Deism for non-believers

[FallentoReason]

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'.

Yeah it's possible that there is no motive. I just can't help but wonder why the universe does exist as opposed to not ever existing in the first place.

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.

This is unusually thick of you.. I remember clarifying 2-3 on AF.com that I WAS NOT Catholic. That was my upbringing but not my belief during the time of my stay at AF.com

I feel alright in calling you thick because we already established you have no emotions whatsoever

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.

Let's clarify what we all mean by 'motive'. I'm not using the word in the sense of 'purpose', but simply the act of matter coming into existence. It didn't have to come into existence because some god desired it -- that would mean it has purpose. So, what's the motive or reason for matter? A god could have created it but it's absolutely useless and serves no purpose.

I feel like some hidden assumptions have crept in, so I'll have to rethink some of the stuff that has been said in the thread to better understand what we have all established.

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

Well I guess when I first got the idea of the scale I subconsciously assumed that the existence was also a given. But after testing the scale a bit and seeing how far we can get with it, I think you've helped me realise that the scale only helps us draw the line between non-existent god and a plausible god.

For a plausible god to then exist means we would have to prove its existence, but I wouldn't have a clue how to go about that.

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?

Your false material claim is the bird itself. There is no such bird with said dimensions in the world. It's just like my Most Tangible God that lives on earth with us for eternity. That is a material claim the moment I say such a being exists here with us in the physical world, and an obvious false claim too.

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)

When I said in violation of physics I meant it contradicts reality basically.

Yeah I completely agree with you here. A plausible god that intervenes in our universe is a god that could be observed and, as far as I know, doesn't exist. So yes you're correct, for me a plausible god has to be below the line of intervention in our universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your "plausible god" that is a creator is an equally material claim with absolutely no evidence as well, so wouldn't it also be a "false claim" by your own metrics?

Let me be clear, there is no 80 foot bird that we know of, just as there are no actual gods that we know of...but there are birds.........fewer unjustified assertions.

Your'e asking me to believe in something for which we have have no evidence, invoking a creature for which we have no evidence, to explain an event for which there is no evidence.

I'm asking you to believe in something for which we have no evidence, invoking a larger version of a creature for which we have evidence -but I could have just invoked a normal bird couldn't I?- ,to explain an event for which there is no evidence.

If this god has to be a god that doesn't intervene then it would preclude a creator god, which had to intervene for our universe to go from "not there" to "there". This is going on the assumption that god was necessary. If we drop that assumptiuon and state that perhaps the universe could have arose by other means but that in this specific instance goddidit we would be at a loss to determine the difference between a universe "by other means" and a universe "goddidit", making it an un-falsifiable proposition (in addition to being an argument for which you are unable to assign any measure of truth to, while still being less plausible than my bird- which for some reason you think is rubbish even though this "plausible god" has escaped that axe.....all the while contradicting your insistence for a god that does not intervene).

[FallentoReason]

Your "plausible god" that is a creator is an equally material claim with absolutely no evidence as well, so wouldn't it also be a "false claim" by your own metrics?

That's why I was trying to clarify with you if you saw creation as contradictory with reality. Apparently you do? Here I'm assuming that the material claim is the act of creating matter.

Let me be clear, there is no 80 foot bird that we know of, just as there are no actual gods that we know of...but there are birds.........fewer unjustified assertions.

Thanks for clarifying. I was starting to get a little lost with this bird.

Ok, agreed, fewer unjustified assertions. But is that meaningful in any way? It seems like an irrelevant tangent saying that a 'creator bird' is more plausible, because I don't think it is anyways (seeing as we can observe the natural world and cannot find this bird). Unless you've been implying this whole time that the bird is outside of space and time like a god would be?

If this god has to be a god that doesn't intervene then it would preclude a creator god, which had to intervene for our universe to go from "not there" to "there".

Ok, so you do see the act of creation as contradicting with reality. To what degree does it actually contradict? Can it be said that there actually is a way of determining where matter came from?

This is going on the assumption that god was necessary. If we drop that assumptiuon and state that perhaps the universe could have arose by other means but that in this specific instance goddidit we would be at a loss to determine the difference between a universe "by other means" and a universe "goddidit", making it an un-falsifiable proposition (in addition to being an argument for which you are unable to assign any measure of truth to, while still being less plausible than my bird- which for some reason you think is rubbish even though this "plausible god" has escaped that axe.....all the while contradicting your insistence for a god that does not intervene).

Looks like I posted before you finished editing.

I think you have shown that we can actually go even further down the scale. I agree with the bolded, and I think this means that from here we can actually establish what this extreme of the scale could 'look' like. This "other means" that you speak of could possibly be The Beginning. Everything that has been, is, or could ever be came from this singularity that I'm calling The Beginning. Maybe this 'instance/event/source' could be a part of the scale and has the bare minimum needed to be included in the scale -- 'It' was responsible for what has become.

Our plausible gods so far in comparison have described a 'person' almost, but this definition of a god is actually the definition itself. Therefore it cannot have any godly attributes like the ones that we're all so used to, but instead 'it' (the singularity/instance/event/source) was responsible for all that is. Nothing more, nothing less.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't see creation as contradictory with reality, I see any creation act by a conscious agent as un-evidenced. Since we're referencing the creation of our material world here it is a material claim and the null hypothesis applies.

Of course it's meaningful. Lets say you have two explanations for an identical observation. One makes fewer unjustified assumptions than the other. Which is more valuable or more likely. Which is more plausible? Parsimony.

It matters very little if you think a creator bird is less plausible unless you can show why it is less plausible. It isn't a tangent, I'm checking for false positives in your scale, and attempting to show you how easy it is to reduce this scale to the absurd. If this scale business is useful then I shouldn't be able to insert 80 foot creator birds or immaterial strawberry shortcake and have it return similar (or in this case, more plausible) results than your plausible god..now should I?

No, I'm not saying that creation contradicts reality, I'm stating explicitly that creation is an act of intervention/interaction and that you have previously stated that your plausible god does not do this sort of thing. (I think that this non-intervening/interacting god is a weasel argument by the way, a conscious attempt to produce an unfalsifiable proposition so that you can then declare the proposition plausible without explaining how you have assigned any metrics of plausibility in the first place -after deliberately tanking any means by which you could conceivably do so-).

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

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.

This is unusually thick of you.. I remember clarifying 2-3 on AF.com that I WAS NOT Catholic. That was my upbringing but not my belief during the time of my stay at AF.com

I feel alright in calling you thick because we already established you have no emotions whatsoever

Wow, do you really think that you are so important that anyone cares what brand of nonsense you happened to be spewing then?

The fact that you had disavowed catholitardism for something else equally rabid is irrelevant, and as you see you are nowhere near as important as you would like to be; religiotards come and go there and the details of your little ride through delusion are meaningless and blurrred into obscurity in the endless procession of xtard trolls there.

That being said, feel free to replace "catholic" with whatever malady you claim you, ah, claimef, and face the music.

[FallentoReason]

It matters very little if you think a creator bird is less plausible unless you can show why it is less plausible. It isn't a tangent, I'm checking for false positives in your scale, and attempting to show you how easy it is to reduce this scale to the absurd. If this scale business is useful then I shouldn't be able to insert 80 foot creator birds or immaterial strawberry shortcake and ave it return similar (or in this case, more plausible) results than your plausible god..now should I?

Ok, I understand now what is it you're getting at. I don't see how it's absurd that arbitrary qualities like species and size can get accepted into the set. I just think it's trivial because the scale is merely reflecting 'non-physical' attributes. It's kind of like describing someone and saying e.g. they're smart as opposed to describing material properties like the colour of their hair. So, by all means, you can insert gods that have a certain shape and size, but I don't see it as useful or damaging to the scale's functionality.

With creation, let's get some stuff clear. So you and I definitely see it as impossible for a god to intervene. Now, you say the act of creation itself is in a way intervening, but creation doesn't contradict with reality. So when you say it doesn't contradict with reality I take it you mean some "other means" that was responsible for the universe wouldn't contradict reality? Now, on the topic of creation being intervention, I don't think it could be called intervention. Prior to creation there is nothing to intervene in. After creation, matter exists for you to intervene with but, as we agreed, no plausible god does intervene.

Oh, p.s. I responded to the rest of your other post which you were editing as I finished replying to it.

[Ace Otana]

Yeah it's possible that there is no motive. I just can't help but wonder why the universe does exist as opposed to not ever existing in the first place.

Stephen Hawking goes into it pretty well, you should watch his vid. Not everything requires a cause. Not everything needs nor has a purpose, not everything has a 'why' to it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ok, I understand now what is it you're getting at. I don't see how it's absurd that arbitrary qualities like species and size can get accepted into the set. I just think it's trivial because the scale is merely reflecting 'non-physical' attributes. It's kind of like describing someone and saying e.g. they're smart as opposed to describing material properties like the colour of their hair. So, by all means, you can insert gods that have a certain shape and size, but I don't see it as useful or damaging to the scale's functionality.

With creation, let's get some stuff clear. So you and I definitely see it as impossible for a god to intervene. Now, you say the act of creation itself is in a way intervening, but creation doesn't contradict with reality. So when you say it doesn't contradict with reality I take it you mean some "other means" that was responsible for the universe wouldn't contradict reality? Now, on the topic of creation being intervention, I don't think it could be called intervention. Prior to creation there is nothing to intervene in. After creation, matter exists for you to intervene with but, as we agreed, no plausible god does intervene.

Oh, p.s. I responded to the rest of your other post which you were editing as I finished replying to it.

What is damaging to the scale is not that I can insert size or shape, but that I can insert absurdity and return a result that is more plausible than your plausible god. If your position is that some creator god on this scale is plausible and therefore rational to believe in then you would have to concede that my bird or strawberry shortcake trumps any of these potential plausible gods by sheer weight of parsimony. The only question that remains is why you don't believe in my creator bird or my creator shortcake. Or, just maybe, your scale isn't as useful as you initially thought (and as I've mentioned before, that's regardless of whether or not this scale can be said to have any correlation to factuality.......I mean ffs, a scale that cant be connected to existence and also returns divine shortcake as a plausibility?).

No, we don't see it as impossible. I see it as un-evidenced, I have no idea how you see it because you seem to have conflicting narratives about this plausible god. It is intervention in that before creation "nothing exists" and after creation "something exists" That this something is material is icing on the cake for me, because again, it is theoretically falsifiable (unless you propose the possibility of "others means" as a convenient excuse for this creative agents "hidden-ness" which is why I mentioned it in the first place. Pre-empting the sort of bullshit that is inevitable once this line of argumentation is taken up.)

Lets's see if I can distill my problems with your scale down to a single line of criticism. You could use this scale as a tool to create a theoretically unfalsifiable proposition, and in fact it seems that you have designed this scale to be useful for nothing else(you haven't managed to do that yet but we're going to take a trip into the future where you have). If you were to succeed in doing this you would merely be demonstrating that such a thing as an unfalsifiable proposition exists -which is something that we already understand-. Your unfalsifiable proposition is not a god, it is an unfalsifiable proposition. You are not creating plausible gods, you are creating plausible unfalsifiable propositions. This might help to explain why remarks like "mental masturbation" have been leveled at your posts.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Yeah it's possible that there is no motive. I just can't help but wonder why the universe does exist as opposed to not ever existing in the first place.

Stephen Hawking goes into it pretty well, you should watch his vid. Not everything requires a cause. Not everything needs nor has a purpose, not everything has a 'why' to it.

i don't understand why so many fail to see this as self-evident, and the only explanation I can see is willful ignorance.

[Skepsis]

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?

Yes, yes you are. I won't be able to tell you the type of fallacy that you are commiting, because I'm not a logician; however, I can tel you you're problem and where I feel, logically, you went astray:
You basically equivocate the claim "It is likely that there exists X because of the overwhelmingly large quantity of hanes for X to exist."
With something like "It is likely that X exists because of the overwhelming amount of possible and plausible varients of X that I can imagine."
The difference being that scientists can predict and measure the chances of there being life on other planets through probability, etc. We can use a valid real way to measure the chances.
You propose a near infinite amount of plausible Gods, yet there is no reason to say that any one of those Gods is any more likely that the last, as they are all separate from each other probability wise.

To make this a tad more cognizant, think now of an infinite # of plausible universe-creating unicorns. Any one unicorn isn't any more likely than another because each individal unicorn must be independently verified.
All in all, this means that, regardless of the concept, what makes things more probable is the evidence we have for those things. We have evidence that we base our statistics on when trying to guess whether or not other life exists, but nothing for Gods (or unicorns).

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.

I think evidence must be based on reality in the same way that mathematics is based on reality and then abstracted.
2+2=4 is quite the claim, but is ultimately based on reality.
There can be arguments that take into account the neccesity of a God that I would consider as evidence, if they were at all valid.

Now that I think about it, is a God plausible if he is immaterial? Because we don't know if a being without any matter is even possible.

---

Stephen Hawking goes into it pretty well, you should watch his vid. Not everything requires a cause. Not everything needs nor has a purpose, not everything has a 'why' to it.

i don't understand why so many fail to see this as self-evident, and the only explanation I can see is willful ignorance.

Most people don't intuit things of that nature or caliber.

Quantum mechanics aren't something you just know from birth, and in any case most people end up, sadly, born into a world of religion where pastors scream the need for a cause from the pulpit to ward away any evil nonbeliever that may try to tempt his pure-as-white-snow congregation (who disavow Jewish people, black people, homosexuals, etc).