Question for Deists

[SteveII]

Why do you think my definition is wrong? 

Before you go saying that God is everywhere, that is not going to hold up. The universe is expanding. If God was everywhere, is God expanding? Or perhaps becoming diluted? Additionally, the universe if finite. Does that mean that God is finite. More silly conclusion can be drawn from a too-simplistic view: for example, is a portion of God in my coffee cup and the rest of him outside of it? No, God does not occupy space and is therefore not literally everywhere. I believe he is cognizant of and causally active at every point in space.

You actually have a point here. Deities don't necessarily need to be everywhere all the time, it's just that they should be able to be anywhere at any time if they wish to. Of course I don't believe any such god exists, but for the sake of definitions, this argument is sound.

The problem is where you stated earlier that God is not physical and doesn't occupy any space. That to me is synonymous with non-existence. Existence is physical.

There are plenty of things that exist that are not physical: Logic, mathematics, aesthetics, language, concepts like justice, fairness, etc.

[Edwardo Piet]

Nah those are all physical.

[masterofpuppets]

You actually have a point here. Deities don't necessarily need to be everywhere all the time, it's just that they should be able to be anywhere at any time if they wish to. Of course I don't believe any such god exists, but for the sake of definitions, this argument is sound.

The problem is where you stated earlier that God is not physical and doesn't occupy any space. That to me is synonymous with non-existence. Existence is physical.

There are plenty of things that exist that are not physical: Logic, mathematics, aesthetics, language, concepts like justice, fairness, etc.

Right, but those are merely conceptual ideas. They exist only as concepts within minds, not as actual things that exist independent of whether or not minds are actually around to think about them.

[Minimalist]

Deists are simply atheists who won't let go with the other hand, Fred.  Generally they are far more intelligent and a lot less dangerous than religitards so I tend to cut them some slack.

[SteveII]

There are plenty of things that exist that are not physical: Logic, mathematics, aesthetics, language, concepts like justice, fairness, etc.

Right, but those are merely conceptual ideas. They exist only as concepts within minds, not as actual things that exist independent of whether or not minds are actually around to think about them.

Do they all need a mind? Do you think that in all possible worlds (including those without minds) that if P then Q; P therefore Q would not be the case? Most think that the applicability of mathematics would exists even if a mind never contemplated them. 

Your real conundrum will be that your sole source of knowledge, science, presupposes logic, mathematics, and philosophy. If it presupposes them, where did they come from? If you say science somehow validates them, that would be question-begging. Even if you can't figure that out, the fact that science says they exists give us a clear case for their independent existence.

[downbeatplumb]

God is not physical so has no location in space.

That is another way of saying non existent.

---

Right, but those are merely conceptual ideas. They exist only as concepts within minds, not as actual things that exist independent of whether or not minds are actually around to think about them.

Do they all need a mind? Do you think that in all possible worlds (including those without minds) that if P then Q; P therefore Q would not be the case? Most think that the applicability of mathematics would exists even if a mind never contemplated them. 

Your real conundrum will be that your sole source of knowledge, science, presupposes logic, mathematics, and philosophy. If it presupposes them, where did they come from? If you say science somehow validates them, that would be question-begging. Even if you can't figure that out, the fact that science says they exists give us a clear case for their independent existence.

The scientific method is the only method that works without and indeed against pre-conceived ideas. that's largely what the scientific method is.

[SteveII]

God is not physical so has no location in space.

That is another way of saying non existent.

Already addressed why this is not so. 

---

Do they all need a mind? Do you think that in all possible worlds (including those without minds) that if P then Q; P therefore Q would not be the case? Most think that the applicability of mathematics would exists even if a mind never contemplated them. 

Your real conundrum will be that your sole source of knowledge, science, presupposes logic, mathematics, and philosophy. If it presupposes them, where did they come from? If you say science somehow validates them, that would be question-begging. Even if you can't figure that out, the fact that science says they exists give us a clear case for their independent existence.

The scientific method is the only method that works without and indeed against pre-conceived ideas. that's largely what the scientific method is.

No one is criticizing the scientific method. It has its place along side other sources of information.

[drfuzzy]

Forgive me if this question has already been covered in a thread.  I suppose I could ask it of theists too, but there meanderings are fairly stock on the subject.

*Deist God:  a mono supernatural deity that created everything and then sat back(somewhere) and let it all play out into the future on it's own with zero intervention.

My question to deists:  Where do you believe your God is?  Where is the "somewhere"?  That is, how would you locate "Him/Her" if you had to?  I am very interested to hear the answers.  Thanks!  

God is not physical so has no location in space. Omnipresence means that he is aware of every location in the universe.

When I was under the thumb of the Protestant church, I was given four terms:  Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnibenevolent.

omnipotent    omni=all  potent=power--  All powerful
Webster's:  "having very great or unlimited authority or power."

omniscient  -- All knowing -- Webster's: "having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things."

omnipresent -- Webster's:  "present everywhere at the same time"

And I was given - omnibenevolent
Which I was told was all-loving 
Which Webster's doesn't have as a word
And considering God/Yahweh, that seems appropriate
I think omnimalevolent is much more accurate

And now I need a word for what it really is.
How about omnitaurum excretum?  Omnimerdum?

[SuperSentient]

My question to deists:  Where do you believe your God is?  Where is the "somewhere"?  That is, how would you locate "Him/Her" if you had to?  I am very interested to hear the answers.

Generally, it may depend on what you believe the nature of god is, but the monotheist conception holds that God is independent of space and time, and therefore lacks spatial coordinates but may be considered to be omnipresent (I don't quite know if Deists would accept this, likely not). Omnipresence means that God is present everywhere through personal volition. An analogy that could work here would be the internet/wi fi and devices. Wi Fi exists, but a medium like a device is needed to tap in for use. Same with people and the monotheist God. God would be knowable everywhere, in the same sense that mathematics would be applicable/workable everywhere. Also, God is omnipresent in the sense that he knows everything that is going on, including with people's volition (as I said earlier). 

My response to this would be that God isn't omnipresent since I don't believe God exists (and God needs to exist to be omnipresent). I am more of a positive atheist when it comes to the monotheist God (but also agnostic). 

Another possible response is that a society with scientific knowledge was able to spawn our universe and they are located in a different universe that is part of a so-called multiverse. Someone could also say that the creator God died off. This could depend on how you define "God".

[masterofpuppets]

Right, but those are merely conceptual ideas. They exist only as concepts within minds, not as actual things that exist independent of whether or not minds are actually around to think about them.

Do they all need a mind? Do you think that in all possible worlds (including those without minds) that if P then Q; P therefore Q would not be the case? Most think that the applicability of mathematics would exists even if a mind never contemplated them. 

Your real conundrum will be that your sole source of knowledge, science, presupposes logic, mathematics, and philosophy. If it presupposes them, where did they come from? If you say science somehow validates them, that would be question-begging. Even if you can't figure that out, the fact that science says they exists give us a clear case for their independent existence.

Logic, mathematics and philosophy are all models that science uses; models that we have created and are hence conceptual. Science doesn't say anything about the "existence" of such models. What science does is use them because they continue to produce effective results. So in that sense, science does validate them. It isn't question begging, but rather a practical necessity.