Deism for non-believers

[Brian37]

Cute kitten. But I always find it funny when someone with a pet predilection when they point at the beliefs of others and post rightful blasphemy like that, but cant seem to bring themselves to point that good mirror at their own label.

"I am not like the others", yes you are. Anything started that long ago and especially not in a lab, which amounts to nothing more than a social club, cannot replace our modern tools of how we gain knowledge. The can only be our personal predilections.

Evolution existed long before Christianity, Hinduism, Hebrew, Taoism ect ect ect. It was around before our current social clubs and will still be around if they morphed into something else or got scrapped all together. The ability to make babies is not dependent on holding any label.

What does masturbating have to do with the facts I stated above?

Are you saying that if you held another label, or were an atheist somehow magically your private parts would cease to work?

I am sorry if the cognitive dissonance may offend you, but that is your baggage, not mine. Evolution was around before Taoism and Hinduism, so all you have is a personal predilection like everyone else. Otherwise your label could be taught like entropy and you could take it to a patent office and win a Nobel Prize in science.

"I am not like the others", sorry to burst your bubble, but yes you are.

---

Seriously, get over yourself and stop falsely thinking I am trying to hurt your feelings. Read the God Delusion by Dawkins and The New Atheism by Victor Stinger. If you want to understand. Otherwise you are merely sticking your fingers in your ears shouting "THE SUN ROTATES AROUND THE EARTH, WHY WON'T YOU LET ME FALSELY BELIEVE THAT".

You are entitled to your own predilections, but not your own facts.

[Skepsis]

Yeah I agree completely. The scale doesn't prove in any way that one of these plausible gods exists. It merely allows one to construct gods that wouldn't contradict reality.

So it really doesn't do anything of value at all, does it? A scale that measures the number of ghosts holding blue-flaming candles has as much use as a scale measuring plausible gods, in that both are mere conjecture.

Maths is most certainly not based on reality. For example, the most fundamental concepts of geometry and mere assumptions that can't be proven in reality. Two parallel lines can't be shown to exist because you would need to check along their infinite lengths to see if they ever diverge or intersect. Parallel lines are just an idea that is accepted as being true without any real proof. Same thing with a circle, whose perimeter is made up of infinite amounts of points all placed at a distance R from the centre. Sure, you could draw me a circle, but it wouldn't match the definition because your pen has a thickness meaning that you have points that are closer or further away to the centre. Therefore, you are merely representing the idea of a circle, but you haven't drawn a circle. 2 + 2 = 4 is no different either. You could grab two rocks and another two rocks and throw them together to get four, but you're not showing me what four actually is. You merely have four rocks that represent the idea of 'four'. But what is four?

I would like to defer to Rhythm here, because he had answered this (mostly) by the time I got around to posting again.
4 as a number is a concept and cannot be shown directly in reality, just like every single other concept that has ever existed. We can only show the physical representation of those concepts.
Mathematics is necessarily based on the obervable universe, because it is a descriptive function of the universe rather than a prescriptive. That is to say, it functions off of the observable and is subject to change.
That said, every single mathematical concept has some use in the gauging of reality. Infinites have uses in macro calculations despite their inoperability in the physical universe.

Oh, and by the way, I want to make it very, very clear that parallel lines are not some axiom of geometry. They are very observeable in reality, and you don't need infinite lengths to have two lines that would never intersect.

...amazes me btw, how many times I've had this conversation since joining these forums. Math or numbers (nor logic) are "things" floating around bending the cosmos to their whims. They are descriptive terms and systems we have formed in order to communicate some observation or concept. I could call a "4" a "splurge" nd it would still return the same results when multiplied by itself, i would merely have a different name for those results. That -is- what 4 "is".

[Angrboda]

Unlike many physicists before him, who insisted that great breakthroughs in physics be firmly grounded in experimental data, Dirac took the opposite strategy. To him pure mathematics, if it was beautiful enough, was the sure guide to great breakthroughs. He wrote, "It is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiments . . . It seems that if one is working from the point of view of getting beauty in one's equations, and if one has a really sound insight, one is on a sure line of progress."

— Physics Of The Impossible, Michio Kaku

I'm not of the opinion that there's anything ontologically distinctive about math and numbers, but then I wouldn't lean towards Quine's belief that mathematical concepts are derived empirically either. Philosophy of math gets into some serious shit, and like many of the purely theoretical sciences, there are more dead ends than hopeful avenues. Whatever, it's beyond me. I would lean toward a Kantian, underdetermined functionalism — numbers and math are abstractions built into our cognitions to allow us to map input behaviors to output behaviors in a probabilistic manner, without us having to figure out how the mathematical relationships between the environment and the life form actually work. In that sense, a number like '4' is a reference to a number of behavioral invariants, such that the invariants, like composition of functions, yields appropriate behaviors in response to contemplation of, and combination of, concepts.

[Skepsis]

I'm not of the opinion that there's anything ontologically distinctive about math and numbers, but then I wouldn't lean towards Quine's belief that mathematical concepts are derived empirically either. Philosophy of math gets into some serious shit, and like many of the purely theoretical sciences, there are more dead ends than hopeful avenues. Whatever, it's beyond me. I would lean toward a Kantian, underdetermined functionalism — numbers and math are abstractions built into our cognitions to allow us to map input behaviors to output behaviors in a probabilistic manner, without us having to figure out how the mathematical relationships between the environment and the life form actually work. In that sense, a number like '4' is a reference to a number of behavioral invariants, such that the invariants, like composition of functions, yields appropriate behaviors in response to contemplation of, and combination of, concepts.

Don't get too far off subject to think that the topic of discussion has shifted to mathematic philosophical quandries. But, with that in mind, I do believe the statements quoted above warrant a responce.

I don't know if you contradicted yourself or if you misinterpreted Quine's empirical take as being in opposition to the Kantian "intuit" of math. The two don't conflict with one another, but, if I can take your statements at face value, are very complementary.

Intuition is derived from nature. We evolved in such a way as to adopt certain intuitions, and so did many animals, and, if a looser definition of intuition is applied, all living things.

Bees are born to carry out their task, to bring pollen to the hive. This is the purpose of their existence. They too have the Kantian interpretation of math "installed" into them, so to speak, as intuition. Well, I shouldn't be so assertive. We can only gauge that from the animal's interaction with nature. But isn't that true with all thinking creatures?
In any case, the bee and the human are both capable of taking in sets and digits as data and having it displayed as probability in their minds. If math is represented as abstractions and manifested in the living as intuition, then it follows that math is a description of nature just like all life within nature.
After all, life in itself is descriptive of nature. That was Darwin's starting premise when advancing the theory of evolution and is the basis of modern biology, is it not?

[FallentoReason]

I've decided against even arguing it, as you have a definition for intervention that differs from my own, and since it's just a thought exercise word games would only serve to draw it out. What I am suggesting is that this creative act may be untenable for the very same reasons that interventions (by your definition) are untenable (to you). I wouldn't know for certain though. I've asked a couple of times why intervention rules a god out for you (as a plausible god).

I rule out intervention because I simply haven't seen it happen. Everything in the natural world seems to be in its place all the time.

I take it you don't agree with why I see creation as not intervention? I don't think you've exactly given me your thoughts on my explanation.

It requires the creator attribute for you, but the scale doesn't demand it in and of itself, that's just an attribute that you have given to a plausible god, is it not? I've already made mention of this several times. I think that the scale you've proposed doesn't work due to divine strawberry shortcake being more plausible than any plausible god due to parsimony.

I think it does need the creator attribute, otherwise what would we be arguing for? The scale would be completely disconnected in every way to reality as creation is the one tangible thing between reality and an ideal god. Maybe for the scale to work we need to assume these gods are something seperate from mere objects like cake. Also, a cake has design. Not just any design, but a design by us. So it can't be that it gave rise to what designed it if it's the creator of the universe.

-- There are your lines (these lines have a set length, btw, in many different ways, and you can be assured that they are parallel, defying your proclamations of what is or is not quite literally impossible).
--

Here is your circle.

Concepts are not visible things.........

"You can show me how 4 can be used to describe something, like rocks in an arbitrary position that then are identified as 'four rocks'," which is precisely what "4" is..............I could also show you what "adventurous" is, even though "adventurous" itself is just a concept, it is a descriptive concept, and so is "4".

But what makes you say they are parallel? You are assuming they won't ever intersect somewhere along infinity. Or have you checked?

Blocky pixels definitely cannot make a circle. You'd get a way better approximation by drawing it by hand. Even then it's a crude approximation to a concept that can't be shown in reality (yes, I agree with you. Concepts aren't visible).

I agree now that numbers are a way of describing groups of things.

---

So it really doesn't do anything of value at all, does it? A scale that measures the number of ghosts holding blue-flaming candles has as much use as a scale measuring plausible gods, in that both are mere conjecture.

I guess it's more of a thought experiment which simply lets you explore further what a god might be like.

I would like to defer to Rhythm here, because he had answered this (mostly) by the time I got around to posting again.
4 as a number is a concept and cannot be shown directly in reality, just like every single other concept that has ever existed. We can only show the physical representation of those concepts.
Mathematics is necessarily based on the obervable universe, because it is a descriptive function of the universe rather than a prescriptive. That is to say, it functions off of the observable and is subject to change.
That said, every single mathematical concept has some use in the gauging of reality. Infinites have uses in macro calculations despite their inoperability in the physical universe.

Clearly maths does have applications in the real world even if the concepts aren't proven or shown to actually exist.

Oh, and by the way, I want to make it very, very clear that parallel lines are not some axiom of geometry. They are very observeable in reality, and you don't need infinite lengths to have two lines that would never intersect.

Where can I observe them? How can you know that they are indeed parallel? Please elaborate.

[The Grand Nudger]

I rule out intervention because I simply haven't seen it happen. Everything in the natural world seems to be in its place all the time.

Have you witnessed any cosmos creation recently? Why have you ruled out intervention but ruled in creation, they would seem to fall under the same axe, to me.

I take it you don't agree with why I see creation as not intervention? I don't think you've exactly given me your thoughts on my explanation.

Actually yes, I have. Before creation there was nothing, after there was something, we proposes this as an act of a god, therefore it intervened in the continued state of nothingness.

I think it does need the creator attribute, otherwise what would we be arguing for? The scale would be completely disconnected in every way to reality as creation is the one tangible thing between reality and an ideal god. Maybe for the scale to work we need to assume these gods are something seperate from mere objects like cake. Also, a cake has design. Not just any design, but a design by us. So it can't be that it gave rise to what designed it if it's the creator of the universe.

Aren't we arguing about a scale which is completely disconnected in every way to reality? I do recall you mentioning a few posts back that this was precisely the trouble with the scale as it applied to compelling someone to believe in a plausible god.

But what makes you say they are parallel? You are assuming they won't ever intersect somewhere along infinity. Or have you checked?

No assumption is required, you can see the totality of both lines, and they do not intersect. I don't need to check into infinity because they are not infinitely long. A line of known length, and an infinitely long line are vastly different things (yuk yuk yuk). Parallel lines need not be infinitely long even if there were (at least in concept) infinitely long parallel lines.

Blocky pixels definitely cannot make a circle. You'd get a way better approximation by drawing it by hand. Even then it's a crude approximation to a concept that can't be shown in reality (yes, I agree with you. Concepts aren't visible).

You gotta problem with pixels? LOL.. just givin you shit bud.

[Mister Agenda]

Sorry to come in late. The deist creator god is the least implausible of all the proposed creator gods I have heard of, but it is still implausible.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Initially when I was thinking about writing this thread I thought that a Deistic god could basically be proven logically and therefore I would have no choice but to acknowledge its existence.

See, there is your whole problem here in a nutshell. Like any "good" theist (or "deist" or whatever for the arrogantly pedantic), you approach the problem thus:

A) X must be true, by fiat.

B) What specious arguments, assertions, and other horseshit can I try to float to support A?

C) Post B ad nauseum.

[Skepsis]

Oh, and by the way, I want to make it very, very clear that parallel lines are not some axiom of geometry. They are very observeable in reality, and you don't need infinite lengths to have two lines that would never intersect.

Where can I observe them? How can you know that they are indeed parallel? Please elaborate.

In the same way as we can know the orbit pf Pluto without ever observing the path or the angles at which it spins, we can know if two lines would be truly parallel. Use math to determine whether the set that you have in reality matches the hypothetical ideal- then you can know whether or not the physical interpretation of "parallel" matches.

[Angrboda]

I'm not of the opinion that there's anything ontologically distinctive about math and numbers, but then I wouldn't lean towards Quine's belief that mathematical concepts are derived empirically either.

I don't know if you contradicted yourself or if you misinterpreted Quine's empirical take as being in opposition to the Kantian "intuit" of math. The two don't conflict with one another, but, if I can take your statements at face value, are very complementary.

Oh, I think the simple answer is that I don't know what I'm talking about. I've glanced at some stuff, but I'm very ignorant of the subject. I will say, however, even though I'm grossly ignorant of the subject, from what I've read, I think you're being overly charitable toward Quine.

Anyway, for some irrational reason I like Quine. However, my bailiwick is cognitive science, psychology, theory of discourses and epistemology. And I'm pretty ignorant even on those subjects. So this is just a novice spitballing, not an educated opinion.