FallentoReason 2.0

[SpecUVdust]

It's amazing how close deism can appear to theism; especially when held onto by someone who "doesn't understand enough about it." When put into your words, it sounds like fuckin religion. You didn't spend years studying deism and then accept it. You desired to have some faith and jumped right onto deism knowing it would allow you to think of intelligent design and so forth. You sir are falling into ID.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well the Deistic assumption is that it all eventually came from this divine being thing, so the reason for the forces of nature being the way they are is because they were made to be that way. So from the big bag, matter was going to act according to the laws that were set in place, eventually giving us a universe that we observe today. I don't really know how else to explain it...

As for evolution, I think it's all supported by "simpler" laws that made evolution possible in the first place via laws of physics etc...

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.

There's none to be found. Only reasoning based on what we observe today.

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.

Arguably, my recent inclinations towards concluding that there's a greater being in a different dimension are affected by my "biological bias" where my cognition simply makes me arrive at this conclusion because I'm exposed to a world where the "painting" required a "painter".

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.

Or, I'm correct in being able to extrapolate what I observe and coming to a conclusion that is more or less true. I don't know which one it is, but all I have is my own thoughts and my surroundings as they are, but no evidence.

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?

Yeah, good point. I'll let you know right now that I'm fairly new to Deism and I haven't figured it out enough to explain myself coherently. Therefore I will most likely say things that contradict without realising, but that's ok because then you guys can help me see that and I can refine better what's logical and what isn't (in a philosophical sense more than anything... I think).

Happy to be your sounding board, truly.

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.

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 think the above helps summarise what I see as the motivation behind wanting to use nature to our advantage. I think Deism in a way makes me take scientific discoveries more seriously because if we assume science is our way to understand what the Creator left behind, then there's hope(?) that it will show us the way to live as best we can. The atheist can obviously do the same without believing in a creator, but I can't help but see a more nihilistic outcome of "so what if (e.g.) drugs are bad"? To me, it's like there's someone out there saying "I told you so!" when I don't listen to what we have discovered, and that in a way gives me direction for my life. Call it a sort of placebo if you have to, because that could very well be the case I suppose.

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

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.

[SpecUVdust]

Evolution is a ongoing process in which the very best traits will continue. It makes sense that over billions of years the product of evolution would be things that work extremely well. Nothing was designed; only beautifully evolved to fit right in to this universe. Make sense? This is reasoning.

[FallentoReason]

It's amazing how close deism can appear to theism; especially when held onto by someone who "doesn't understand enough about it."

That's a bit of a stretch...

Arguably, the only superstition I'm holding is the God-being itself. Never have I said that if you do this or don't do that you will receive some sort of fate or that you won't be in good terms with sky daddy, that there was a select group of tribal people who happened to get lucky and believed in the right god, that you have superpowers when you sincerely believe, that there's even an afterlife, that we have revealed knowledge from this God-being etc etc... I think you're exaggerating!

When put into your words, it sounds like fuckin religion.

So can I be considered the world's first priest for Deism?

You didn't spend years studying deism and then accept it.

Huh? So more years studying it = appropriate reason to believe in it? What sort of an argument is that?? Deism is Deism no matter how long you've studied it for, so chances are you would still be saying the same things about it even if I had studied it for years.

You desired to have some faith and jumped right onto deism knowing it would allow you to think of intelligent design and so forth. You sir are falling into ID.

Finally, a fair point

I don't know what made me inch closer to Deism. I've explained already in this thread that basically I might just be subconsciously biased and I recognise there's order with how the universe functions (laws of physics etc) and that makes me extrapolate and assume something was behind it.

Evolution is a ongoing process in which the very best traits will continue. It makes sense that over billions of years the product of evolution would be things that work extremely well. Nothing was designed; only beautifully evolved to fit right in to this universe. Make sense? This is reasoning.

Good strawman. I couldn't agree more with what you've said.

[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.

[pocaracas]

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.

You should be made aware that all bodies translating around the sun that were not in a proper orbit, either fell into the sun, or went away from it... a long long time ago.
What you see today is what's left.

[Norfolk And Chance]

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.

Yes, it's all rather convenient which is why we have life. And it's also uncon-fucking-venient on all of the other planets in the solar system which don't have life. Why would anybody get a gut feeling for design when the evidence points to chance? So many stars, so many planets, crunch the numbers and by chance some will be in the habitable zone of their planets.

[FallentoReason]

Yep, spot on guys!

I'll say again: we are not special, but the fact that life is possible because of the relationship between sun and planet amazes me, regardless of how much or how little life there might be out there.

[SpecUVdust]

Human beings are very rare and unique and you (theoretically) wouldn't find another in all the universe and we are not special? I disagree, I place a tremendous level of importance on humans. The only difference is I do not require ID to feel that way. As I said before, you are a deist, but also existential nihilist which not all atheists are even though you seem to think so.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

-I- make it sound like that? Didn't you just propose that an immensely powerful cosmic force set everything the way he wanted it, and that we're a product of those desires? Further, I wasn't putting anything forward from my own point of view in that response, just extrapolating on your own. Deism (at least the deism you've proposed) absolutely can answer that question. Godwilledit™

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.

I'd be interested to know why you think so (the order of the universe and "how it works" being evidence for a god). You want this to be more than a recital of bullet points yeah?

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.

Isn't? See how you keep smuggling things in at the outset? Nevertheless, I don't personally deal in certainties (you'll have to purchase those on your own) but I do have a habit of asking questions like "why do you thgink that it -is- in the first place. Gut feelings.......if our gut feelings were more reliable Bubba would have survived that brawl he got into with an alligator armed with nothing other other than a spatula and a "kiss the cook" apron.

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.

Sunsets (and sunrises) are pretty, I'm from Florida. Google "Sunshine Skyway Bridge". That was part of my daily commute for years. Here's the trouble with your example. It's not convenient to have a giant bomb so close to you at all. It sends things off alright, deadly things - all day everyday. The main requirement for life I'm guessing being energy? Maybe if it threw off just enough, and in a manner that wasn't harmful (let alone the manner of it's production being apocalyptic...no other word applies) - then I could be onboard. There's nothing convenient about being tethered to our sun, btw. It's essentially a clock, ticking down to our demise. If nothing else kills us, and we remain here - it will. We don't actually stay "basically the same distance" away from it at all times. Our orbit is elliptical and it has an amusing effect on our world. A large portion of it was licked to us for a very long time for thuis very reason - and once we learned how to hunt and kill other living things so we could drape their skins over us we still had trouble dealing with that effect. Even today we struggle with it -even though we have the skins, and we burn portions of this rock just to keep warm- as those areas that spend time "too far away" are not productive enough (from the point of agriculture" for example) to sustain life. Speaking of distance, just to preempt any goldilocks shenanigans.....have you ever goggled just how large the "goldilocks zone" is btw? It's immense, vast beyond imagining. Look, I appreciate that I don't live on the surface of the sun, or on Pluto...but I wouldn't actually be alive to "not appreciate it" if I didn't. Wat about being happy to have avoided a bullet lends credence to the idea of a god though? It;s not like a god is required to explain any of these things you've mentioned....and again...we don't see any evidence of a gods hand in these things. Unless...we're proposing that a god placed the sun here, the earth there, like a child with so many marbles.......

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...

Could it? Why would you have to know the plan at all? I may not know my opponents plan in a game of chess, but as soon as they sacrifice their queen It's a pretty good bet that they wont be putting me in checkmate with her on the next move. It's possible to determine things about a conscious entity without complete knowledge or ESP.

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

Sure, np. You're still going on about things that where "never meant to be", which wouldn't mean much unless there was a "meant" to begin with - evolution having been "random" (in truth it isn't) what does it mean to have "meant" something? You've excused the usage of the word "never" where it didn;t apply, but that particular word isn;t the one that puts the two statements at ods. However, since you brought it up..... Never? No matter what the circumstances? Clearly you've used the word never when it didn't apply, but are you proposing that if we changed the circumstances (could there have been other circumstances, what with god at the wheel willing shit btw?) that drugs would still be bad? Why? Suppose the circumstance was - human beings, due to a quirk of biology, show no adverse effect to any known narcotics? Sounds to me like the situation would have been changed a great deal. I appreciate that you're attempting to express that -due- to our biology (and assuming it remains unchanged) that certain chemicals will have a similar effect on all of us, but the way you've chosen to word it (conceptualize it) appears to have been selected precisely because it allows you a hook with which to claim communication with the divine. Your mind may be fucking with you on this one.

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.

Is the assumption of a creator required for this?

It's all about the mindset:

Atheism - no purpose to our existence.

Full stop...atheism is not a position with regards to "the meaning of life".

Deism - we are here because of some sort of Creator.

That's a how, not a why. Unless you're offering a why........

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].

Theism has more claims attached, sure.

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.

You're flirting with the "if there were no god,..it's 50/50 that I'd OD". I doubt that this is so. Whether there are good reasons to do drugs (or not do them) has nothing to do with a god. God is not required for nor does god provide a compelling case for or against either position. I don't see how the assumption of a creator (but no mandate for or against drugs) leads you to either position - nor do I see anything you've offered here having originated from the assumption of a creator, which might explain why you can't explain it from that angle. You seem to have made a decision for yourself, for reasons you find semi-easy to explain without the need of any creator. Drugs are harmful. Could I nitpick that conclusion, sure..but in all honesty, I can't think of a good reason why I would given that its a personal decision you've made for yourself.

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.

You agree? What happened to the 50/50 shit above? I still don't understand how it changes the way you interact (but how would I know how you interacted before?). Coming to a conclusion without knowing why isn't exactly uncommon. It doesn't make for a very compelling argument in favor of the existence of a god though, you can understand why I might be dissatisfied?

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.

Positive and negative charges aren't conferred by assumptions. I know it might seem like I'm just picking on you here, but bear in mind that from my end this whole god business just seems to be a flowery way of describing the world and how happy you are to be alive. That's not exactly a creator god...... The "the right direction" is heading towards a place where you seem to be incapable of explaining yourself. You, by sheer power of assumption, just float along "the right way". Meanwhile I tread water. What does this even mean? Ah, again, can't put it into words. In the end, your feelings are your own. I'm not going to give you too much shit for your feelings except to say that they don't require any "creator" except yourself, and that as evidence (or arguments) for a god, they fall horribly short.