourself which Deist god is more probable, the impersonal shadow of Christianity, or my blessed Kali who orders the warp and rhythm of creation. Did you ever consider Shaktism as an equally plausible alternative to your Deism? If not, why not?

I see you refer to these 'problems of the past' a lot. What problems exactly?

I don't think that a Deist god would have anything to do with established religion(s) of the world, because all of them make physical claims of different sorts but I haven't seen the evidence that shows these claims are true. So, yes, I did consider them but discarded them straight away according to the scale in the OP.

[Angrboda]

I see you didn't answer my question about Shaktism. The problems of the past alludes to the fact that no matter what attributes we posit, some smartass has a proof somewhere showing that attribute as being a problem. The only way out of that box is to posit a god with no tangible attributes, but then why call that god? Why not just, 'existence'? Or reality? What, in your view, is the minimum attribute that a god must have in order to qualify as a god, as opposed to 'nature' or some other non-god existential quantity.

The NFL theorem is applicable because it demonstrates that when you average the net moment over a purely random set of phase spaces, the net moment is zero. Likewise, if your set of Gods is truly only constrained by the possible, you have a net average of all characteristics being zero (0) -- thus the result of following the logic of possibility in determining the likely characteristic of a Deist god constructed this way is that the probability of this god having any specific attribute is zero (0); it's as described impressionistically above, if you let go of ALL IDEAS from your experience, the most probable god is a cipher, having no qualities which differentiate it from it not existing. The reason you are able to shape this Deist god in the way you are, imho, is because you're using hidden assumptions, assumptions based on what has been said or thought about god before, and not really opening yourself up to the truly possible. YMMV.

[FallentoReason]

I see you didn't answer my question about Shaktism. The problems of the past alludes to the fact that no matter what attributes we posit, some smartass has a proof somewhere showing that attribute as being a problem. The only way out of that box is to posit a god with no tangible attributes, but then why call that god? Why not just, 'existence'? Or reality? What, in your view, is the minimum attribute that a god must have in order to qualify as a god, as opposed to 'nature' or some other non-god existential quantity.

Oh, sorry! I should have clarified that I briefly researched Shaktism and I responded to it by implying it's in the category of 'world religions'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the belief is that the god visited the society 22 000 years ago. Well, we've all seen the flaws with Jesus so I wasn't going to bother trying to disprove an incarnate god that lived 11 x 2 000 years ago. Or was there something that I missed about this belief?

Your suggestions for the nature of a plausible god are valid in my eyes (i.e. existence or reality). Like I said, in order to make sense of the scale and its true meaning we have to drop the conventional meaning of 'god'.

I guess the more I think about it, the concept of 'god' is the thing where all that is material and even immaterial (if such things exist) came from. 'god' is the origin of all that is. The reason why I would give it the label of 'god' is because it was the thing that gave rise to the tangible that we call reality/nature. But reality/nature can't explain why it exists as opposed to not existing. It can only show us how it functions after coming into existence.

The NFL theorem is applicable because it demonstrates that when you average the net moment over a purely random set of phase spaces, the net moment is zero. Likewise, if your set of Gods is truly only constrained by the possible, you have a net average of all characteristics being zero (0) -- thus the result of following the logic of possibility in determining the likely characteristic of a Deist god constructed this way is that the probability of this god having any specific attribute is zero (0); it's as described impressionistically above, if you let go of ALL IDEAS from your experience, the most probable god is a cipher, having no qualities which differentiate it from it not existing. The reason you are able to shape this Deist god in the way you are, imho, is because you're using hidden assumptions, assumptions based on what has been said or thought about god before, and not really opening yourself up to the truly possible. YMMV.

Wow... that's very profound. I'll have to ponder these arguments you've brought up.

How do you suggest I open myself up to what's truly possible?

[Brian37]

Shaktism is woo and so is Taoism.

"I am not like the others". Sam Harris has his pet woo clinging to Buddhism stuff, he has claimed that it isn't about organized religion but "spiritualism", but as smart as he is it is still woo.

I am with Victor Stinger in "The New Atheism" saying that these labels are not universal but our evolution and nature to make up this stuff is. He goes after all the major labels in that book and explains aptly why nature in our mundane psychology, and not woo or a god, allows us to make up stuff, even when it is needless and superfluous.

Our personal pet clubs do not change that we have always had the capability to cling to woo and superstition. We are not a separate species. We've had imaginations from the start of our species and the woo we fall for today is no different.

[Ace Otana]

The limitation that science has on explaining things is that it can't give a reason for a process happening.

Sounds like a 'god of the gaps' argument. If we don't know/understand something, jump to god did it. Which is a non-answer.

There's tons I don't know, but in no way will I just assume some god exists and that he did it. I'll just admit to not knowing something and see if I can find a way to understanding it. If I can't then I'll have to leave it as an unknown.
Humans have a terrible habit of jumping to 'goddidit' when they don't know something. I guess it's that need to fill in that gap, even if it's with something very hollow and easily breakable.

[FallentoReason]

The limitation that science has on explaining things is that it can't give a reason for a process happening.

Sounds like a 'god of the gaps' argument. If we don't know/understand something, jump to god did it. Which is a non-answer.

There's tons I don't know, but in no way will I just assume some god exists and that he did it. I'll just admit to not knowing something and see if I can find a way to understanding it. If I can't then I'll have to leave it as an unknown.
Humans have a terrible habit of jumping to 'goddidit' when they don't know something. I guess it's that need to fill in that gap, even if it's with something very hollow and easily breakable.

I had a feeling I would be categorised into the 'goddidit' crowd. It's kind of like the example I have a couple of pages back about kicking a ball. I could kick a ball and science could tell you every last detail about how the ball and my muscles act, but I don't think it can tell you why I did it.

Science can explain the properties of matter but it can't explain the motive for matter existing. I'm not saying it won't explain how it formed but why. Do you think this still falls under the 'goddidit' type argument?

[Ace Otana]

I had a feeling I would be categorised into the 'goddidit' crowd. It's kind of like the example I have a couple of pages back about kicking a ball. I could kick a ball and science could tell you every last detail about how the ball and my muscles act, but I don't think it can tell you why I did it.

We don't have all the answers, but in no way does it mean that there has to be a god. We may one day know enough about the human brain to give you the answer.

Science can explain the properties of matter but it can't explain the motive for matter existing. I'm not saying it won't explain how it formed but why. Do you think this still falls under the 'goddidit' type argument?

Perhaps there is no 'motive'. Like how people expect there to be a purpose, but what if there isn't any? Perhaps there is no 'why', only 'how'.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

The limitation that science has on explaining things is that it can't give a reason for a process happening.

Sounds like a 'god of the gaps' argument. If we don't know/understand something, jump to god did it. Which is a non-answer.

There's tons I don't know, but in no way will I just assume some god exists and that he did it. I'll just admit to not knowing something and see if I can find a way to understanding it. If I can't then I'll have to leave it as an unknown.
Humans have a terrible habit of jumping to 'goddidit' when they don't know something. I guess it's that need to fill in that gap, even if it's with something very hollow and easily breakable.

What it looks like, is the "bargaining" phase of the grieving process over the loss of his Big Wooby.

Having realized the absurdity of his Catholic Gawd, he is still clinging to this idea that there MUST be a gawd somehow, and trying to invent one and give it a minimum amount of vague enough qualities that he can circumvent all the reasonable objections to god-myths he has run up against. And yes, you nailed it: by necessity a gawd of the gaps.

But the undeniable fact remains that this gawd, just like all others before it, is a made-up fairy tale. The difference with this one is that we get to see it being made-up ourselves, and do not have to endure appeals to tradition and claims of, "how would you know this isn't true and it's just a made-up story, you weren't there! ".

[Tempus]

Science can explain the properties of matter but it can't explain the motive for matter existing.

I apologize in advance if I'm missing something here since I've kind of skimmed over this thread, but perhaps one of the assumptions apophenia is referring to that you're assuming there is a motive for matter existing. The best way to get rid of hidden assumptions in my experience is to start over with nothing.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think I'm allowed to assume things because I'm not making the claim that the plausible god then exists based on these assumptions that can't be tested (like the immaterial properties). Through the scale we can come up with a theory for a god but we can't do much else after that.

By all means, assume things. As long as we agree that a concept or theory of a god does not constitute any actual being.

Haha.. ok so the bird is divine now. Well quite obviously this hypothesis gets shot down straight away. There is no such bird-god in existence. This example isn't any more plausible than my Most Tangible God in the OP because you have made a material claim and that claim is false.

Why would the bird need to be divine to create the cosmos? You have evidence that an 80 foot bird didn't create the cosmos? Again, it's more plausible in that it invokes fewer unjustified assumptions. I don't have to assume a plausible bird exists, now do I? That it's just as pathetic as an origins story as a god goes without saying...but wasn't that precisely my point to begin with? You tell me that I have made a material claim that is false and yet you feel comfortable assuming that there is some plausible god that makes this same material claim?

I did mention somewhere that the bare minimum for a god to be included in my scale was that it must have created the universe. Do you think that's in violation of physics?

Depends on how this god did the creating, but whether or not it's "in violation of physics" is irrelevant to me, what is relevent is that it is an interacting god who could be measured by way of determining its influence. It becomes a falsifiable proposition and possible for us to test empirically, and at that point thought exercises would be the proper tool for the job exactly how? (I do recall you mentioning that for you a plausible god falls on the scale somewhere around not interacting with our world btw)