Why I'm a Deist.

[tuxbox]

I still see no reason to be a deist,but at least you can detect design in the universe.I think it should be obvious and my God does too.I see no reason believing in some God without reward or justice at the end of it all but at least you seem to see design but if you aren't careful you could become an atheist.

Yes, I see design, but it has been pointed that does not mean there is design. I'm trying to work out a logical argument for design, but I'm beginning to think that is a futile task. Moving on to justice at the end of life. It would be awesome if people like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Pot were made to suffer for eternity for the atrocities they committed while they were alive, but I just don't see any evidence that there is an afterlife, or a god that dishes out that kind of punishment. As far as becoming an atheist is concerned, well I do not see that as a bad thing. The only problem I see with becoming one now, is I would be doing it for the wrong reasons. I just can't flip a switch and become an atheist just because I can not articulate my position very well. That being said, in time with enough research into science I may just become one for logical reasons.


P.S.
Hackenslash,
I'm still working on my next post regarding what we have discussed, but I need to put a little more thought into my response.

*Edited for grammar*

 

[Deleted member 619]

I'm trying to work out a logical argument for design, but I'm beginning to think that is a futile task.

That's part of the problem, namely that a logical argument is never sufficient to show anything except validity. This is precisely why I say you need a metric for design in order to show design, otherwise all you have is some kind of intuition, the appeal to which is a recognisable and crystal clear fallacy known as, funnily enough, the appeal to intuition.

If you really want to have a go, try formulating it as a syllogism, because that's generally the quickiest route ot seeing the futility of attempting to demonstrate the truth of something. It should look somwething like this:

P1. All entities with property Y are designed
P2. Entity X has property Y
C. Therefore, entity X is designed.

The problem will lie in finding a categorically true P1, which is what you need your metric for.

 

[Collecemall]

Brush.

Copycats.

 

[Mugnuts]

Yes, I see design, but it has been pointed that does not mean there is design. I'm trying to work out a logical argument for design, but I'm beginning to think that is a futile task. Moving on to justice at the end of life. It would be awesome if people like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Pot were made to suffer for eternity for the atrocities they committed while they were alive, but I just don't see any evidence that there is an afterlife, or a god that dishes out that kind of punishment. As far as becoming an atheist is concerned, well I do not see that as a bad thing. The only problem I see with becoming one now, is I would be doing it for the wrong reasons. I just can't flip a switch and become an atheist just because I can not articulate my position very well. That being said, in time with enough research into science I may just become one for logical reasons.


P.S.
Hackenslash,
I'm still working on my next post regarding what we have discussed, but I need to put a little more thought into my response.

*Edited for grammar*

This is what rational discussion looks like, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who is enjoying this thread (minus the derail factor).

 

[Deleted member 619]

This is what rational discussion looks like, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who is enjoying this thread (minus the derail factor).

In all seriousness, I've lately been extricating myself from ALL internet activity. I know that looks like bollocks from here, since I've been more active on this forum than I have been in years, but I've rescinded my membership at Rationalia, self-suspended at Ratskep, hardly been active anywhere for some months other than here.

That said, my increased posting here has come with an increase in interest (which is somewhat irritating, since it's distracting me from the book I'm trying to finish), and I have been massively enjoying my interactions with Tuxbox, not just in this thread but in the BB thread (actually, I've especially enjoyed that, because it's allowed me to distil my thoughts in a way that might even be useful for the book).

In short, I'm enjoying this thread immensely, apart from the idiot interjections of the godbot, who should go away and pray for better fucking arguments, and perhaps a little ability in reading and comprehension.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Brush.

Copycats.

Christians are just paying Satan back with how he copycats what God does,we take Satan's tools and use them against him.Atheists have church too? People are free to do what they want to but I'm glad to be on the winning team.We are going to win because of Jesus.

You may put your faith in man,but for me it is Jesus.It makes no sense to me to put my faith in man that is flawed and has been wrong so many times.There have been many times man thought he was right,only to later be wrong and today there is so much corruption,but perhaps there always has been but when I think about putting my faith in what man says is true? I cannot do it and Jesus is so much a greater hero to me than any man alive.I appreciate what Jesus did for me and I don't take it for granted for when I think about how Jesus could've changed his mind at anytime but did not,I've got to thank him.

Because when they were slandering him and mocking him and crucifying him while still mocking him the whole time and even after,I know Jesus willingly laid his life down despising the shame that was upon him so that I could be saved I cannot take it for granted the love Jesus showed.People still mock Jesus today and always have but they don't understand him or God's plan to save man- kind.No other God can relate to me because Jesus was God in human flesh and he was rejected by so many but receieved by many and he is the greatest hero anybody could have.

This falling away from the church was all prophesied to happen in the last days,matter of fact its one of the things that happens before the Antichrist is revealed as God is separating the sheep from the goats getting his bride ready,the real bride not the counterfeit bride.So what atheists may see as a sign atheism is growing? It is really just that much more proof that God knows the future and that his word is being fulfilled in these last days.I use music to make a point sometimes,that is all.

 

[surreptitious57]

been extricating myself from ALL internet activity

Now is that just to find the time to get the book written or are there other reasons for it as well

You said you suspended your facebook account because you were fed up debating the stupid

And so when the book is eventually finished will you return to the fold or are you done for good

 

[Deleted member 619]

I think I'm done.

 

[surreptitious57]

I cannot say that I am surprised for I was expecting it though you will be missed by many as you know. But you have left
behind an excellent and comprehensive archive at Rat Skep so it is not as if your efforts were all in vain. Now may I take
this opportunity to wish you all the best and thank you for having educating me so extensively over the last five years too

 

[Deleted member 619]

I'll still be around, I just won't be posting much. I'll be keeping in touch with the very many friends I've made, though.

 

[tuxbox]

Everywhere I look I see math. I look at the universe and all I see is math. Halley's Comet passes Earth's view every 75 years, that is math. Even the its structure can be calculated with math. Our Sun travels around the Milky Way Galaxy at 483,000 miles per hour, again more math. I look at everything on this planet and I see math, from the fight path of a bird, it's speed, and it's altitude are calculated with math. To the trees I look at, it's height and it's girth, to the shadow that it casts when the Sun hits it, all calculated with math. It is as if it was all programed by something, because even before the human mind evolved to understand these physical constants, they already existed. DNA appears to be programed as well. How else would a bird instinctively know how to build nests, or with some species, fly south for the winter, without some form of instructions. It is as if it is preprogrammed with these instructions. I look at everything like the few examples I gave above and see a creation that could have come from an intelligent mind, due to the fact it takes an intelligent mind to calculate and understand the universe and nature in which we live. The mathematical constants that keep this universe from flying apart and the DNA that keeps life ticking on this planet all point me to a mind greater mind than our own. With all the chaos in this universe it is still pretty ordered and constant and all of it can be calculated with mathematics. So if there needs to be a metric for discerning the difference between the appearance of design and design itself; then why cannot the above mentioned be used as that metric. All of which can be calculated and measured with mathematics.

Everything we humans create was planned, designed and then constructed; of course everything we create was done with intent, and that probably begs the question of whether or not, if there was a creator, if it had intent in mind. That I cannot answer, nor can anyone else with any kind of certainty. However, I'm still pretty sure that an intelligent mind is behind all of this madness that we see on an everyday basis, due to the complexity of the universe and life on this planet, however unreasonable that may sound. This is probably is an intuitive argument which has been pointed out by hackenslash as being fallacious in nature, but I have racked my brain and cannot for the life of me come up with a better argument than the one above. That being said, I'm open minded and not stubborn enough to admit that my reasoning could be wrong. I will however, need to research more into science and philosophy in order to switch positions.

All of you have brought forth great arguments and I have taken them to heart. I will be reading the BB thread again as well as this one to see your points of view and to see where my arguments have failed. I have had a lot of fun with this thought experiment and I appreciate all of your inputs. I have learned a lot from you and hope to learn even more. This will not be my last post in this thread and I will be posting more into the BB thread when I do more research into cosmology and have more questions.

 

[tuxbox]

This is what rational discussion looks like, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who is enjoying this thread (minus the derail factor).

In all seriousness, I've lately been extricating myself from ALL internet activity. I know that looks like bollocks from here, since I've been more active on this forum than I have been in years, but I've rescinded my membership at Rationalia, self-suspended at Ratskep, hardly been active anywhere for some months other than here.

That said, my increased posting here has come with an increase in interest (which is somewhat irritating, since it's distracting me from the book I'm trying to finish), and I have been massively enjoying my interactions with Tuxbox, not just in this thread but in the BB thread (actually, I've especially enjoyed that, because it's allowed me to distil my thoughts in a way that might even be useful for the book).

In short, I'm enjoying this thread immensely, apart from the idiot interjections of the godbot, who should go away and pray for better fucking arguments, and perhaps a little ability in reading and comprehension.

Thank you both for the kind words. I was afraid I was being annoying, repetitive and bullheaded.

 

[tuxbox]

I think I'm done.

I hope not. That would suck for this forum, as I have learned a lot from you. I would hate to see you leave.

 

[tuxbox]

I'm trying to work out a logical argument for design, but I'm beginning to think that is a futile task.

That's part of the problem, namely that a logical argument is never sufficient to show anything except validity. This is precisely why I say you need a metric for design in order to show design, otherwise all you have is some kind of intuition, the appeal to which is a recognisable and crystal clear fallacy known as, funnily enough, the appeal to intuition.

If you really want to have a go, try formulating it as a syllogism, because that's generally the quickiest route ot seeing the futility of attempting to demonstrate the truth of something. It should look somwething like this:

P1. All entities with property Y are designed
P2. Entity X has property Y
C. Therefore, entity X is designed.

The problem will lie in finding a categorically true P1, which is what you need your metric for.

Indeed, and I have tried my best to come up with a metric but I'm not sure it is possible.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I think I'm done.

I hope not. That would suck for this forum, as I have learned a lot from you. I would hate to see you leave.

As I said to Surreptitious, I'll still be around, and I have the worst case of SIWOTI syndrome of anybody I know, so I doubt I'll be gone for good. I just burn far too much time on forums, and I really should have finished the book years ago, for example.

 

[surreptitious57]

In that case it might have been better to just write it in the form of a continuous Rat Skep post
That way you would have saved considerable time by killing two bird with one stone ha ha ha
I suspect that most of the finished article will contain material from your archive there anyway

 

[Deleted member 619]

There'll certainly be some of the material from there. Indeed, one of the reasons I was motivated to do the stuff here for the BB thread was distilling some of the cosmology stuff in preparation for the book. I also still have a fair bit of stuff from RDF, which was where the germ of the idea for the book came.

 

[surreptitious57]

I watched the video that you posted in the other thread. Most of what you said in it I already knew although it is always good to go over
familiar ground just to refresh the memory. But the only thing you said that I cannot understand is how photons can travel through time
but not experience it as such. Now I am not questioning the fact that they actually can but I just find it very counter intuitive that they do

Speaking of photons can you explain what the difference is between a closed particle and an open particle. Photons are open particles
which is why they cannot be detected on branes external to this universe. Then presumably if they were closed particles they would be
capable of detection. So the universality of gravity therefore makes it the only thing which could determine the existence of branes. But
is there a point beyond which they could not be determined because gravity was too weak to be detected. Or can it always be detected

The strongest of the four fundamental forces is the strong nuclear which is contained in the nucleus. Then the next strongest is the weak
nuclear which is contained within the atom external to the nucleus. The next strongest is the electromagnetic which is also external to the
nucleus and exists at the classical level too where it is almost as universal as gravity but stronger by a magnitude of twenty. The weakest
is gravity which is literally universal. Now there appears to an inverse proportionality between the strength of the force and the area which
it is spread across. Which is to say that the stronger the force the smaller the area or the weaker the force the greater the area. So then is
it the case or is just coincidence. Now given the inverse square law of gravity it self in respect to multiple objects or bodies I would say it is
not just coincidence. I should actually point out that the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism have been combined to make one force
[ the electro weak ] and so there are three fundamental forces not four. I only said four to demonstrate better the point which I was making

 

[Deleted member 619]

I watched the video that you posted in the other thread. Most of what you said in it I already knew although it is always good to go over
familiar ground just to refresh the memory. But the only thing you said that I cannot understand is how photons can travel through time
but not experience it as such. Now I am not questioning the fact that they actually can but I just find it very counter intuitive that they do

Speaking of photons can you explain what the difference is between a closed particle and an open particle. Photons are open particles
which is why they cannot be detected on branes external to this universe. Then presumably if they were closed particles they would be
capable of detection. So the universality of gravity therefore makes it the only thing which could determine the existence of branes. But
is there a point beyond which they could not be determined because gravity was too weak to be detected. Or can it always be detected

The strongest of the four fundamental forces is the strong nuclear which is contained in the nucleus. Then the next strongest is the weak
nuclear which is contained within the atom external to the nucleus. The next strongest is the electromagnetic which is also external to the
nucleus and exists at the classical level too where it is almost as universal as gravity but stronger by a magnitude of twenty. The weakest
is gravity which is literally universal. Now there appears to an inverse proportionality between the strength of the force and the area which
it is spread across. Which is to say that the stronger the force the smaller the area or the weaker the force the greater the area. So then is
it the case or is just coincidence. Now given the inverse square law of gravity it self in respect to multiple objects or bodies I would say it is
not just coincidence. I should actually point out that the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism have been combined to make one force
[ the electro weak ] and so there are three fundamental forces not four. I only said four to demonstrate better the point which I was making

There are some good questions in there, but they would take this thread even further off beam than numbnuts has taken it, and I'm not at home at the mo, so I'll post my response in the BB thread when I have leisure, because a fair bit of that is actually relevant to that thread, especially the stuff about electroweak theory and stuff, and it involves some incredibly interesting physics. For the moment, it's enough to note that the unification of the weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force isn't really the forces combining to make one force, as it's usually presented. That's a useful simplification of what's really happening, namely that their values become the same under certain conditions, which means that, in terms of the way that particles react under them, the forces become indistinguishable. Saying that they've combined into a single force is a useful shorthand, but slightly misses the picture of what's really going on.

The same is true of grand unification under supersymmetry. I'll cobble a post together dealing with that for the BB thread when I have a few minutes, probably tomorrow morning, unless I sit up watching the election results tonight, in which case I'll do it then.

 

[surreptitious57]

With all the chaos in this universe it is still pretty ordered and constant and all of it can be calculated with mathematics
So if there needs to be a metric for discerning the difference between the appearance of design and design it self then
why cannot the above mentioned be used as that metric. All of which can be calculated and measured with mathematics

As hackenslash has said you would need an observable and repeatable metric that can be universally applied
and produce identical results. Mathematics cannot do that as it is abstract by definition. But what it would do if
such a metric existed is to describe in mathematical form how it functioned. But it would not be the metric itself

Now while mathematics may not be proof of perfect design it is nonetheless a perfect discipline in its own right. Since
it is deductive for it uses proof to validate its claims. And proof is absolute by default. And unlike science which uses
evidence to validate its claims. And the fundamental difference between the two is that if something is inductive it is
probably true while if something is deductive it is definitely true. The easiest way to demonstrate deductive proof is
in the form of an equation where everything from the left hand side is equal to everything from the right hand side