A defence of Deism

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
A defence of Deism

During the show, Deism came up and people thought it was a rather wishy-washy position, as in Deist just don't want to admit the God does not exist. And also that those who are not evangelical are "pussies" along with people who don't talk about God, that think he kinda sorta exists etc...


My initial reaction of course, was what's wrong with not being sure? But aside from that, I think that perhaps 2-3 on Dawkin's scale would be a sufficent position.  I would argue that that is a much better position than evangelicals since the evangelicals seemed to just take this idea of God than ran with it.


I'm sure the references to Russels teapot or the FSM, will come flowing in, but I don't think that Deism is completly unfalsifiable.


The conformation of the Many Worlds Interputation of QM ( not to be confused with the multi-verse theory..), for example would at the very least make me seriously question my beliefs, or most likely make me discard them.



As for the point that people who vehemently argue for God, that's seems to be reasonable for an agnostic position.

 

Finally, as a student of nature, I actually do constantly question my beliefs,  more so when new data comes in, in fact, I am waiting eagerly for a conformation on the Theory of Everything.


 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:What do you mean by

Quote:
What do you mean by 'change the number of possible outcomes?' I never read that book, but I don't see how observing something limits it's possible outcomes.

Well, imagine that you & I never met, Alison. By not meeting one-another in any form (becoming aware of the existence of the other), a lot of possible 'fates' (I hate using such esoteric terms, but they're the best I can think of at the moment) for eitherof us are precluded. The 'world' where, say, I ask you to lunch does not exist. The world where you're debating me as a deist and you're the atheist does not exist. The world where we meet-up and you kick me in balls doesn't exist. The world where you and I are married doesn't exist. Etc.

No 'world' (Or 'slice' from the 4th dimensional axis) involving you and I interacting would ever exist in a universe where you and I never knew about the existence of the other (even if, say, only I knew about you, this changes your potential 'fate'. Insert imaginative things I could do to you here).

The same is true for the small particles we observe - only they feel the impact of what happens when they lose a bunch of 'potential selves' because their mass is so trivial.

 

Again, all theoretical, of course. Hop down to the library and borrow a copy of the book (...See? Even by simply suggesting that, I've flexed your 4th dimensional axis. It's now a possible outcome that you would take the advice and go to the library... which leadsto even more branches, as the library is full of things that impacts your potential 'fate' even more. I suppose this is why some people find the idea threatening: there's nothing I can do that is strictly benign, from this perspective).

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:The same

Kevin R Brown wrote:

The same is true for the small particles we observe - only they feel the impact of what happens when they lose a bunch of 'potential selves' because their mass is so trivial.

 

I think I got it now, but how exactly is so many different universes 'simple'?

 

I mean in one I'm a tramp, in another I'm an atheist, in another I'm a terrorist etc... there are MANY possibilities here, not to mention the different ones involving you, or 6 other billion people or the other lifes on other planets etc...

 

 

 

 

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
I'm confused just a bit

I'm confused just a bit about the "4th dimension" talk. Usually the 4th dimension is time, so are you thinking of a separate dimensional aspect that determines location in a multi-universe setting, and just ignoring time?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
No, you're absolutely right

No, you're absolutely right Will: the 4th axis is time. This is why I don't like the term 'worlds'.

What we percieve of as time is, in theory, a vast landscape of every possible result of any causative action.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
When ever I discuss 4th

When ever I discuss 4th dimensional ideas I use universe instead of world. It helps the listener create a greater, all encompassing, distinction between the possible outcomes. Also helps a great deal later when discussing folds, which usually follows.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I think I got it now,

Quote:
I think I got it now, but how exactly is so many different universes 'simple'?

It isn't. Occam's (Ockham's? Occum's? Fuck, I can never spell it right. Sticking out tongue) Razor favors the hypothesis that creates the fewest unnecessary assumptions.

 

BtW, there's always another (if slightly less satisfying) answer to the double slit riddle: the electron particle detector itself has just mundanely interfered with the particle in some way. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Blackroseseeker
Posts: 25
Joined: 2009-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Deism an unlikely conclusion?

So Let me start with laying out the possible explanations of existence without a deity, and please tell me if I miss one. I do consider myself a seeker of knowledge. Okay so as I see it There are only two possible explanations for the existence of everything without a deity.

First all matter and energy had a beginning. If this is the case you need a creation force. I am not saying this theory turns on it's self and proves a creator, although I do think that is the simplest conclusion. What I am saying is that you need a creative force. If, and at this point that is a big if, there is no deity in this scenario then by necessity the force must not be self aware. Just not to let anything slide by this force must also be something other then matter or energy because we are assuming that matter and energy have a beginning. 

Of course then we are left to argue about how this force came into being: does it still leave room for a deity, if a very removed one; is this force finite or infinite in the first place. Answering these questions I think would always be the domain of philosophers because science is constructed around the ability to observe the physical world and make rationalizations about it. Now as we all Know this is not the most popular atheistic view, not solely but partially I believe because it violates the logic that the simplest possible answer is likely the right one. Again please tell me if I am wrong on any point here.

Second the universe is infinite. It is science that creates a problem for this theory. Let me first state that the theory that time is just a construct is unscientific. You may or may not have heard that time slows down as you get farther away form the earth and eventually ceases to exist at all. I think we all can see that this is just the newest geocentric viewpoint that seeks to put the earth in the center of the universe. We all now that the earth is not the center of anything, so why would it be that time slows down in relation to distance form the earth, and if time does for some yet to be discovered reason slow down the further you get form earth it can not possibly reach the point of nonexistence until after if even just after the furthest particle of matter or wave of energy form the earth because science has proven time is a dimension in which things exist just as the first three dimensions are. It is easy for people to conceive that the first three dimensions are necessary for matter to exist. Quite simply you can not have something if there is nowhere for it to be. The same holds true for time you can not have something with no time for it to exist in. I am not well versed in the higher sciences such as Quantum physics but I do know there is a concept that boils down to this: Time is not separate from the first three dimensions but simply a continuance. That's why they always explain it as the squaring of a block. The point is no matter can exist without the 4 dimensions. At this point you may be thinking yeah so what what does it mean.

Well time is where the problem comes in. Time it self can not exist if it is infinite. Everything about matter is measurable mass, size and duration. Duration would not be measurable if matter where infinite. You might think that I have logically proven that time is just a construct, not so fast. We know for a fact that the first three dimensions of matter are in fact finite. This is a scientific fact. We also know that time is not separate from the first three dimensions but a continuance, therefore time must be finite because it is impossible to reach the infinite from the finite.  That brings me to my final point since matter can not exist without time matter had to of had a beginning which invalidates the theory.

 

 

If God doesn't do things the way you think they should be done maybe you should entertain the idea that it's you who doesn't understand.


Blackroseseeker
Posts: 25
Joined: 2009-01-22
User is offlineOffline
one more thing

Again I am serious about being corrected if I am wrong.

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Our Universe, as originated

Our Universe, as originated in the Big Bang, is NOT infinite. It has been expanding from a very small volume at a finite rate for a finite time, therefore can only be finite.

As to whether whatever metaverse our Big Bang may have spawned from, we don't know.

Any explanation for where the Big Bang 'singularity' originated that assumes that it must have been greater in complexity or scale, let alone was sentient or conscious in some sense, fails logically, since you now have a greater mystery to explain, as what created this 'creator'.

Since we know that complexity certainly can arise from simplicity - even our own growth from a fertilized cell to a conscious human being demonstrates that, since no matter how you cook it, a conscious human is vastly more complex than a fertilized cell.

So Deities cannot be logical explanation for ultimate origins.

Just a couple of the more obvious problems with your post.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Wow, Kevin read Deutsch? I'm

Wow, Kevin read Deutsch? I'm stoked to hear it. Smiling And I'm really enjoying this back and forth you guys are having about MWI too. Interesting...

One thing though.... Will !

 

HisWillness wrote:

I'm confused just a bit about the "4th dimension" talk. Usually the 4th dimension is time, so are you thinking of a separate dimensional aspect that determines location in a multi-universe setting, and just ignoring time?

After all the conversations we've had and you've consistently conceded the validity of treating time, illustratively, as simply an additional coordinate of displacement; the same question pops up again anyway. Why?

"Fabric of Reality" doesn't ignore "time" it ignores unsupportable assertions about its nature.  The 4th dimension is still time, it's just in the sense that the definition of time has been given a little bit of a spit polish.

Some physicists define time as change itself, this is a concept much nearer to the dimension of time being described in (Deutsch's) MWI.  So how it "determines a location in a multiverse setting", so to speak, is to value a displacement over a density of schotastic variances (we are yet to rigorously describe the obvious directionality that we directly experience , though). In any case, as I said, it's still time, it's just not what you thought time was, yeah?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
The problem with deism

The problem with deism is that it is woefully unnecessary, and that it hinders an admittedly small put potentially useful section of cosmology.

 

The deistic god created the universe, started it going, and then left.  It has no impact on the universe after creation, and is thus used to explain one thing and one thing only: how the universe came into being.

Unfortunately, it's explanation invokes a being that is no longer around, and that is generally incomprehensible to humans.  Thus saying "god made the universe and then left" gives us exactly the same amount of knowledge as saying "we don't know how the universe came into being."  The deistic claim gives us nothing.

However, the deistic claim does discourage further investigation of the topic.  Perhaps its answer is more accurately "we can't know how the universe came into being."  The deist admits defeat here.  He/she does not and can never understand the universe's origins (according to his/her own beliefs).  This halts scientific progress that could have possibly resulted in a natural and comprehensible answer to the question that may in turn yield information about the future of the universe (and may thus be useful).

 

Aside:  This is a core problem inherent to the use of god as an explanation of anything.  Deists happen to face it only once because they use god for one explanation and then discard it.

 

Re Quantum Stuff:  MWI requires a sot of "universe" collapse akin to the wavefunction collapse.  Also quantum computing and cryptography both play well with the superposition interpretation. 

But you're describing MWI with an extra dimension, which is very different from the MWI i've heard of.  However, it sounds like this extra dimension is eerily similar to the early "hidden variable" ideas.  The test of Belle's inequality confirms that such hidden variable interpretations would require nonlocality (faster than light causality).  Alternatively you've got multiple universes stacked along this extra dimension, which would require a dimensional (universe) collapse akin to the wavefunction collapse.   Basically, some form of collapse is going to be in any local interpretation of quantum, thanks to the violation of Belle's inequality.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Blackroseseeker wrote:So Let

Blackroseseeker wrote:

So Let me start with laying out the possible explanations of existence without a deity, and please tell me if I miss one. I do consider myself a seeker of knowledge. Okay so as I see it There are only two possible explanations for the existence of everything without a deity.

Admittedly I am no specialist in either physics or quantum pyscics, however I am still aware that this is a false dichotomy. There are numerous possibilities to explain existence. There are not only two, unless you are supposing god vs not god. But that is a false dichotomy because we are not aware that god is even an option, let alone the possibility that god has a god, or that god is a species, etc. So regardless of how you look at it, this statement goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing.

Blackroseseeker wrote:

First all matter and energy had a beginning.

Not necessarily. The first law of thermodynamics says it is impossible to create or destroy energy. Energy also happens to be the building block for matter, so matter is also incapable of being destroyed or created.

However, there is a hypothesis that it may be possible to seperate "nothing" into positive and negative "something". If the positive "something" and the negative "something" came into direct contact, they would cancel each other out, and therefore the laws of thermodynamics are preserved as laws.

Blackroseseeker wrote:
If this is the case you need a creation force. I am not saying this theory turns on it's self and proves a creator, although I do think that is the simplest conclusion. What I am saying is that you need a creative force. If, and at this point that is a big if, there is no deity in this scenario then by necessity the force must not be self aware. Just not to let anything slide by this force must also be something other then matter or energy because we are assuming that matter and energy have a beginning. 

But if you need a creation force to create, then you need a force to create the creation force. If everything must be created, then even a creator must be created. The typical theist attempt at a dodge revolves around an uncreated creator, which is logically incoherant and physically impossible.

Blackroseseeker wrote:

Of course then we are left to argue about how this force came into being: does it still leave room for a deity, if a very removed one; is this force finite or infinite in the first place. Answering these questions I think would always be the domain of philosophers because science is constructed around the ability to observe the physical world and make rationalizations about it. Now as we all Know this is not the most popular atheistic view, not solely but partially I believe because it violates the logic that the simplest possible answer is likely the right one. Again please tell me if I am wrong on any point here.

There is always room for a deity. The question is whether one is needed, or has any effect on the result. Observation  and logic tend to the negative.

Blackroseseeker wrote:

Second the universe is infinite.

Not really. The universe is quite finite. It is expanding. Perhaps that which the universe lies within is infinite, but we have no frame of reference to utilize to determine this one way or the other. If there is in fact something that the universe lies within of course.

Blackroseseeker wrote:
 It is science that creates a problem for this theory. Let me first state that the theory that time is just a construct is unscientific. You may or may not have heard that time slows down as you get farther away form the earth and eventually ceases to exist at all.

That is not an accurate depiction of time. It sounds like you got relativity confused with general acceleration and position. Or something. Time is in fact merely a symptom of the expansion of the universe, amongst other things. It is irrevocably tied to space as a result. Time does not slow down as one leaves Earth, unless one happens to be approaching the speed of light at the same time. Even then, time does not actually slow down. It's all relative. And very hard to explain in laymans terms. Look into the theory of relativity for a greater understanding. And then I suggest doing a google search on spacetime itself, so you can get a better idea of how it works.

I'm going to end this here, because the rest of your argument continues from this context and misunderstanding. As the basis for it has been shown to be flawed, the argument itself and the result cannot be accurate.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote: Re Quantum

Zaq wrote:

 

Re Quantum Stuff:  MWI requires a sot of "universe" collapse akin to the wavefunction collapse. 

That's incorrect, Zaq. A many-worlds collapse would just be wavefunction collapse by another name, alternately you could say if the many-worlds collapse, you don't have MWI at all, you simply have CI.

MWI dstinguishes itself from CI fundamentally, so to speak, on the grounds that the wavefunction is the total description of the universe - ie the worlds exist, and continue to exist, with respect to any frame of reference, and by no means figuratively, on some branch at some randomly differentiated phase.

Zaq wrote:

Also quantum computing and cryptography both play well with the superposition interpretation. 

By "superposition interpretation" do you mean that the permanent state of things is superposition? because that is MWI. Collapse interpretations do not spare the superposition of particles, they, by definition, declare that it ceases to exist by some mechanism, under certain conditions.

Zaq wrote:

 However, it sounds like this extra dimension is eerily similar to the early "hidden variable" ideas.  The test of Belle's inequality confirms that such hidden variable interpretations would require nonlocality (faster than light causality). 

Non-locality is not 'faster than light causality' exactly, it is a mechanism by which entanglement might be explained without contradicting the first and central law of Einstein's relativity, which has given us so much stuff over this last century we probably ought to respect it, so it refers to events which would appear to be "caused" at a pace faster than light, but it's not to suggest that an actual causal mechanism, as we ordinarily know them, traverses a path faster than light can.  But anyhow, if we are to put any stock in the formulation of the Bell's inequality tests then we should surmise that as of 1998 non-locality is universally proven, not merely for hidden variable theories but for all Quantum theory.

 

Zaq wrote:
  Basically, some form of collapse is going to be in any local interpretation of quantum, thanks to the violation of Belle's inequality.

Many worlds isn't really a local interpretation and it supposes no actions at a distance at all, so it by no means needs to tag another one on after Bells inequality. Maybe you should get into some more up to date material on MWI, Zaq, a lot has been done with it in the last decade.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:During

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

During the show, Deism came up and people thought it was a rather wishy-washy position, as in Deist just don't want to admit the God does not exist. And also that those who are not evangelical are "pussies" along with people who don't talk about God, that think he kinda sorta exists etc...


My initial reaction of course, was what's wrong with not being sure? But aside from that, I think that perhaps 2-3 on Dawkin's scale would be a sufficent position.  I would argue that that is a much better position than evangelicals since the evangelicals seemed to just take this idea of God than ran with it.


I'm sure the references to Russels teapot or the FSM, will come flowing in, but I don't think that Deism is completly unfalsifiable.


The conformation of the Many Worlds Interputation of QM ( not to be confused with the multi-verse theory..), for example would at the very least make me seriously question my beliefs, or most likely make me discard them.



As for the point that people who vehemently argue for God, that's seems to be reasonable for an agnostic position.

 

Finally, as a student of nature, I actually do constantly question my beliefs,  more so when new data comes in, in fact, I am waiting eagerly for a conformation on the Theory of Everything.


 

 

 

Piney....As much as I love Thomas Jefferson, and you, I WANT TO BITCH SLAP BOTH OF YOU!

How many times do we have to go over this?

Quote:
what's wrong with not being sure?

ANSWER........NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!

Now,

"agnostic" refers to knowledge, not position.

It is a qualifying word that cannot stand by itself.

You also fail to take into account PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE, as far as claims.

As far as the past and present I have yet to see any credible claim that would lead me to a super natural being. BUT since I cannot see the future, I am an agnostic atheist toward the future, but an outright atheist to all the claims made so far.

"I dont know" there I said it, but that is NOT inconsistant with the word "atheist" because that word only refers to my current position of lack of belief. That may change(although I doubt it).

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Re Eloise

Eloise wrote:

That's incorrect, Zaq. A many-worlds collapse would just be wavefunction collapse by another name, alternately you could say if the many-worlds collapse, you don't have MWI at all, you simply have CI.

MWI dstinguishes itself from CI fundamentally, so to speak, on the grounds that the wavefunction is the total description of the universe - ie the worlds exist, and continue to exist, with respect to any frame of reference, and by no means figuratively, on some branch at some randomly differentiated phase.

Eloise, the collapse I'm talking about in MWI isn't so much a collapse (destruction) of the universes themselves as a collapse of the universes' interference, or as some view it a collapse of "which universe is my consciousness in?"  In the two-slit experiment, measuring the path prevents the electron in universe A from intefering with the electron in unverse B, which is a collapse of interference between universes (and solidifies us as being in a particular universe).  This is the "collapse" I was talking about.

Eloise wrote:

By "superposition interpretation" do you mean that the permanent state of things is superposition? because that is MWI. Collapse interpretations do not spare the superposition of particles, they, by definition, declare that it ceases to exist by some mechanism, under certain conditions.

Superposition compared to MWI and CI:  MWI: The particle has a different value in each of many worlds.  CI: The particle has no value (only probability of value) until measured.  Superposition:  The particle simultaneously has all values in a single world.  It collapses to a single value upon measurement.

Superposition is similar to MWI except that all the values are simultaneously attributed to a single particle in a single universe.

Eloise wrote:

Non-locality is not 'faster than light causality' exactly, it is a mechanism by which entanglement might be explained without contradicting the first and central law of Einstein's relativity, which has given us so much stuff over this last century we probably ought to respect it, so it refers to events which would appear to be "caused" at a pace faster than light, but it's not to suggest that an actual causal mechanism, as we ordinarily know them, traverses a path faster than light can.  But anyhow, if we are to put any stock in the formulation of the Bell's inequality tests then we should surmise that as of 1998 non-locality is universally proven, not merely for hidden variable theories but for all Quantum theory.

 

Yeah, I guess I was linking nonlocality and faster-than-light causality too strongly here.  I was thinking of the Pilot Wave Interpretation (PWI), which really does suggest an actual instantaneous causal mechanism for these faster-than-light events (the mechanism is, of course, the pilot wave).  Is there a word for this that's stronger than nonlocality?  Causally nonlocal?

Eloise wrote:

Many worlds isn't

really

a local interpretation and it supposes no actions at a distance at all, so it by no means needs to tag another one on after Bells inequality. Maybe you should get into some more up to date material on MWI, Zaq, a lot has been done with it in the last decade.

Again, I was meaning causally non-local, like the PWI (sorry).  But you say MWI isn't local, yet supposes no actions at a distance?  What makes it not local then?

MWI requires that the entire universe splits when I make a measurement.  Since much of the universe is a good distance from the location of this measurement, how is this not action at a distance?

 

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Blackroseseeker
Posts: 25
Joined: 2009-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Let me clarify

Vastet wrote:

Blackroseseeker wrote:

So Let me start with laying out the possible explanations of existence without a deity, and please tell me if I miss one. I do consider myself a seeker of knowledge. Okay so as I see it There are only two possible explanations for the existence of everything without a deity.

Admittedly I am no specialist in either physics or quantum pyscics, however I am still aware that this is a false dichotomy. There are numerous possibilities to explain existence. There are not only two, unless you are supposing god vs not god. But that is a false dichotomy because we are not aware that god is even an option, let alone the possibility that god has a god, or that god is a species, etc. So regardless of how you look at it, this statement goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing.

This is no false dichotomy. I am not referring to ways the universe could have been created, but I am referencing rather its existence is infinite or finite. Which is why I use the term existence instead of inception.  


 

If God doesn't do things the way you think they should be done maybe you should entertain the idea that it's you who doesn't understand.


Blackroseseeker
Posts: 25
Joined: 2009-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Blackroseseeker

Vastet wrote:

Blackroseseeker wrote:

First all matter and energy had a beginning.

Not necessarily. The first law of thermodynamics says it is impossible to create or destroy energy. Energy also happens to be the building block for matter, so matter is also incapable of being destroyed or created.

However, there is a hypothesis that it may be possible to seperate "nothing" into positive and negative "something". If the positive "something" and the negative "something" came into direct contact, they would cancel each other out, and therefore the laws of thermodynamics are preserved as laws.

If you continue you see that I am just explaining one of the possibilities. I also state that it is the least likely of the two and the least accepted among atheist. I should probably state that my acertion that it is the least accepeted among atheist comes from personally experience and the arguments made by some of the leaders of the leaders of the RRS.

If God doesn't do things the way you think they should be done maybe you should entertain the idea that it's you who doesn't understand.


Blackroseseeker
Posts: 25
Joined: 2009-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Blackroseseeker

Vastet wrote:

Blackroseseeker wrote:
If this is the case you need a creation force. I am not saying this theory turns on it's self and proves a creator, although I do think that is the simplest conclusion. What I am saying is that you need a creative force. If, and at this point that is a big if, there is no deity in this scenario then by necessity the force must not be self aware. Just not to let anything slide by this force must also be something other then matter or energy because we are assuming that matter and energy have a beginning. 

But if you need a creation force to create, then you need a force to create the creation force. If everything must be created, then even a creator must be created. The typical theist attempt at a dodge revolves around an uncreated creator, which is logically incoherant and physically impossible.

This was my point, which you obviously missed completely.

If God doesn't do things the way you think they should be done maybe you should entertain the idea that it's you who doesn't understand.


Blackroseseeker
Posts: 25
Joined: 2009-01-22
User is offlineOffline
still explaining

Vastet wrote:

Blackroseseeker wrote:

Of course then we are left to argue about how this force came into being: does it still leave room for a deity, if a very removed one; is this force finite or infinite in the first place. Answering these questions I think would always be the domain of philosophers because science is constructed around the ability to observe the physical world and make rationalizations about it. Now as we all Know this is not the most popular atheistic view, not solely but partially I believe because it violates the logic that the simplest possible answer is likely the right one. Again please tell me if I am wrong on any point here.

There is always room for a deity. The question is whether one is needed, or has any effect on the result. Observation  and logic tend to the negative.

I thought I made it clear that in this scenario the existance or non-existance of a god was of little importance.

If God doesn't do things the way you think they should be done maybe you should entertain the idea that it's you who doesn't understand.


Blackroseseeker
Posts: 25
Joined: 2009-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Blackroseseeker

Vastet wrote:

Blackroseseeker wrote:

Second the universe is infinite.

Not really. The universe is quite finite. It is expanding. Perhaps that which the universe lies within is infinite, but we have no frame of reference to utilize to determine this one way or the other. If there is in fact something that the universe lies within of course.

If you continue you see that my argument is that the universe must be finite.

If God doesn't do things the way you think they should be done maybe you should entertain the idea that it's you who doesn't understand.


Blackroseseeker
Posts: 25
Joined: 2009-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Vastet

Vastet wrote:

 

Blackroseseeker wrote:
 It is science that creates a problem for this theory. Let me first state that the theory that time is just a construct is unscientific. You may or may not have heard that time slows down as you get farther away form the earth and eventually ceases to exist at all.

That is not an accurate depiction of time. It sounds like you got relativity confused with general acceleration and position. Or something. Time is in fact merely a symptom of the expansion of the universe, amongst other things. It is irrevocably tied to space as a result. Time does not slow down as one leaves Earth, unless one happens to be approaching the speed of light at the same time. Even then, time does not actually slow down. It's all relative. And very hard to explain in laymans terms. Look into the theory of relativity for a greater understanding. And then I suggest doing a google search on spacetime itself, so you can get a better idea of how it works.

I'm going to end this here, because the rest of your argument continues from this context and misunderstanding. As the basis for it has been shown to be flawed, the argument itself and the result cannot be accurate.

Nice quote cut you should be in politics or something. Fortunately for me it is quite clear that I say the idea that time slows down as you leave earth is false. In fact I only mentioned it because people have tried to use it against me in the past, although not on this site.

So you see your statement that the rest of my argument continues from this context and misunderstanding is false. I only wanted to avoid responding to such a ridiculous argument.

 Sorry I took so long to respond I had given up on the idea that I would ever get a respnse.

If God doesn't do things the way you think they should be done maybe you should entertain the idea that it's you who doesn't understand.