Why I'm a Deist.

[Deleted member 619]

Has anybody actually tried to trap it

Yes they have but sadly with zero success

For as I said it is incredibly hard to contain

You should have paid attention to the rest of the post. Nobody has any idea of what it is. If they had, they might stand a chance of trapping it. What has happened is that certain models have been tested by attempts to trap what those models postulate to be dark matter, and all have failed. Does that mean that dark matter is hard to trap? No, it means we still have no fucking clue of what it is.

If I ask a question, it's generally a god idea to study the question because, most of the time, if I ask a question, it's designed to make you check your assumptions. You should already know this.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Y'all are right this time,it is not photons that can go through matter.I stand corrected this time.Thanks for the correction.I was thinking of something else.

 

[Dustnite]

Y'all are right this time,it is not photons that can go through matter.I stand corrected this time.Thanks for the correction.I was thinking of something else.

Alright now take that humility and understanding you are feeling and apply it to everything you have wrote on this board, then we might be getting somewhere...

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I am sorry this took so long for me to reply to, but such is life sometimes.

tuxbox[/url]"]

You are correct; we all cannot be experienced in every subject at all times. The more specialized one gets, the more ignorant they are of the other disciplines around them. However, think of something you would call yourself an expert in (your day job, some kind of hobby, or even being extremely good at a video game). Now, imagine trying to explain that to someone that has only ever heard of it before. How good do you think you will be at explaining it to them? What I am trying to say is that you are correct that we as individuals cannot physically/intellectually evaluate every scientific theory, but we can make an informed guess based on the expertise of others. One has to remember that the scientific method is a self-correcting endeavor, thus the process of scientific investigation weeds out the mistakes (honest or not) by design.

When it comes to the cutting edge of science, lots of knew ideas are going to be put forward and not all of them can be correct. However, when looking at the field of Big Bang Cosmology, it appears to me that what we are seeing is science at work. Ideas are being proposed and tested, and those ideas are validated, modified, or discarded based on our observations and math.

Well said, and that makes a lot of sense. However, aren't we suppose to question everything? Like Jefferson said, “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”

Yes, question everything, but know your limitations. Just because you are able to ask questions, does not mean that you have the knowledge to even be asking the correct questions in the first place. As, an analogy, I know next to nothing about automobiles. Thus, when my Blazer gives out (which is most likely going to happen this summer) and I take it into the shop, I am at the mercy of the mechanics. Now, I know enough that I can change my own oil and fix a flat, but if the transmission goes or something else, I have no idea how to fix that. Thus, the mechanic is the one that I defer to, since (s)he has the adequate training in this field. They tell me it was the transmission and it is going to cost X amount to fix, I have only two options: 1) Believe them and let them fix it or 2) take it to another mechanic and get a second opinion. When that mechanic says the same thing and tells me it is going to cost roughly the same to fix it, I again have the same two options, but why follow down the second one this time? What is the likelihood that two trained specialists at two different facilities would tell me the same thing and both be wrong about it?

Essentially, what I am trying to say is, yes, question everything, but know your limitations and realized that if it is something outside of your knowledge base, you will need to seek the advice of experts in that field. At that point, the best one can do is find out what the consensus of the experts is and tentatively accept that.

 

[tuxbox]

Yes, question everything, but know your limitations. Just because you are able to ask questions, does not mean that you have the knowledge to even be asking the correct questions in the first place. As, an analogy, I know next to nothing about automobiles. Thus, when my Blazer gives out (which is most likely going to happen this summer) and I take it into the shop, I am at the mercy of the mechanics. Now, I know enough that I can change my own oil and fix a flat, but if the transmission goes or something else, I have no idea how to fix that. Thus, the mechanic is the one that I defer to, since (s)he has the adequate training in this field. They tell me it was the transmission and it is going to cost X amount to fix, I have only two options: 1) Believe them and let them fix it or 2) take it to another mechanic and get a second opinion. When that mechanic says the same thing and tells me it is going to cost roughly the same to fix it, I again have the same two options, but why follow down the second one this time? What is the likelihood that two trained specialists at two different facilities would tell me the same thing and both be wrong about it?

Essentially, what I am trying to say is, yes, question everything, but know your limitations and realized that if it is something outside of your knowledge base, you will need to seek the advice of experts in that field. At that point, the best one can do is find out what the consensus of the experts is and tentatively accept that.

I see your point, and I do have a tentative position, and that is the best way to describe my world view. My Deistic position for example is not something that I claim to be true. Like Hack said in another post, it is an intuitive position and could change as I gain more knowledge. That said, I do trust most of science and the scientists that work in the field of cosmology and physics, but trust can only go so far as to what they can test and get consistent results. Your field of work for example seems to be pretty solid, so I do not question the most of the findings and theories of paleontology. Off topic, I do question the Microcephaly Hypothesis in regards to Homo F loresiensis.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Off topic, I do question the Microcephaly Hypothesis in regards to Homo F loresiensis.

That was something I was adamantly interested in when I was in college, and I agree with you that the microcephaly hypothesis is the weakest (in my opinion). My personal favorite was that a group of Homo erectus made it to Florence and developed "Island Dwarfism". That would have gone well with their giant rats and minuscule elephants. The other leading hypothesis was a group of Australopiths made it to Florence millions of years before we knew H. erectus left Africa and established a population there. I once believed this was the least likely; however, the new(ish) findings in Dmanisi have changed that. As of right now, I think that is the most likely explanation for Homo floresiensis (which should be changed to Australopithecus floresiensis). The thing that will decide this issue is a new discovery of remains. Now that we know A. floresiensis is out there, precautions can be taken to try to preserve any DNA found in the bones. The DNA tests will definitively answer that question.

In addition, I am not a paleontologist; I am an archaeologist with an immense interest in paleontology. However, the above discussion would fall into a paleoanthropology discussion, thus straddling the line of paleontology and archaeology.

 

[tuxbox]

Off topic, I do question the Microcephaly Hypothesis in regards to Homo F loresiensis.

That was something I was adamantly interested in when I was in college, and I agree with you that the microcephaly hypothesis is the weakest (in my opinion). My personal favorite was that a group of Homo erectus made it to Florence and developed "Island Dwarfism". That would have gone well with their giant rats and minuscule elephants. The other leading hypothesis was a group of Australopiths made it to Florence millions of years before we knew H. erectus left Africa and established a population there. I once believed this was the least likely; however, the new(ish) findings in Dmanisi have changed that. As of right now, I think that is the most likely explanation for Homo floresiensis (which should be changed to Australopithecus floresiensis). The thing that will decide this issue is a new discovery of remains. Now that we know A. floresiensis is out there, precautions can be taken to try to preserve any DNA found in the bones. The DNA tests will definitively answer that question.

In addition, I am not a paleontologist; I am an archaeologist with an immense interest in paleontology. However, the above discussion would fall into a paleoanthropology discussion, thus straddling the line of paleontology and archaeology.

My apologies, I thought that you were a paleontologist because of all your "Know Your Bones" threads and blogs. I like the Homo erectus hypothesis as I have not heard of the Australopithecus hypothesis. I will look into that one. It sounds very interesting. I hope they can do DNA tests, that would be awesome.

 

[tuxbox]

:roll: This guy is full of shit!

 

[tuxbox]

Deist and Atheist discussion.​

​

 

[red]

Adding to a thread at end is a bit pointless, but I was piqued that tutbox might be swayed by more information to change his/her position.
As a nipper I thought marriage could only be between man and woman. Later that marriage was helpful to family stability, having assumed that only a man and woman could have a family. Now I see marriage as a partnership where any (2) people in love can commit to each other and have their relationship formally recognised in their society. (I have "2" in brackets in case this might be increased in time!)
Anyhow, having read a fair bit of the thread, on the scale of rational "belief" deism seems preferable to theism in that most magic can be discarded.
I am inclined to "want" to believe that there should be a creator. But reverting to the marriage analogy, the world really has moved on and we should be able to, as well. I can well imagine if I was born 100 years ago with knowledge of a universe with just the Milky Way we may have had reason to assume "creation", and stasis. But we now have inflation theory, and a myriad of multiverse postulates. The physics of modern cosmology is overwhelming to the lay person and the number of potential plausible hypotheses for our universe seems to increase every year.
Summing up, when I "reason" about creation I have to somehow discount how science has been able to take us ever closer to t=0 with credible explanations, and then stop thinking - because beyond Planck length the classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid. Digging deeper, I need to determine that there was something before t=0. It is at this point we can insert anything we want to "believe". Is it reasonable to discount that science cannot take us further? Is it reasonable to assume that whatever is "natural" can only be defined in terms of what we presently know? Is it reasonable to discount randomness and infinite probability as determinants for "believed" (or perceived) causality?
Whichever way it cuts, theism and deism offer magic as ultimate explanations, and while they make interesting shows, we are only being conned into believing their illusions.

 

[tuxbox]

red,

I really enjoyed your post and I do not consider this a dead thread. Anyone who wants to chime in on this thread should feel more than welcome to do so. Though I have changed my position on a lot of things. So contrary to some people’s opinions, my position is tentative. I will be updating my current position sometime soon.

 

[Inferno]

That's the part I'm currently waiting for: What are your positions on a few things? Why do you still consider yourself Deist?

Once I know that I can sway you. :lol:

 

[tuxbox]

My updated position on Deism.

My first position on Deism was that a Creator could be inferred by the observation of Nature, which includes the cosmos and life on this planet. My position was also that via DNA and the mathematical constants that govern our universe inferred design. Several of you made damn good arguments refuting my position and pointed out that the design I was seeing in Nature was not teleological but it is most likely teleonomic. My position was also that something can’t come from nothing. However, with the help of Hackenslash and Krauss I quickly changed my mind and now believe that absolute nothingness makes zero sense. In comes String Theory and a Multiverse, which I totally discounted due to the lack of evidence, or at least my perception of the lack of evidence. However, again with the help of Hackenslash and Dragon Glas, and watching a couple of videos from Kaku and Greene, I have changed my position again. I now believe it is totally possible that these theories could be a viable answer as to the creation of our part of the universe. After all of these position changes I know have to the conclusion that a God, especially an anthropomorphic god (which makes zero sense), may not be needed to explain the universe/s, at least from a science point of view. So where does not leave me? Well, I will try to explain as best that I can, but bear with me, since I’m not very good at articulating my positions very well.

At the risk of repeating myself, let me first start off with Thomas Paine’s thoughts on Deism. Paine said this,

“There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found in any other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them.
But in Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the system of the creation, prove to us, far better than books can do, the existence of a God, and at the same time proclaim His attributes.
It is by the exercise of our reason that we are enabled to contemplate God in His works, and imitate Him in His ways. When we see His care and goodness extended over all His creatures, it teaches us our duty toward each other, while it calls forth our gratitude to Him. It is by forgetting God in His works, and running after the books of pretended revelation, that man has wandered from the straight path of duty and happiness, and become by turns the victim of doubt and the dupe of delusion.”

While I agree with most of what he says here, I have to object to his usage God and addressing the Creator as “Him”. First off, I have my doubts that there is a Creator, and secondly if there is one, I seriously doubt it is anthropomorphic. That said, Paine is one of the main reasons I turned to Deism. He was a brilliant man and in my opinion the greatest of the Founding Fathers.

Then there is Voltiare, who supposedly said this,

“What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No, it is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This no matter of faith, but of reason.”

Now let’s look at a Max Planck quote on God. He was supposedly a Deist.

“Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.”

Then there is Ralph Waldo Emerson, who was supposedly a Deist as well, said this in “Nature”. (great book by the way).

"Standing on the bare ground, — my head bathed by the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space, — all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God. "

I could go on and on with famous Deists and their quotes, but I just wanted to show you guys that a lot of great minds of the past used their reasoning to come to the conclusion that there is/was a Creator. (appeal to authority, correct?)

I believe Einstein was an atheist and he said this about God and it brings about doubts. So I’m not fixed on a Creator existing. One may not exist at all.

“The word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this.”

He also said this, which I find interesting:

“What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.”

Now to get on with present day events and why I’m still a Deist. First, the Laws of Nature have either been created or they have always existed. No one really knows the answer. If you go by Causality, which is a philosophical position, then the Laws were most likely created. Michio Kaku brings this question up in this about where did the strings in String Theory come from in this video. He also goes on to say that the question of a Creator is undecidable. In the same video he says that people who say that they are 100% certain that there is no God and the other side who say they are 100% certain that there is God, are both wrong. Which in my opinion is a pretty good position to hold, but not one that I subscribe to as of yet.

I recently had a conversation with Dragan Glas and others in this this thread about Nature/Universe is eternal or not. After reading the Before the Big Bang thread again, watching a few videos I came around and changed my position. However, in this video Amir D. Acszel brings up the very same questions I had about the universe, just in a more articulate way. Also in this video Greene admits that String Theory could be wrong. String Theory is also not falsifiable. Like I said earlier, I believe String Theory is a viable answer as to the creation of our part of the universe but it is still not concrete and it does not prove that other universes created this one and that Nature is eternal.

So where does this leave me in forming a reasonable position on Deism? Well, I will admit that from a scientific stand point it leaves me in the dark, since science cannot answer the question if a Creator exists and probably never will. Skeptics of the Creator idea will say there is no scientific evidence of a Creator, therefor there is no good reason to believe that one exists (I understand this point of view). Theists will argue that without a doubt one exists (I disagree with this point of view). He_Who_Is_Nobody asked me once, what is the difference between a Creator that is not there and one that does not exist (or something like that)? The answer to that is not a damn thing. However, if the Creator is the energy that started the ball rolling and is part of Nature but transcends Nature, then that is a different story. That definition would be Panendeism, which is what I am leaning towards at the moment. I realize that this is a philosophical position based on intuition that is based on causality. I realize that is might be illogical to some, but I’m okay with that. I still do not believe in magic, revelation, holy books, miracles, prayer, or in an anthropomorphic god. I also realize that does not make me anymore reasonable than a theist, but that is where I stand currently. I cannot take the position that there is no Creator, when to me a Creator makes sense. It would be illogical for anyone to say that one does not exist as well. One last thing, it my position that the universe came about by natural means, due to the assumption that a Creator is part of Nature. It is not a supernatural being or entity. Will I ever let go of the Creator idea? Sure that is a very good possibility, however, at this time in my journey into finding truth, I do not think so.

This is basically a summary of what I have already posted with a few modifications.

 

[tuxbox]

That's the part I'm currently waiting for: What are your positions on a few things? Why do you still consider yourself Deist?

Once I know that I can sway you. :lol:

lol, I think I just explained it, but it might not be very coherent.

 

[Deleted member 619]

(appeal to authority, correct?)

Correct.

If you go by Causality, which is a philosophical position, then the Laws were most likely created.

There are two things wrong with this: Firstly, causality isn't a philosophical position. Aristotelian causality certainly is, and indeed it says what you say it does, but Aristotelian causality isn't just bollocks, it's falsified bollocks. Science has a version of causality as well, but it has nothing to say on any creator, because it is simply the principle that no effect can precede its cause, and doesn't say anything about everything requiring a cause.

Secondly, the laws that 'govern' the universe (laws don't govern, they describe) didn't require any creation, nor could they have been created, because those laws are nothing more than the properties of the component entities.

String Theory is also not falsifiable.

I often hear this said, but it's total bollocks. Of course string theory is falsifiable. It's not easily falsifiable, but it is falsifiable in principle.

It's easy to hang on to this idea of what it means for something to be falsifiable, but most people's idea of it is well short of the mark.

Well, I will admit that from a scientific stand point it leaves me in the dark, since science cannot answer the question if a Creator exists and probably never will.

This question is the remit of philosophy (as are all questions, to some degree). It's important to note what the remit of philosophy is, though. Philosophy is a tool for ensuring that we're asking the right kinds of question, and the question 'does a creator exist' is entirely the wrong kind of question.

to me a Creator makes sense.

This is the bit I don't get, not least because everything I and others have posted, while not disproving a creator, renders it irrelevant, and shows that there's no good reason to think that such an entity exists. It's simply nonsense.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

My updated position on Deism.

My first position on Deism was that a Creator could be inferred by the observation of Nature, which includes the cosmos and life on this planet. My position was also that via DNA and the mathematical constants that govern our universe inferred design. Several of you made damn good arguments refuting my position and pointed out that the design I was seeing in Nature was not teleological but it is most likely teleonomic. My position was also that something can’t come from nothing. However, with the help of Hackenslash and Krauss I quickly changed my mind and now believe that absolute nothingness makes zero sense. In comes String Theory and a Multiverse, which I totally discounted due to the lack of evidence, or at least my perception of the lack of evidence. However, again with the help of Hackenslash and Dragon Glas, and watching a couple of videos from Kaku and Greene, I have changed my position again. I now believe it is totally possible that these theories could be a viable answer as to the creation of our part of the universe. After all of these position changes I know have to the conclusion that a God, especially an anthropomorphic god (which makes zero sense), may not be needed to explain the universe/s, at least from a science point of view. So where does not leave me? Well, I will try to explain as best that I can, but bear with me, since I’m not very good at articulating my positions very well.

At the risk of repeating myself, let me first start off with Thomas Paine’s thoughts on Deism. Paine said this,

“There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found in any other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them.
But in Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the system of the creation, prove to us, far better than books can do, the existence of a God, and at the same time proclaim His attributes.
It is by the exercise of our reason that we are enabled to contemplate God in His works, and imitate Him in His ways. When we see His care and goodness extended over all His creatures, it teaches us our duty toward each other, while it calls forth our gratitude to Him. It is by forgetting God in His works, and running after the books of pretended revelation, that man has wandered from the straight path of duty and happiness, and become by turns the victim of doubt and the dupe of delusion.”

While I agree with most of what he says here, I have to object to his usage God and addressing the Creator as “Him”. First off, I have my doubts that there is a Creator, and secondly if there is one, I seriously doubt it is anthropomorphic. That said, Paine is one of the main reasons I turned to Deism. He was a brilliant man and in my opinion the greatest of the Founding Fathers.

Then there is Voltiare, who supposedly said this,

“What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No, it is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This no matter of faith, but of reason.”

Now let’s look at a Max Planck quote on God. He was supposedly a Deist.

“Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.”

Then there is Ralph Waldo Emerson, who was supposedly a Deist as well, said this in “Nature”. (great book by the way).

"Standing on the bare ground, — my head bathed by the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space, — all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God. "

I could go on and on with famous Deists and their quotes, but I just wanted to show you guys that a lot of great minds of the past used their reasoning to come to the conclusion that there is/was a Creator. (appeal to authority, correct?)

I believe Einstein was an atheist and he said this about God and it brings about doubts. So I’m not fixed on a Creator existing. One may not exist at all.

“The word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this.”

He also said this, which I find interesting:

“What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.”

Now to get on with present day events and why I’m still a Deist. First, the Laws of Nature have either been created or they have always existed. No one really knows the answer. If you go by Causality, which is a philosophical position, then the Laws were most likely created. Michio Kaku brings this question up in this about where did the strings in String Theory come from in this video. He also goes on to say that the question of a Creator is undecidable. In the same video he says that people who say that they are 100% certain that there is no God and the other side who say they are 100% certain that there is God, are both wrong. Which in my opinion is a pretty good position to hold, but not one that I subscribe to as of yet.

I recently had a conversation with Dragan Glas and others in this this thread about Nature/Universe is eternal or not. After reading the Before the Big Bang thread again, watching a few videos I came around and changed my position. However, in this video Amir D. Acszel brings up the very same questions I had about the universe, just in a more articulate way. Also in this video Greene admits that String Theory could be wrong. String Theory is also not falsifiable. Like I said earlier, I believe String Theory is a viable answer as to the creation of our part of the universe but it is still not concrete and it does not prove that other universes created this one and that Nature is eternal.

So where does this leave me in forming a reasonable position on Deism? Well, I will admit that from a scientific stand point it leaves me in the dark, since science cannot answer the question if a Creator exists and probably never will. Skeptics of the Creator idea will say there is no scientific evidence of a Creator, therefor there is no good reason to believe that one exists (I understand this point of view). Theists will argue that without a doubt one exists (I disagree with this point of view). He_Who_Is_Nobody asked me once, what is the difference between a Creator that is not there and one that does not exist (or something like that)? The answer to that is not a damn thing. However, if the Creator is the energy that started the ball rolling and is part of Nature but transcends Nature, then that is a different story. That definition would be Panendeism, which is what I am leaning towards at the moment. I realize that this is a philosophical position based on intuition that is based on causality. I realize that is might be illogical to some, but I’m okay with that. I still do not believe in magic, revelation, holy books, miracles, prayer, or in an anthropomorphic god. I also realize that does not make me anymore reasonable than a theist, but that is where I stand currently. I cannot take the position that there is no Creator, when to me a Creator makes sense. It would be illogical for anyone to say that one does not exist as well. One last thing, it my position that the universe came about by natural means, due to the assumption that a Creator is part of Nature. It is not a supernatural being or entity. Will I ever let go of the Creator idea? Sure that is a very good possibility, however, at this time in my journey into finding truth, I do not think so.

This is basically a summary of what I have already posted with a few modifications.

A few things...

There are problems inherent to the concept of a creator-entity - most notably, limits - due to contradictions in the purported properties of said creator-entity.

If a deistic god exists - where a purely physical universe is created, without souls, after-life, spirit-plane, divine intervention, etc - then you end up with a "hole" in god: because a deistic god is not omnipresent - where the physical universe is, a deistic god is not. This is the main difference between a theistic and deistic god, as the former "permeates everything", including us. A deistic god is like Swiss cheese with just one hole in it where the physical universe exists.

As such, I don't understand your underlined sentence above - particularly the word "transcends" - if a creator-entity is "a part of the universe" (everything that exists), how can it also transcend it? Are you still confusing our space-time "bubble" with "universe"?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[tuxbox]

Correct.

Dammit, how does one learn to create an argument without using fallacies?

There are two things wrong with this: Firstly, causality isn't a philosophical position. Aristotelian causality certainly is, and indeed it says what you say it does, but Aristotelian causality isn't just bollocks, it's falsified bollocks. Science has a version of causality as well, but it has nothing to say on any creator, because it is simply the principle that no effect can precede its cause, and doesn't say anything about everything requiring a cause.

Secondly, the laws that 'govern' the universe (laws don't govern, they describe) didn't require any creation, nor could they have been created, because those laws are nothing more than the properties of the component entities.

If the laws are descriptive, then what are they describing? Something must exist for us to put a description to them. That being said, what we a describing came from somewhere. As Kaku said, where did String Theory come from? Either the strings have always existed or they were created.

I often hear this said, but it's total bollocks. Of course string theory is falsifiable. It's not easily falsifiable, but it is falsifiable in principle.

It's easy to hang on to this idea of what it means for something to be falsifiable, but most people's idea of it is well short of the mark.

How is it falsifiable, and what do you mean when you say it is falsifiable in principle? In one of the Greene videos that I posted in the BB thread, I could have sworn he said that is wasn't.

This question is the remit of philosophy (as are all questions, to some degree). It's important to note what the remit of philosophy is, though. Philosophy is a tool for ensuring that we're asking the right kinds of question, and the question 'does a creator exist' is entirely the wrong kind of question.

What would be the correct question then?

This is the bit I don't get, not least because everything I and others have posted, while not disproving a creator, renders it irrelevant, and shows that there's no good reason to think that such an entity exists. It's simply nonsense.

I agree that all of you have made very good arguments that renders the creator idea irrelevant, due to the fact there is plenty of evidence that the universe came about by natural means. However, as I have pointed out, my position is that the Creator is part of Nature. It is also my position that it started the ball rolling, so to speak. I see no reason to assume that the Laws of Nature has always existed. Even if String Theory is true, which I believe that it probably is in some form or another, you still have an infinite amount of other universes out there. What started the first bublle?

 

[tuxbox]

Greetings,


A few things...

There are problems inherent to the concept of a creator-entity - most notably, limits - due to contradictions in the purported properties of said creator-entity.

I do not really think that one could assign properties to the Creator, because if one it exists, then it beyond our understanding. Is it not?

If a deistic god exists - where a purely physical universe is created, without souls, after-life, spirit-plane, divine intervention, etc - then you end up with a "hole" in god: because a deistic god is not omnipresent - where the physical universe is, a deistic god is not. This is the main difference between a theistic and deistic god, as the former "permeates everything", including us. A deistic god is like Swiss cheese with just one hole in it where the physical universe exists.

If the deistic god, as describe in Panendeism exists, then it is part of Nature. That would mean it permeates all of Nature. While that might not be considered omnipresent, like in the anthropomorphic theistic gods, but it still has presents in Nature. Would it not?

As such, I don't understand your underlined sentence above - particularly the word "transcends" - if a creator-entity is "a part of the universe" (everything that exists), how can it also transcend it? Are you still confusing our space-time "bubble" with "universe"?

Kindest regards,

James

It transcends our bubble, but exists throughout the rest of Nature. Is that the answer you were looking for?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Dammit, how does one learn to create an argument without using fallacies?

You've taken the first step by recognising the fallacy ion your own argument. Of course, having a really good grasp of the most common fallacies and how to recognise them helps.

Two sources that are pretty good. The first is a brief coverage of the most common fallacies:

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

The second is a more comprehensive treatment:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

If the laws are descriptive, then what are they describing?

Entities and the interactions between them.

Something must exist for us to put a description to them.

Well done, you've just encountered anthropic reasoning, although you missed the 'anthro' bit. WE must exist to put a description to things, and we are a result of the existence of those things.

That being said, what we a describing came from somewhere.

Nonsense. 'Somewhere' pertains to a spatial location. Prior to the Planck time, there was no 'somewhere'.

As Kaku said, where did String Theory come from? Either the strings have always existed or they were created.

If they always existed, they didn't come from somewhere. Besides, quoting Kaku at me is like quoting Bill Nye ay Richard Dawkins.

How is it falsifiable, and what do you mean when you say it is falsifiable in principle?

Well, one of the ways it could be falsified is to determine that there are no extra dimensions.

Everything, and I do mean everything, is transparent to gravity, so it is never absent. Indeed, and once again appealing to esoterica, it is postulated that the reason that gravity is comparatively weak is that even hidden dimensions are transparent to gravity, and that its weakness is due to it 'leaking' into other dimensions. There are, in principle, tests that can be carried out to confirm this. They get a little technical, but they are to do with the implications for more dimensions on the inverse-square law. In a nutshell, the inverse-square law is a consequence of our inhabiting a three-dimensional cosmos. I'll try to explain:

If you take photons as an analogy (they also obey an inverse-square law, as any photographer will tell you), you can see how this works. Photons travel in straight lines, and radiate out from a centre. In a one-dimensional universe, you would receive the same number of photons from a source, regardless of how much you were separated from that course, because there is only line they can travel. In a two-dimensional universe, the light falls off in direct proportion to separation, because the lines they travel are uniformly spread on a circle, and the circumference of the circle is proportional to its radius. In a three-dimensional universe, the fall-off follows an inverse-square law because again, the lines travelled are uniformly spread over the surface of a sphere whose area is proportional to the radius. In a universe with four spatial dimensions, the fall-off would be inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, for exactly the same reasons.

So, now we know why gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance in three dimensions, and surely we can't live in a universe with more than three dimensions, because we'd measure a different law for the fall-off of gravity (and photons), but we don't! However, this conclusion would be a little premature, because it only deals with the large scale of the cosmos we've been able to observe. If, for example, the extra dimension were curled up to around the Planck length, then the inverse-cube law would only hold to those distances, and from there we would experience an inverse-square law, as the propagation of gravity (and photons) would follow the three-dimensional principles.

At the smallest distances we've been able to probe, there has been no violation of the inverse-square law, but bear in mind that the smallest distances we've been able to probe for this is about a tenth of a millimetre, which is many orders of magnitude greater than the Planck length. If we ever find violations of the inverse-square law, it will provide extremely robust evidence for the existence of small dimensions.

If we can ever probe down to the Planck scale, and we fail to find a violation of the inverse-square law, M-Theory is falsified.

In one of the Greene videos that I posted in the BB thread, I could have sworn he said that is wasn't.

I'd have to see a citation for this, not least because Greene is one of the sources that drive my formulation of the above.

What would be the correct question then?

What does the evidence suggest?

I agree that all of you have made very good arguments that renders the creator idea irrelevant, due to the fact there is plenty of evidence that the universe came about by natural means. However, as I have pointed out, my position is that the Creator is part of Nature. It is also my position that it started the ball rolling, so to speak.

But on what, exactly, is such a position based? Is there any good reason to suppose that a creator exists, or is even necessary?

The problem is that the 'creator' idea, because it provides an easy explanation for everything, actually explains exactly nothing. All it does is provoke more questions, to which each answer is as unfalsifiable as the last. The notion simply has no utility.

I see no reason to assume that the Laws of Nature has always existed.

The laws of nature exist. Do you see any reason to assume that they didn't always exist?

Even if String Theory is true, which I believe that it probably is in some form or another, you still have an infinite amount of other universes out there. What started the first bublle?

Who said there was a first bubble?

 

[Deleted member 619]

I do not really think that one could assign properties to the Creator, because if one it exists, then it beyond our understanding. Is it not?

Is it? Why?

If the deistic god, as describe in Panendeism exists, then it is part of Nature. That would mean it permeates all of Nature. While that might not be considered omnipresent, like in the anthropomorphic theistic gods, but it still has presents in Nature. Would it not?

I'd say that it IS nature. Certainly that's my understanding of panendeism, although frankly it's much to woolly a concept for my taste. Why posit such an entity? This is, of course, setting aside the question of whether nature has any ontological existence.

It transcends our bubble, but exists throughout the rest of Nature. Is that the answer you were looking for?

This is nothing more than word salad, TBH.