Atheism, Agnosticism and Deism
This is a continuation of Jim's questions on "why Deism?" When we last left off, we were discussing whether or not atheism has any assumptions about the universe. Atheism is, by definition, a lack of belief in something not proven so how does this carry any assumptions? Is this any different from my lack of belief in Jesus because there's insufficient reason to believe in Jesus?
Before I answer that, can we review a few facts and see if we agree on them?
1. The universe exists.
2. Science currently believes there was a "creation" some 13.5 billion years ago.
3. The universe continues to expand, casting serious doubts on the "closed universe" theory. This theory would have the universe going through cycles of big bangs and big crunches.
Ergo, there was a creation. The question is whether there was any intelligence behind it or whether it happened by good fortune.
While most atheists will avoid stating with any certainty that the universe happened on its own, this is treated as the default assumption barring proof to the contrary (see the distinctions between "soft atheism" and "strong atheism"). The agnostic doesn't answer the question, citing insufficient data. The deist is obviously inclined toward the former but we don't know much about that intelligence.
Do you understand, Jim, why there's a difference between believing in a First Cause of the universe vs. say, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, Jesus or elves?
What? You don't believe in the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot or elves?
I catagorize belifs into physical, metaphysical and pataphysical.
Physical beliefs are based on what we can observe, these ideas can be proven or disproven with science.
Metaphysical beliefs aren't based on emperical evidence, and as such should be taken less seriously, but not neglected altogether. These ideas should be abonded or adopted based on preference and merit.
Pataphysical beliefs that defy physical ideas, and often conflict with themselves. These ideas can be amusing, but have no practical aplication. If adopted these ideas can be dangerous.
Example of a Pataphysical belief: The resurrection story of Jesus?
Well the whole resurrection story of Jesus is composed of many ideas of all kinds. But I think you already know all the ways it is internally inconsistent. Honestly if there is a god, why would an omniscient infinite being do something it would later change it's mind about (punishing humans with sin) by taking the form of a spirit to impregnate a woman with himself to kill in 30 years in order to appease itself?
I personally don't find the lochness monster or big foot to be 'that' unlikely. We have primate relatives all over the planet. There used to be plenty of enormous aquatic reptiles. We are always finding new species, and we are always wiping some out. So I keep an open mind on that maybe people did make such sightings.
I also keep an open mind about elves and spiritual entities in general.
Here is my take:
1- The laws of conservation of mass and energy predict that all matter and energy in the universe are without beginning or end.
2- Einstine figured out that matter and energy are equavalant (E=MC2)
3- Quantum physics tells us that all matter at the atomic layer exists as a potential (or wave) and only upon "observation" takes on a particular form in space and time.
Conclusion: The universe is eternal and we as human beings through our abiltiy to "observe" are fortunate enough to be apart of it.
John, I disagree emphatically that there has to have been a creation event as an origin to the universe. Not only do I disagree with your choice of the word "creation" but also the notion that the universe had to have a beginning at all. No cosmologist that I am aware of would state that the universe MUST HAVE had a beginning. The notion of a creator is merely begging the question. Alan Guth would argue that even if the universe did have a time zero, that there is no point in even discussing anything previous to time zero as all laws were also set into motion at the point. Mario Kaku would probably state the possibility of the eternal multiverse without beginning or end. ALL cosmologists would agree we don't know and probably just leave the idea to conjecture and poetic musings.
John, I do not see any HUGE difference between believing in the Loch Ness Monster and the creation of the universe. If you want to raise the question which is more probable, creation or some naturalistic cause, well . . . I think that is just an appeal to the god of the gaps. Ultimately for this to ever be in the realm of science, god would have to be a naturalistic force which with understanding would lose any resemblance to or right to be labeled "god" at all.
My ignorance has forced my intellect to say "I don't know", but not knowing is not where I stop . . . not knowing something demands me to investigate and clearly this is not something even possible of investigating. If I can not know and can not find out an answer, there is simply no reason to believe or invent a belief to stand in the place of ignorance. I still understand "Deism" to be a placeholder of ignorance.
I look forward to your reply,
-Jim
By "creation", I mean the big bang, the birth of the universe as we know it. No cosmologist? I'm under the impression, especially from the NASA articles I read and referenced in the research for God vs. the Bible, that the Big Bang and circa 13.5 billion years is fairly well accepted, if with some rival theories. Last I read, prior to my research for GvtB, is that scientists abandoned the "closed universe" theory. The "open universe" theory seems to acknowledge that there was indeed a beginning. Are we tripping up on some kind of semantic distinction here?
I note the qualifier "huge", with all caps emphasis no less. Are we at least coming to a better understanding of one another?
The only qualities required to meet the definition of "God" would be (1) sentient, (2) powerful enough to get the ball rolling and (3) did so. Whether or not a being could meet that criteria and still be "natural" is up for grabs. Our technology might be considered magical to a more primitive time. The technology we may yet discover, to terraform worlds or create artificial life, would be the stuff of gods.
How do we know there was a "Beginning" and what was there before the 'Beginning?"
Brooklyn
It is pure speculation to guess what happened--if anything--before the big bang. Wth the remote possibility of one exception, I know of no way to know anything about who-or what occured before hand. The remote exception is supersymmetry, but I am not current or competent enough on my physics to elaborate.
My belief in God is based on Occam's Razor and my (amittedly limited) understandidng of the fine-tuning of the universe.
I have belief, but not knowledge, in God-that makes me a Deist
I think the certain knowledge of God is unattainable, that also makes me an agnostic.
The second law of thermodynamics says heat and energy move from areas of higher concentration to areas with lower concentration. That means that things break down. The universe will end in the near-infinite future when all matter is evenly displaced and the temperature everywhere is uniform. The process that drives this is called entropy. When the universe gets to that point, nothing will change, so time will stop. All life will be long dead by then, so we won't mind.
Who "fine-tuned" God?
I can't fathom how Occam's Razor can be used to justify belief in God, deistic or otherwise. If I have the option of a universe evolving from essentially the four forces of nature, matter/energy, and space-time on the one hand, and the other option of all of that PLUS an intelligent and no doubt complex being that created those basic components, how is choosing the one that contains the most assumptions and the greater complexity in accordance with Occam's Razor?
I think it's pretty much been proven that the Universe is in fact, not closed and that it will expand forever. It's also been proven, at least to my own satisfaction, that the Big Bang happened 13.5 billion years ago.
But - M-theory, which has quite a following lately, predicts that our own Universe is but one of many.
So given these circumstances, (if true), I still see no need for any invisible, supernatural being to exist or to have existed. It may be that it did or that it does, but I see no valid reason that it should be so and no real evidence one way or the other. What's the difference in the Universe either having existed forever or having sprung from nothing, or - in a supernatural diety having always existed or having sprung from nothing? Either scenario requires a leap of "faith". There is no tangible, irrefutable evidence for either case. I consider myself to be an agnostic with atheistic leanings. I see no evidence at all for any kind of deity but I do have an open mind and I don't totally discount the possibility. I think it's possible, but only in the sense that anything is possible. So it indeed comes down to belief. Either you believe a deity exists or you believe it doesn't. There's no way to prove it either way. At least currently.
As for dis-proving the existence of a deity or a big foot or Nessie or UFO's, a negative is hard to prove if not impossible. Certainly in the case of a deity, there currently is no way to prove or disprove it's existence absolutely.
No amout of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
An Atheist is "without God".
An Agnostic is "without Revelation".
A Deist is "without Alternative".
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, noted that five-sixths of mankind is without revelation. However, he went on to point out that the existence of God is a reasonable assumption. ". . . in every hypothesis, you must admit an eternal pre-existence of something". He then admitted that it is "more simple to believe . . . in the eternal pre-existence of the world . . . than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or Creator of the world . . ."
Nevertheless, he insisted that "without appeal to revelation . . . it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition". Therefore, he concluded that, "So irresistable are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful agent, that . . ." men have believed through all time " . . . in the hypothesis of a Creator, rather than in that of a self-existent universe". Thus, he believed that "this universal sentiment" gave more weight to the God hypothesis than to the other alternatives. That's why Jefferson was a Deist, and not a Christian or an Atheist. He believed in God, but not in the traditional "revealed words" of God. His preferred revelation was universal Reason.
My own reliance on "universal sentiment" is somewhat less accomodating than his, however. Although my "revelation" is indeed based on human reason, my beliefs are based---as far as possible---on empirical evidence, rather than pure reason or common sentiment. That's why I am an Agnostic Deist. Apart from the otherwise-unexplained existence of the physical world, there is no definitive empirical evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity of any kind. But there is a growing pile of circumstantial scientific evidence for the necessity of a First Cause, and for a Sentient Designer of the universe. Hence, in principal I believe in G*D, but I don't know He/r.
Philosophically, there are only two rational explanations for the existence of the world we live in: 1> "eternal pre-existence of the world", as set forth in the various Multiverse and Many Worlds theories of a self-existent material Omniverse, or 2> "an ulterior cause, or Creator of the world", as presumed in most human traditions throughout history. Either way, something must be eternal and infinite. And of course, it's easier for the human mind to imagine what-is extending forever into the past and the future. But---my respects to Ockham---Science doesn't always accept the easiest answer to a complex question. I have attached a link to my own argument in favor of option 2, based not on sentiment, but upon the current status of scientific knowledge. After considering the reasonable alternatives, I have no choice but to assume the existence of an eternal, infinite, self-existent, "ulterior cause" of the temporal, finite, contingent, proximate cause of my personal existence.
Rational Reasons for the Existence of God:
http://home.mindspring.com/~johne84570/Rational%20Reasons%20for%20God_%20summary%2004-05-08.pdf
If I didn't say it before, welcome to the forum Gnomon. It's good to "see" you again.
Hello all.. My 1st post. Woohoo!
If causality extends beyond the universe then so does time. So why not space?
Causality is inherent to our universe. It is contingent on time, which as we all know is a dimension of reality - pretty much like the spatial dimensions . If you cannot demonstrate that causality is a property that extends beyond observable reality then arguing for the cause of the universe becomes as meaningful as the cause of causality.
So then did the universe actually begin to exist? This is where we delve further into nonsense. The universe is fucking weird.. and my knowledge of science is extremely limited, but bear with me a little.
Let's imagine a hypothetical 20 minute movie. In it a stick man comes into existence at 00:05 into the movie. After a while he has some understanding of the fact that he is a character in a movie and that his very existence is directly dependent on the existence of the movie. He is not aware of the real world in which real people view movies. However he understands that the progression of events occurring moves along the time line of the movie. Further along the line he somehow extrapolates that if he travels back far enough in time he should get to 00:00. A beginning.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Within the framework of the stick man's limited perception of time it might be reasonable to conclude that 00:00 was the point at which a powerful agent created his world/movie. To a real person 00:00 is just one end of the time line and 00:20 another end. If he(real person) so wishes he can view it any way he likes, eg. put it at 00:20 and play it backwards and stick man would be conscious of his movie before he comes into existence (or goes out of it as the new sequence implies). I did say I was getting into nonsense. The point at which we can begin to observe says nothing about the origin of the movie, because we understand that beyond the time line of the reel there is the time line of the real (sorry I had to do that :), and therefore the chain of causality in stick man universe stops at 00:00.
You see John, it's more than just a matter of semantics. The movie/universe does begin at 00:00, but that is not the point at which it begins to exist. We evolved to understand a 3D world. If we take into account a 4 dimensional view of the universe then the big bang is not the moment of creation, it's a moment in creation (I think). Isn't science a sweet thing?
There are so many paradoxes involved that one can't sensibly talk about the origin of the universe while referring to the big bang. There is no before 00:00 for stick man. His movie didn't come into existence at 00:00. He has no logical basis to assume the existence of real life, or that things work like they do in the movie like real life, including causality and time.
So, why have a cause?
<< If causality extends beyond the universe then so does time. So why not space? >>
That seems to sum-up the presumption behind the Multiverse/Many Worlds theories. Sure this local universe popped into existence at day/hour 00:00. But the eternal and infinite Omniverse was the un-caused First Cause of that single event. In other words, space and time and causation are perpetual---no beginning, no end.
But all you have to do is---presumptuously---add a conscious mind to that Omniverse, and you are right back in Deism territory. If space and time and causation can be eternal, why not consciousness?
If the Omniverse, including all possible temporal worlds, is eternal and infinite, it stands to reason that it/he/she has had plenty of "time" to develop the most bodacious mind imaginable.
However, in the philosophical definition of "eternity" there is no time, no change, no causation---there is just Being. So any way you look at it, this particular world is a paradox. And the only way to resolve such a universal conceptual paradox is to go outside the conceptual category in question (universe) looking for a reason (i.e. a cause). For Deists, G*D is The Reason.
There are several issues with that.
The main problem is that the very question "What is the cause of the universe?" presupposes a "system" of causality outside of this universe. Do u see how circular this is? The presupposed system of causality is what you are calling god! In your linked-in file you start by asking why the universe exists. The two possibilities provided both assume an external "system".
However, if we grant that the math is right and there is an omniverse, there's no need for paradoxes because you are still yet to establish that the physical dimensions are inherent to the omniverse. There's no space-time omniverse, hence no causality. Hence no cause. There is a paradox because you are trying to extend this universe beyond the zero and then call it an omniverse. Calling the omniverse god doesn't resolve the issue, you are merely admitting that a caused universe/time/causality doesn't make sense, and then brushing it aside.
Can you demonstrate why time must be a dimension of the omniverse? If not then the first cause argument is dead.
The omniverse seems to be timeless, not of infinite time. You can't have it both ways.
But yet let's presume that there's time there... If anything "happened" in the omniverse it's this universe that did, not the big bang; 00:00 is not an event or point in time in the omniverse, but rather in this universe (very much like the stick man movie analogy). If you can agree with that statement then the first cause argument is dead. It doesn't work either way.. not that god doesn't exist, it's just not a rational idea.
If the universe can BE in a in a timeless conceptual realm (such as a mind or omniverse) then the universe wasn't caused; it just is. The universe is eternal. So even if there's a god, the universe wasn't caused. That reminds me of Einstein's words "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world." That makes so much sense to me now.
"If space and time and causation can be eternal, why not consciousness?"
(You start with eternal meaning perpetual; infinite, but yet at this point I doubt you are applying that to conscience. However I will disregard that.) If water can be suspended in the atmosphere, why not fish? It just doesn't follow, given the different natures of the space, time and consciousness. Consciousness is contingent on a physical brain. Ironically the presumed space-time omniverse allows for that.
Even if we grant that consciousnes is possibly eternal there's still a problem. Again I quote you, gnomon,
"However, in the philosophical definition of "eternity" there is no time, no change, no causation---there is just Being."
So if if the mind/god can just be, why not the space-time/universe? Occam's razor shaves.
With our groundbreaking discoveries in quantum mechanics, is it not safe to assume that there is no such thing as "reality" since EVERYTHING on is smallest sub-atomic scale is empty nothingness? We simply have an "illusion" of reality. Time, Matter, Space.....all of these are simply components of our "illusion". Our universe is expanding at the speed of light (in theory), but this simply means that our "illusion" that we perceive as reality is expanding. Beyond the limits of our universe exist the same thing that is within our universe....NOTHINGNESS. There is no "edge" of the universe, it is simply the "edge" of our illusion which has not yet been generated any further. With all of this in mind, I believe atheist who believe in spontaneous generation via big bang must now start from scratch. If the universe began with a big bang, that bang was simply an event in the illusion. Whether it was matter or energy that existed first does not matter, because they are simply participant factors in the illusion we perceive as "reality". Can God be the "creator" if in actuality no "hard" matter has been created? Or is he the Generator? The Generator of this illusion we perceive as reality? I believe the atheist have to start over. An accidental big bang explains nothing. What is perpetually generating this illusion if it is not God?
Tried to edit.. made a repost, oops
<< Can you demonstrate why time must be a dimension of the omniverse? If not then the first cause argument is dead. >>
I think you missed the point. It's not my contention that time is a dimension of the Omniverse. That seems to be the assumption of Multiverse theorists.
When I use the term "First Cause" it is from the perspective of those living in a temporal universe, not from the viewpoint of a timeless deity. For those interested in such brain-twisting concepts, I recommend the mind-stretching book, Everything Forever : Learning to See Timelessness, by Gevin Giorbran.
<< So if if the mind/god can just be, why not the space-time/universe? Occam's razor shaves. >>
Both can just "BE", in the sense that the real universe, including any multiverses, is an idea in the mind of a non-spatial, non-temporal "spirit". My own personal rationale for resolving the paradox is to assume that physical Reality is ultimately a meta-physical concept in an infinite mind. But from our perspective on the inside, God's "virtual reality" is our actual reality. This is a counterintuitve concept that I am currently trying to cram into a more intuitive context. But it's like a perceptual puzzle : either you get it, or you don't. The key is to learn to think holistically rather than particularistically.
<< The
main problem is that the very question "What is the cause of the
universe?" presupposes a "system" of causality outside of this universe. Do u see how circular this is? >>
Yes. Any speculation about transcendental things---beyond the known universe---is inherently circular, and that includes multiverses and omniverses. That's why Deists shouldn't try to prove the existence of a First Cause with classical reason and logic. Even Aristotle's Prime Mover was essentially similar to the mathematical expression, X to the Nth power. Where N is an undefined number approaching infinity. The deity of Deism is an unknown, unprovable, irrational concept in the sense that any statement involving infinity is technically irrational. However, an infinite First Cause is also real and meaningful in the same sense that "pi" is real. Pi will lead you around in logical circles, but mathematicians now accept it as an undeniable and useful fact of reality.
Wikipedia:
In mathematics, an irrational number is any real number that is not a rational number — that is, it is a number which cannot be expressed as a fraction m/n, where m and n are integers, with n non-zero. Perhaps the best-known irrational numbers are ?, e and ?2.
Note the ? character above was substituted for the Pi symbol, and the square root of 2.
The issue lies in justifying a realm of causality outside the universe. You are yet to demonstrate it in any way. Without that the argument fails before it takes off.
Pi is demonstrable with convincing proofs. And thus considered real. The First Cause is a different matter all together. This is like saying the Triune Christian god is real because it is agreed that some single item (my imagination fails me) in the physical world can be manifested in three distinct ways simultaneously while retaining it's integrity, without demonstrating the spiritual. Demonstrate causality, then we can talk about your beliefs.
"It's not my contention that time is a dimension of the Omniverse. That seems to be the assumption of Multiverse theorists."
I addressed the issue of time because I thought you were trying to argue for transcendent causality and time with this:
" But the eternal and infinite Omniverse was the un-caused First Cause of that single event. In other words, space and time and causation are perpetual---no beginning, no end"
If not then you were merely stating that the universe is eternal, i.e. uncaused.
I did address a timeless realm. Which you ignore together with the objection to the place of the Big Bang event in the argument. If objecting to First Cause from multiple perspectives is particularistic thinking, then you need to read the posts again. I even address the concept you discuss in your penultimate post, i.e. universe "in" a mind. Again, "If the universe can BE in a in a timeless conceptual realm (such as a mind or omniverse) then the universe wasn't caused; it just is. The universe is eternal[edit]. So even if there's a god, the universe wasn't caused." You are destroying your own argument by calling the First Cause a mind.
The paradox is entirely unnecessary; arrived at by a just-so claim and then "resolved" by another.
You did call your argument for the First Cause rational in your first post in this thread. You seem to love paradoxes, man :P
<< You did call your argument for the First Cause rational in your first post in this thread. You seem to love paradoxes, man :P >>
Yes, I like to resolve apparent paradoxes by looking at the next higher logical category, which is technically a transcendent (above and beyond) realm.
The First Cause argument, as stated by Aristotle, is indeed Rational and Reasonable, but it is not Empirical. The number we call Pi clearly has an impact on the Real world, hence it is reasonable to believe in its existence as a useful object of thought. But it is also Irrational, because the infinite number can never be reached by our finite reason. For the same reason, I remain agnostic about the existence of an eternal Deity, because I literally don't know G*D. But just as I use the irrational concept of PI in mathematical calculations, I use the irrational, but reasonable, concept of First Cause in philosophical calculations.
Answer me this for christ's sake: On what do you base the idea that the Universe was caused?
About pi..
Your analogy is fallacious on the most basic level. In this case pi is analogous to causality (descriptive property); and a circle to the transcendent realm/God (the thing that is being described).
"The number we call Pi clearly has an impact on the Real world, hence it is reasonable to believe in its existence as a useful object of thought."
We can accurately use pi for all intents and purposes as if it were finite. The infinite number of digits after the decimal has no impact on the real world; we would be none the wiser if not for mathematical proofs. I don't think any "higher logical category" is needed for that.
Transcendent causality (or First Cause, if you insist on the fallacious comparison), on the other hand, doesn't rely on anything that can be demonstrated; we can't infer it from any meaningful series of contortions involving numbers or anything useful/real. There are no circumferences or diameters to calculate. You have neither the circle nor it's descriptive properties to "show" me. First Cause is hardly more reasonable than the Trinity (it's also quite reasonable in a higher logical category).
Staying in line with our circle theme...
It's not reasonable for 2 dimensional beings in a seemingly infinite flat grid where everything is perfectly straight to invent the concept of a curved lines to explain their world when it's not necessary. The conversation between 2 straight guys would go like this:
A: "This grid can't go on forever, dude."
B: "Well, the lines don't seem to end.."
A: "Exactly, the ends join each other so you don't notice it. So really there are no ends.. I call it a circular line."
B: "Huh? How is that possible? The lines go in opposite directions."
A: "Yeah, they curve.. but we're too small to ever notice."
B: "Curve? What's that?"
A: "That's how circular lines are formed."
B: "Does that even make sense to you? Wtf is a circular line??"
A: "Um, no... Well, actually yes.. If we.."
B: "Dude, that's gay! You're really starting to piss me off."
A: "You wait, I'll prove it to you. If I could just get enough little lines....."
The poor guy might be right but he will only succeed in breaking the record for making the polygon with the most sides. He might declare that there's a higher geometrical category that allows for curves. But it's just a claim. Interesting to ponder though..
<< Answer me this for christ's sake: On what do you base the idea that the Universe was caused? >>
Beside the philosophical, logical argument postulated by Aristotle, I base my assumption that the physical universe---space/time/matter/energy---was "caused" on the current models of astrology and cosmology. By that I refer specifically to the Big Bang theory, and subsequent evidences that this gianormous universe began as a tiny dot, and will expand until, for all practical purposes, it no longer exists. Can you imagine what existed outside that miniscule singularity floating in nothingness, or what lies beyond for the universe to expand into?
Those dangling loose ends raise the question of causation : what existed before-and-after the long-but-finite existence of this evolving world? There seem to be only two possible answers : nothing-at-all, or everything-forever. The first option implies that this temporal world boot-strapped itself from non-existence into physical existence [self-creation ex nihilo]. And that sounds a lot like non-explanatory magic to me. The second answer can be envisioned in two non-magical ways : 1>the before-and-after is a self-existent eternal Omniverse of re-cycling time and space and matter and energy, or 2>the physical world was caused by a self-existent eternal Mind, which in turn creates matter, et al. [creation ex omni]
Since minds, with their intangible information contents, and their imaginative creative powers are a mundane fact of life in my world, I find the Eternal Mind explanation to be more reasonable. But that option is meaningless unless you understand the distinction between Physics and Metaphysics. For what it's worth, here is my personal take on metaphysics.
META-PHYSICS : Literally “after” or “beyond” physics. ~ Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics”. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “meta-physics”. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter). ~ Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is.Matt er is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed. ~ I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology.
<< First Cause is hardly more reasonable than the Trinity (it's also quite reasonable in a higher logical category). >>
You have almost got the idea of "higher logical categories" down. But the higher, more general category is always simpler than the lower. A Trinity, or Duality, is a sub-category of Unity. The Trinity concept may be counter-intuitve, but it is not illogical, or unreasonable---merely irrelevant. The Deity at the top of the hierarchical pyramid is a Singularity.
When logicians use Venn Diagrams* to illustrate their reasoning, they sometimes draw a rectangle around the circles to represent a "universal set". When I try to illustrate the logical category of an eternal Deity, I draw a dashed circle (unbounded realm) around the universal set (bounded by time and space) to represent the realm of Eternity, Infinity, and Metaphysics where all things become One.
* Wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagrams
<< You have neither the circle nor it's descriptive properties to "show" me. >>
Actually, I have the biggest multi-dimensional circle imaginable to show you : the cosmic sphere. Astronomers look at dots of light in space, and infer that they are similar in some ways to the stuff we see around us on earth. Likewise, you can think into the space beyond space, and infer that it must be similar in some way to the "stuff" we see here on earth. But is that transcendent category of "stuff" more likely to be Mind, or Matter? You decide. But keep in mind that the only matter and energy we know anything about is on a one-way trip to oblivion (according to current "open-ended" expansion theories*). The conservation of energy/matter only applies to closed systems.
Just as you can mathematically infer the circumference from the diameter of a circle, you can infer the First Cause from the subsequent effects. Is PI a physical component of a circle, or a metaphysical "cause" of the circle? Just as the non-physical "laws" of physics** determine (cause) the properties of a circle, the meta-physical law-maker (cause) of the universe determines the properties of the cosmos.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
** Are those "laws of physics" material things or ideas about those things?
<< If the universe can BE in a in a timeless conceptual realm (such as a mind
or omniverse) then the universe wasn't caused; it just is.>>
According to my understanding, the physical universe cannot BE in the same conceptual category as a timeless realm, because it is separated by a temporal & conceptual boundary.
The uncaused First Cause of the universe just is. The created universe is however contingent. Logically, a subordinate, bounded, contingent category depends upon a superordinate, unbounded, infinite category for its very existence.
That's the difference between Physics and Metaphysics : bounded versus unbounded.
For example, in physical Reality you cannot go forward and backward in time (Remember, space warping and worm-holing are, at the moment, science fiction). But in metaphysical Ideality you can do just about anything you can imagine. That's why Science Fiction and Fantasy---and Religion---are so popular.
Before you place the First Cause in the SF&F category though, remember that for an eternal/infinite Being, anything possible is true and real, right now, and forever. As soon as you pass the threshold of eternity, all the limitations of physics no longer apply. So. if anything can be eternal or inifinite, then it is---necessarily.
So we're back to the original, time-before-time, conundrum. Is eternity a possibility? If so, then either a metaphysical Omniverse, or a non-physical First Cause must be.
O_O
And I'm "no dummy" either...
That was quite impressive to say the least.
mybeautybars.com
Since the term "metaphysics" is often a "stone of stumbling" and a "rock of offense" for non-deists, I use it in dialogue only because it so neatly, and symmetrically, conveys the simple-but-counter-intuitive concept that led me from Agnosticism to Deism, and from Materialism to Enformationism. Here's a post from another Deist forum on that controverisal meta-topic:
[quote]Just to add my own two cents, I take a more Neoplatonic approach to metaphysics rather than an Aristotelian one. [/quote]
My approach to metaphysics is not really based on Aristotle's philosophy. It may be more like Syncretism than Neoplatonism in that I try to reconcile Ari's pragmatic category of metaphysics with Plato's idealistic theory of Forms. I'm not really well-versed in any of the ancient philosophies, except on a superficial level---just enough to steal useful names and concepts. So you might call my homespun philosophy Neo-plato-ari-scientism; or to use my own terminology, Enformationism.
I refer to Aristotle's distinction between physics and metaphysics merely to illustrate my own understanding of the yin/yang relationship between matter and mind, body and soul. Neoplatonism may have been responsible for changing Ari's original practical concept of Metaphysics into the esoteric occultation of medieval Mysticism. As a result, metaphysics (the nature of reality) has acquired an unreal, otherworldly connotation.
Enformationism may be regarded as an attempt to update all ancient pre-scientific theoretical philosophies with the fruits of modern scientific empirical paradigms. In my view, Metaphysics is as mundane as Physics, and as transcendent as G*D.
PS---By avoiding philosophical and religious terminology as much as possible, I can carry-on extended dialogues with Atheists and Naturalists, who would otherwise tune-out at the first mention of Metaphysics. I would drop that term too, but I can't think of a clearer way to express the holistic concept of Dualism within Monism: Physics + Metaphysics = All.
<< gnomon broke my brain >>
Gnomon didn't do it. Dabbling in Eternity and Infinity and Metaphysics will do it every time. Just give your brain time to heal, and you'll be stronger for the experience.
Let me start again with another question..
How do you view the Big Bang? As an event in the Universe or otherwise? I think this is an important step when talking about causality. I have explained why earlier in the thread with the stick man movie analogy. Can you adress the analogy? Tell me how it fails to demolish the notion of the relationship between 00:00 and creation? How we are not unlike the stickman; unable to reasonably access any other realm but our own?
The current models of astrology and cosmology don't seem to require an extra realm. You start by asserting that the Universe was caused in either a realm of nothingness or First Cause. And both options sound like non-explanatory magic to me.
There is a serious flaw in our attempts to conceptualize a view from outside of the Universe.. the singularity floating in nothing? You are still thinking in terms of spacetime... That there was a dot in the vast expanse of empty space, and then at one point in time the singularity started getting bigger rapidly. That's not nothing if you ask me.. it's just empty space. You are still inventing an external realm (which has causality if taken seriously).
The second realm you propose is supposedly not empty but posseses a Universe generating ability. Neither realm is accessible by reasoned argument without assuming that causality operates there. Which is why, in my opinion, you insist on the 2nd option - it's somewhat harder to talk about causality in a realm of nothingness.
"According to my understanding, the physical universe cannot BE in the same conceptual category as a timeless realm, because it is separated by a temporal & conceptual boundary."
That's what I've been trying to tell you. Superimposing causaly on such a realm is an attempt at just that!! I made no attempt to place the Universe in the category of the extra conceptual realm. I spoke of it as eternal; meaning uncaused, having time inherent; but not restrained by it. Disclaimer:I do so primarily for the sake of conversation, not to assert any assumptions.
When I said: "If the universe can BE in a in a timeless conceptual realm (such as a mind or omniverse) then the universe wasn't caused; it just is."
le="color: #000000; ">I meant "be" as in exist. Think about this- in a timeless realm, at what point in time can a Universe be caused? If a creative force "caused" the Universe then it did so in such a way that one can't point to an event (or a series of) in time within the conceptual realm from which the Universe was born. Thereby removing causality from the picture.
The Universe isn't best thought of as a 3 dimmensional thing hanging in space.. it is reality, made up of at least 4 dimensions. This is a helpful thought when trying to conceptualize the Universe more completely.
This is where time perspective comes into play. WE, I repeat, we observe the Universe as starting and ending, but it's due to our limited view, i.e. progressing along time. Observing the higher dimmesion will not limit the observer to our time perspective. A cube will appear to be a square (only lines would be visible) to a hypothetical being confined to a 2D view, perceiving just one section at a time (the lines defined by the points of the square). That square stretches out into another dimmension through certain defined points, thus revealed to be a cube (a space with sides defined by the lines defined by points) to 3D viewers. The cube may also be defined by other points, such as where it is a particular time. The various spaces, occupied by the cube will be observable simultaneaously from 4D perspective.
3D observers (you and me) just see one slice in the dimmension of time. So we view the Universe slice after slice, frame after freeame, in the only way that we could, in the order that it sequentially progresses in familiar the 3D. This implies that the Universe essentially remains the same outside time, i.e. in 4D view (no time progression=no change occuring). You will be able to simultaneously perceive different possible states, including the Big Bang, and right now. Right now branches out into different possibilities.. and I'm getting lost here.... but don't take my word for it.
That is essentially why the Universe, in totality is eternal. Why I say the Universe isn't restrained by time. Only our perception is.
R
I enjoy these round and round discussions, even though they may seem pointless to others. You are asking for a scientific rationale to justify the belief in a transcendent deity. But science is the wrong tool to use for inquiries into Ontology (the Why of existence) which is a specialized field of Metaphysics. When Cosmologists speculate on the existence of undetectable Multiverses they are straying from hard Science into mushy Philosophy. If you deny the validity of philosophical inquiry, then the god-question is indeed pointless.
<< How do you view the Big Bang? As an event in the Universe
or otherwise? >>
Depends on which “universe” we’re talking about. The definition of “universe” has
evolved as our scientific understanding has grown. The Greek philosophers
sometimes made a distinction between the temporal created Cosmos, and the
eternal realm of the Gods. However, the most common meaning today is : "the whole of all existing matter, energy, and space".
[For obvious reasons, that definition deliberately ignores the “imaginary” realm of
the gods. But it also omits the unique human talent by which we know meaning and make distinctions : i.e. Consciousness, Reason, Mind. Where do these real-world, but non-physical “things” fit into the matter / energy / space / time criteria?]
Anyway, I am using “universe” in the pre-multiverse sense to refer to all
matter-energy-space-time from Big Bang to Heat Death (see the timeline on
Wiki). Anything beyond that slice of eternity is either an eternal regress of
physical multiverses, which all together I call the Omniverse---or the eternal
non-physical Deity.
So, to answer your question, the BB was a transition from eternity into the temporal universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_from_Big_Bang_to_Heat_Death
<< How we are not unlike the stickman; unable to reasonably
access any other realm but our own? >>
Physically, the 2D or 3D stickman can never access any other instances of the multiverse,
because he would have to cross a multidimensional "membrane" (see below). But, metaphysically (in his mind) he can create and play around with parallel universes in the form of elaborate science-fiction stories, or mathematical models. Are those other
realms, real? No, they are ideal.
<< The current models of astrology and cosmology don't seem
to require an extra realm. >>
Actually, they do. Each hypothetical multiverse is separated from our real universe by a hypothetical membrane between one set of incompatible physical laws & constants and
another set of strange realities. Only a select few, such as Superman's evil twin, can cross the barrier and survive.
<< You are still inventing an external realm (which has
causality if taken seriously). >>
No. The Eternal realm, by definition is unchanging, hence acausal.
<< Eternal meaning uncaused. Having time inherent, but not
restrained by it. >>
The philosophical and mathematical definition of “eternal” means timeless (see
below). However, the term is often used loosely to refer an indefinite period
of time. Poetically, you might call it an infinite “period” of timelessness.
Free Dictionary - Eternal : Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time.
<< If a creative force "caused" the Universe then
it did so in such a way that one can't point to an event (or a series of) in
time within the conceptual realm from which the Universe was born. >>
True. From the perspective of the eternal creative force, nothing ever happens; there
are no events; there is just Being. Just don’t ask me anything about how the eternal realm works. Because my understanding bumps into a “membrane” at the threshold of eternity and infinity. That’s why those concepts are referred to as “irrational”. Just like
PI, we can’t explain it, or even imagine it, it just is. It’s one of those
logical paradoxes that always crop up in discussions like this.
<< Why I say the Universe isn't restrained by time. Only or
perception is. >>
Time is a restraint on the universe just like space is. Space/Time is the boundary of
reality. Everything, including our perception, is bounded, defined, and restrained by space and time. But Eternity has no such limits. So I assume that
when you say “universe” you are speaking of the hypothetical Omniverse (sum of
all multiverses) which is assumed to be self-existent and eternal---just like
G*D.
Note to WebMaster: The formatting on this forum is squirrelly. What you see in the EDIT box ain't necessarily what you get in the thread. For example, text pasted from offline looks OK in EDIT but de-formats in the thread. Plus, the font size and style are inconsistent. Boo Hoo.
"So I assume that
when you say “universe” you are speaking of the hypothetical Omniverse (sum of
all multiverses) which is assumed to be self-existent and eternal---just like
G*D."
When I speak of the Universe I mean it pretty much as you defined it- space, time, matter, energy, etc.. The hypothetical possibilities I speak of with the 4D conceptualization are in a sense different manifestations of the same. And to the best of my knowledge are not contradicted by science. Are they necessary? That's another discussion
The terms "Omniverse" and "Multiverse" are used to describe sets of possible universes but they are not actual or physical "things" or "realms".. they don't exist, except for conceptual usage. Pretty much like any set itself doesn't exist.. only the things being referred to by the set. Just like God? Perhaps :P
<< The current models of astrology and cosmology don't seem
to require an extra realm. >> "Actually they do. Each hypothetical multiverse is separated from our real universe by a hypothetical membrane ..."
I believe the extra realm we were referring to is the one which gave rise to this universe and other possibilities... The one for which I say the First Cause argument presumes causality - which is more like the Omniverse you speak of. So the vital point remains untouched, your universe generating realm isn't necessitated by cosmology.
"Time is a restraint on the universe just like space is. Space/Time is the boundary of
reality. "
Indeed. What I meant is that a more complete conceptualization of the Universe isn't restrained by time, i.e. you don't have to perceive it according to the way it appears to be unfolding within time.
"From the perspective of the eternal creative force, nothing ever happens; there
are no events; there is just Being."
Exactly. The entire Universe is actualized in the mind of the hypothetical First Cause. Emphasis on "entire" because it means all the boundaries of reality are included. So the distance of the universe across time, from BB to heat death (or whatever). I know this because God is supposedly timeless, and thus he isn't restrained in perception like human minds; operating within time. So to God (or anyone capable of perceiving time) the Universe is unchanging. Indeed, there is just being. Thus my usage of "eternal" is very much in line with the philosophical definition.
"The Eternal realm, by definition is unchanging, hence acausal."
Which is why the following reference to a series of events doesn't make sense.
"So, to answer your question, the BB was a transition from eternity into the temporal universe." Before you brush that off with your illogical concept paint brush let me try to demonstrate why in a couple of ways.
"But how would you propose to demonstrate the necessity of a beyond for the temporal Universe? The only method I can think of is a logical syllogism : P1 - an origin in time always has a before and after. P2 - the known universe had a beginning. C - therefore something existed before the beginning. The question then is, was that "time"-before-time another finite slice of time, or was it eternity, with no beginning or end? The multiverse theory is an infinite regression of temporal worlds.*"
The zero marks the beginning. Thus when speaking of a before time, there is no time of which to speak. The BB was the event at beginning of time, not just in it. So your first premise is false; the first and last events, strangely enough are the first and last.
Let's say events in time are like steps (I'll call them running-steps) of a runner in a race. Let's hypothesize that athletes are told to start running only when the gun goes off.. 1. Every running-step has a before and after in the race.
2. The race had a beginning.
3. Therefore the athletes were running before the start.
That doesn't not compute.
If, you wan't to say that "time" in your phrase "an origin in time" means "time-before-time" then you are trying to demonstrate your "beyond" by making it part of your premise. I think you are smart enough to see this but you have tricked yourself into believing this to be otherwise. So pardon me for being so repetitive but I must...
The series of events we can observe can be traced back to a point. The must have been a series of events before the point, because that's what events do - they precede each other. (Nevermind that the point is what brings this whole series of observable events into play in the first place.) However before that point there was no series of events, because there was no time. But that point must have come from somewhere so some mind magically created it - that is the only thing capable of causing events without time. So we invoke the name of "irrational concepts" and call it a reasonable idea. The stickman is just as reasonable looking for the moment of creation at the start of the clip.
Let me rephrase the question about the BB.. Did it occur in the midst of a series of events or was it the beginning of a series of events?
You are still yet to demonstrate the Big Bang is logically relevant to the cause. Or that there was a cause. Have I demonstrated why?
Real versus Ideal Realms
<< I believe the extra realm we were referring to is the one which gave rise to this universe and other possibilities... The one for which I say the First Cause argument presumes causality - which is more like the Omniverse you speak of. So the vital point remains untouched, your universe generating realm isn't necessitated by cosmology. >>
I think we are in agreement on most of the points in this discussion. But we seem to be tripping over the imaginary threshold between realms. In the matter-based Multiverse theory the ulitmate, eternal realm (which I call the Omniverse) is assumed to consist of the same space-time-matter as our proximate, finite realm, which I will refer to as the "Us-verse". Since space-time-matter is presumed to exist eternally, the Big Bang of our Us-verse was not a fixed point of origin, but merely an arbitrary point on an eternal cycle of evolving matter-energy, where only cellular sub-realms (universes) are limited by the "membrane" of space-time. It's just the same old sh*t, over and over, and over again, and again---world without end. Cosmic reincarnation!!
But in my own personal, information-based cosmology, the eternal realm is assumed to consist of nothing. Nothing that-is from our temporal, material point-of-view. Paradoxically, that "nothing" is also everything. Before you choke on that preposterous statement, you might want to look at the Everything Forever explanation, "When Zero Equals Infinity" http://everythingforever.com/st_math.htm or the Paradox of Nothingness post on this site : http://godvsthebible.com/node/83
When Stephen Hawking started applying his Astrophysics genius to Cosmology, he began to slip into the deep end of reality where insanity lurks. He said, "I still believe the universe has a beginning in real time at the Big Bang. But there's another kind of time, imaginary time, at right angles to real time, in which the universe has no beginning and no end."
I'm not sure what Hawking meant by "imaginary time", but the term fits my understanding of the imaginary, irrational realm that I call "Ideality". In the Ideal realm of Plato's Forms, the real things we see and touch are mere reflections of timeless, immaterial concepts composed only of information. For Plato, the idea of a thing was prior-to the actuality of the thing. Now that kind of mumbo-jumbo made no sense to me when I was first introduced to ancient philosophy. I preferred Aristotle's more down-to-earth approach to understanding.
However, in recent years I began to see the rational relationship between Plato's Forms and Aristotle's Metaphysics. I won't go into the long version now, but here's the nut: Real Thing : Ideal Form :: Physics : Metaphysics. And metaphysics is anything that exists in a mind as information rather than matter. The trick is to imagine that the idea is ultimately more "real" (essential) than the thing. And that trick requires a reconceptualization of ultimate reality, which comes more easily (intuitively) to some people than others. It took me about 30 years.
<< So, to answer your question, the BB was a transition from eternity into the temporal universe." Before you brush that off with your illogical concept paint brush >>
The "transition" I was referring to was the emergence of a real thing as a consquence of an idea. As a designer myself, I create an imaginary building in my mind, and then I take steps to "realize" that ideal concept. Sadly, in the real world, it never turns out as perfect as the original concept. The limitations of space-time-money take their toll. The "illogical concept paint brush" also goes by the names "imagination" and "creativity". Irrational concepts such as PI and G*D are meaningful but immaterial, logical but unreal.
<< You are still yet to demonstrate the Big Bang is logically relevant to the cause. Or that there was a cause. Have I demonstrated why? >>
No. You have demonstrated that you are talking about a "material" or "efficient" cause, while I am talking about a "formal" or "final" cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause
Philosophy without scientific data easily leads to meaningless descriptions of reality (which is what we're doing mostly anyway). Please, even with science it's crazy enough. Our knowledge of the stars is hardly a philosphical matter. We have much knowledge of the world around us. We know that contrary to ancient meta-physics the earth isn't separated from the heavens, just for a start. They are essentially the same thing. We know this from observation. Plus we even have a star in the neighbourhood.
"Astronomers look at dots of light in space, and infer that they are similar in some ways to the stuff we see around us on earth. Likewise, you can think into the space beyond space, and infer that it must besimilar in some way to the "stuff" we see here on earth."
Unnecessary circular logic again. The Universe was caused because there exists an external realm in which it was caused which is similar to the Universe. The extra realm must exist because it needs it's self to exist. The Universe has not been demonstrated to necessitate a "beyond".
If it does however, it's only amusing, using reasoned logic to first demonstrate that reasoned logic operates "there" like we use it here. One can't reasonably postulate extra realms of reality. Because reality and extra reality are not like the Earth and the stars, at all. At least we can gather and analyze facts about the earth and heavenly bodies. The analogy would work to some extent if we had absolutely no data on stars (or anything beyond the atmosphere), and the wasn't enought energy accounted for for our planet to susutain life.. then we might infer an external source.. how to reasonably get to stars without unnecessary assumptions from there beats me. Though I can see at least how some would definitely imagine it as a light source.
Part of the problem, like I said is in visualizing the Universe.. Imagining it as a ball of wonder floating in a space. That might cause one to ask himself, "How did that get there?" If you can't see what's wrong with that then try again, with fewer presumptions this time.
<< Unnecessary circular logic again. The Universe was caused because there exists an
external realm in which it was caused which is similar to the Universe.
The extra realm must exist because it needs it's self to exist. The Universe has not been demonstrated to necessitate a "beyond". >>
The hypothetical eternal Omniverse/Deity could not have a "beyond". But how would you propose to demonstrate the necessity of a beyond for the temporal Universe? The only method I can think of is a logical syllogism : P1 - an origin in time always has a before and after. P2 - the known universe had a beginning. C - therefore something existed before the beginning. The question then is, was that "time"-before-time another finite slice of time, or was it eternity, with no beginning or end? The multiverse theory is an infinite regression of temporal worlds.*
The Cosmology of Einstein's era assumed that the Universe was eternal and infinite. But astrological findings soon proved that assumption to be presumptuous. Even Einstein admitted that the universe is finite but unbounded---in the trivial sense that any sphere is unbounded on it's surface.
The Quantum Theory, that Einstein never fully accepted, eventually forced Cosmologists to examine their axioms more closely. Consequently, they began to produce more and more imaginative theories of sub-quantum, one-dimensional Strings, and pre-big-bang, multiverses. After over 20 years, the empirical evidence for those elaborate theories is non-existent.
Those frustrated theorists will tell you that any statement regarding eternity or infinity is, of necessity, a tautology---going around in circles forever.
*Which reminds me of the old world-on-a-turtle's-back argument. When asked what the turtle is standing on, the turtle believer says, "you can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down".
I would not like to claim that we are not capable of ever understanding the Universe entirely. But it seems were set up to fail. Methinks if you want to truly understand the Universe you need to be a timeless being, not be a product of evolution or the Universe for that matter. In the mean time it's safest to make as few claims as possible.
"Before you place the First Cause in the SF&F category though, remember that for an eternal/infinite Being, anything possible is true and real"
1. The First Cause can be perceived as a realm that is in some ways like ours.
2. Pasta is abundant in our world.
3. Pasta is possible
4. The First Cause is in the form of a monstrous pile of spaghetti that is capable of flight
5. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real
:P
<< 1. The First Cause can be perceived as a realm that is in some ways like ours. >>
For us to perceive or conceive it, the First Cause must have something in common with our world. Otherwise, we could never comprehend it with our finite minds.
Which do you think is more likely?
1. The first cause consists of pasta.
2. The first cause consists of mind.
PS---The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real---and saucey. The G*D of Deism is merely Ideal.
I believe that none of us have to understand it all. Is someone here attempting to debunk Deism? I respectfully disagree, and here is why. We are not God. We did not create ourselves. If some of us think they are God, then act like Superman and bend steel with your bare hands. On second thought, I would like to see someone here try to create a brand new universe. No one on this planet can do this...no one. We did not create the Universe. Mankind, especially with respect to the Universe we exist in, does NOT have the power to create a new Universe. All of the ancient books, whether they be the Bible or Koran, present very weak arguements trying to explain the scientific creation of the universe, and all of us here can probably take that as a fact. The GodvstheBible book is very good in presenting these views.
The philosophy here could go on forever, but I do not sure what this would accomplish. By no means do I imply this dialog should come to an end, but I need to say this. I believe we need to be free thinkers, but it appears some of the language presented here is getting a little bit sordid. Learning, of course, for all of living mankind will definitely continue, yet, I may need to say this again. I do not think any of us need to understand it all. Some at this forum would probably fare very well with this very simple approach.
Nothing, presented here by anyone, would convince me to ever give up on Deism....no one! While I respect all the the views presented here, for this one deist, this is my stand.
May God's gift of reason light our way!
<< Philosophy without scientific data
easily leads to meaningless descriptions of reality (which is what
we're doing mostly anyway). Please, even with science it's crazy
enough.>>
<< The philosophy here could go on forever, but I do not sure what this would accomplish. >>
Both the debunker and the anti-debunker seem to be saying the same thing : enough with the philosophy already! Let's all just believe whatever makes us happy about ultimate concerns.
Contented people have been telling philosophers to back-off for millenia. But some philosophers (and scientists) are like adventurers and pioneers who are motivated to leave their comfortable beliefs behind in order to explore the exotic unknown territory beyond the edge of understanding.
Where would we be now if Columbus had listened to those who warned that, not only was he wasting his time and Queen Isabella's money, but he would most likely sail right off the edge of the world?
PS---Intuit-something Deism is a small improvement over know-nothing Agnosticism, and know-it-all Theism, only in the sense that it gives us a reason to continue pushing the boundaries of understanding. But it still doesn't give us any direct knowledge of the whys and wherefores of existence. Like the writers of Theistic scriptures, Deists still have to make-up their own answers to those nagging questions. I'd like to get a little closer to the truth before I close the book on my investigations.
You are right. We can believe anything we want to believe. I would never ask anyone here to necessarily follow my mindset. I don't have all the answers. Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. We (humans) did not create this world! I do not believe that all deists "make up their own answers" as you say. No matter what, should we not think for ourselves, and, not necessarily, let others do all of the critical thinking for us? That indeed, would be one small improvement! Yes, there is more to this than meets the eye! I do wonder however, what this world would be like if they could put religion "off to the side".
Like John, I still believe that religion controls. Religion divides! This one deist will never be a prisoner to the revealed religions again! As far as what others may want to do, that will always be their business, and I for one, will always understand that!
I still remain unconvinced about your arguements. While learning about many things (about life) until I die, I will keep a simple, pure, and humble approach about this. While I have life on this earth, I want to make the life for me, as well as the others around me, a little better. Sometimes, I am not always successful, and this is part of living in this world and being human. People do have a choice. They can throw their lives away, or, they can try to find meaning and purpose in life. No matter what I may say, none of us have absolutes, and I am very aware of that. While I will always respect both the atheist and agnostic point of view, I will never become one. Yet, any point of view is an intrinsic part of being a free thinker. While the future for mankind will only be revealed one way, people will always have the right to make their own choices and decisions. Yes, my friend, I may not wish to appear to be offensive, but all of us, indeed, may be talking in circles about these "labels".
You, of course, can do and say whatever you want. That is your right. We will have to agree to disagree (peacefully, which I must demand). I will stick by my principles and stand by my guns, no matter what!
May God's gift of reason light our way!
This is a paragraph I just added to my website thesis on Enformationism. But it also reminded me of this dialogue on Deism. My Atheist dialoguers, after they see where my Deist defense is heading, typically raise an objection to bringing circular, irrational, philosophical concepts into what they hoped would be a straightforward, rational, scientific analysis of the God Theory. I can only admonish them to get real, and get up-to-date with 21st century science. Unfortunately, they don't seem to know what I'm talking about. Thus the need for the thesis, and the website (coming soon???).
Materialists often object to the intrusion of idealistic, metaphysical religious and philosophical concepts into the pragmatic, scientific search for understanding of the world around us. But it is my contention that it was materialistic Science itself, following the evidence where it led, that accidentally stumbled into the forbidden realm of Idealism. If they could turn back the clock to the golden age of science–-before the unexpected and unwanted intrusions of Einstein and the Quantum Theorists into regions of the universe beyond the limited scope of man’s physical senses–-Materialism would still reign supreme. Since Einstein showed the practical impossibility of going backward in time though, I guess we will just have to move forward, and deal with the perplexing paradoxes of pre-cosmic and sub-atomic reality in the scientific spirit of open-minded skepticism. And let the facts fall where they may.
Glad you're enjoying the discussion.. just as I am. I guess most atheists, freethinkers and such may seem like materialists, however my metaphysical minimalism is an attempt at sticking to the demonstrable aspects of reality.. and perhaps also at consistency, which I find personally satisfying=). Just as the paradoxes of the First Cause may satisfy another.
However, I'm relatively comfortable with paradoxes and irrational concepts.. when they are required. You are yet to provide any justification for your concept that stands up to reasonable scrutiny and some 21st century science. But then even modern cosmology is very speculative. So we are merely basing our speculations on speculations.
"..what they hoped would be a straightforward, rational, scientific analysis of the God Theory. I can only admonish them to get real, and get up-to-date with 21st century science." That's a bit hard to swallow when you just tried to define the limits of science..
"You are asking for a scientific rationale to justify the belief in a transcendent deity. But science is the wrong tool to use for inquiries into Ontology (the Why of existence) which is a specialized field of Metaphysics." Nope. I just wanted a justification of the follow
ing ideas
A. the Universe was caused.
B. that the cause was related to the Big Bang.
You may have noticed I made little mention (or none?) of the inconsistency involved with truncating causality purposely to avoid infinite regression once it's goal is reached, which is what I would have gone for if my primary concern was with the First Cause. I have juicier fish to fry :)
"Both the debunker and the anti-debunker seem to be saying the same thing : enough with the philosophy already!" Not I, sir! There's no doubt in my mind that philosophy and science are necessarily coupled together. I enjoy philosophizing, or else we wouldn't be having this discussion. What gets to me is when purely philosophical speculation is given the guise of scientific justification.. one popular example is "What the bleep".. another is the First Cause argument. I also enjoy science but I have recognized it's limits as well, which is why I'm no longer a hard core materialist. So save me the speech.
We could invent irrational concepts all day. But what good are they if they are merely for the sake of creating ideals? And how dangerous can they be if left unchecked?
BTW.. I concede your point about circles and pi - a circle itself could as well be a description and pi could also be as real as a circle. My criticism however was relevant because of the context in which those mathematical concepts were being compared to transcendental realms/agents. Also my objection was not about the validity of irrational concepts. Demonstrate please.
P.S. Why G-d? Why substitute the "o"?
As for you anti-debunker.. If your only objection to an objection (especially my own, since I stress the limits of man) to a hypothetical cause for existence is "We are not God", I'm not sure how to respond to you. I'm really not sure what you were trying to accomplish either.
Thanks, I appreciate the rare opportunity to dialogue with someone as knowlegeable and reasonable as you on such abstruse topics.
<< That's a bit hard to swallow when you just tried to define the limits of science..>>
What I refer to as "21st century sciences" are those that go beyond strict materialism to deal with conceptual relationships between material things. I also call them the "Information Sciences" : Information Theory, Systems Theory, Chaos and Complexity Theory, Cybernetics, Memetics, and so forth. All of those pragmatic sciences are forced to deal with paradoxical, abstract concepts, relationships, and processes that go beyond the self-imposed boundaries of 19th century Materialism. [The difference is similar to Euclidean vs Non-linear Geometry vs multi-dimensional Topology] That's why I said above that it was Science that inadvertently strayed into the formerly forbidden domain of Metaphysics and Philosophy.
<< I just wanted a justification of the following ideas
A. the Universe was caused.
B. that the cause was related to the Big Bang. >>
The Us-verse was indeed caused. But another way to put it might be, the Universe was conceived---just as you and I can conceive something mentally that does not exist in material reality. Of course, I can conceive of a Unicorn, but only G*D can create a Universe.
<< What gets to me is when purely philosophical speculation is given the guise of scientific justification.. one popular example is "What the bleep".. another is the First Cause argument >>
Philosophical speculation has always started with the scientific understanding of the times (Physics) as axioms, and pushed forward into the unknown territory of Metaphysics. In Aristotle's day the conventional wisdom said that every action must be initiated by a divine race of immortal aliens. But Ari had no need for that anthropomorphic hypothesis. Nowadays we use the mundane term "Force" to describe the same phenomenon*. Philosophers are not bound by the same pragmatic rules that limit Scientists to the study of only those things they can see, touch, taste, and smell. However, when Philosophers play too fast and loose with the "facts" of Science, you get such nonsense as What the Bleep. Science, since the era of Quantum queerness, has been stumbling around naively in the ancient domains of religion and mysticism. So it's no wonder that the mystics are exploiting the hard-nosed reputation of modern Science to support their out-dated beliefs derived from ancient axioms.
* [But we still don't know what a Force is essentially. Is gravity a "tractor beam", or an energy field, or curved space, or a zero-dimensional particle?]]
<< P.S. Why G-d? Why substitute the "o"? >>
As a Deist, I spell the common term for the deity with an asterisk as a subtle sign that I am not talking about the biblegod, or the Theist God. My G*D doesn't do anything, S/he just is.
One of the major difficulties with discusssions like this is the necessity for using metaphorical language to describe universal concepts such as "universe" and "first cause" and "eternity". I just came across an excerpt from A. N. Whitehead's book Process and Reality. In it he comments on that very problem.
<< This collapse of the method of empiricism is not confined to metaphysics. It occurs whenever we seek the larger generalities. >>
<< Philosophers can never hope to finally formulate these metaphysical first principles. . . . they remain metaphors mutely appealing for an imaginative leap. >>
<< Speculative boldness must be balanced by complete humility before logic, and before fact. >>
Unfortunately, those abstract generalities often sound irrational and counter-factual compared to the narrowly-defined specifics of empirical science. So a liberal dose of open-minded skepticism is necessary in order to keep our bold speculations within the humble bounds of reason.
That's an excellent excerpt you've shared. I have tried, rather clumsily, to make that point here - Using causality to construct an argument for the "beyond" is to disregard the limits of logic.
A creator, it seems, can neither be demonstrated nor ruled out by logic, science is even more hapless of course. That is my problem with your presentation. It is futile to use such rigid systems of thought and understanding to penetrate beyond the realm for they are prescribed to make sense of. But then there exist no other reliable avenues to man. So you see, the point I keep making is that within these systems you are using as tools, God isn't necessary.
Deism seems to be based on the feeling that the Universe had to have "come" "from" "somewhere", putting that in a sensible format is one hell of a trip.. and I really don't think it's worth it. I will admit that the ultimate nature of reality appears to be so conceptual that it can seem indicative of the workings of a mind. That is an idea that sits well with me personally, although it's not free of fallacies. And I see that reoccurring motif in your posts, I think you should focus on that, though not as a logical argument. In other words while remaining a logically thinking individual admit that your speculations are speculations.. using the phrase "higher logical category" and such isn't particularly enlightening to your audience (or yourself). Logic works because it is rigid. So why then do you expect anyone to allow you to extend it into such a lose form? That's why your way of presenting your ideas won't get far with anyone who values logic. Not that you don't seem value it, however you're attempting to fuse the logical with the illogical.
I also have the opinion that you'd like to have Deism to be viewed as a logical position.. but that seems to be useless given the self-admittedly illogical premises that you push. Strict materialism btw also fails as a logical position. Both make claims about things beyond the domain of logic and science. I really don't see the use of such speculation. What does Deism do for you? Furthermore, I don't see the point in labelling oneself with one's metaphysical speculations (except perhaps as a strategy against theism, which John does brilliantly).
I still criticize taking the Big Bang as "The Begining" as axiomatic. You see the theory works without it; axioms don't function that way. Thus it's circular nature isn't amenable to logic.
p.s. Allan Watts speaks so eloquently on these matters.. you just have to check him out www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_p_0hjy8H8&NR=1
<< A creator, it seems, can neither be demonstrated nor ruled out by logic, science is even more hapless of course.>>
I think you will find that most Deists will agree with that assertion. Logic cannot prove existence, only valid reasoning.
Personal experience is the only proof of anything. So, with that in mind, I can sincerely say that I don't know for sure if the Deity of my speculation exists in any sense. However, based on the same logic, I can't say for sure that you exist. For all I know, you could be a cutting-edge computer, or a Turing machine, running pre-set but adaptable algorithms. But at least I get feedback. My hypothetical Deity only gives feed-forward.
<< Deism seems to be based on the feeling that the Universe had to have "come" "from" "somewhere", putting that in a sensible format is one hell of a trip.. and I really don't think
it's worth it.>>
Again, most Deists would reluctantly agree with you that their belief in G*D is an act of feeble faith. But for me, even that is an agonizing admission, because I am devoutly skeptical of blind faith. All I can say is that logic and reason brought me into the mountains overlooking the promised land (direct experience of G*d), but mandated that I can never actually enter that land flowing with milk and honey (ultimate Truth).*
Consequently, I can only cross-over Jordan (the limits of logic) in my imagination to see what reason was pointing toward. Having no direct experience of deity, anything specific I might say would be fictional. But that's OK, as long as I realize that my image of G*D is not necesarily true**. Many people are subject to the illusion of "reification", where they believe that the images in their mind are real.
For me, those images are merely philosophical guideposts. Even the most hardened Materialist has some kind of mental worldview that defines his physical reality. My fictional fabrication of the-world-beyond-the-scope-of-my-senses is the abstract map that guides me through life. And I think it's worth the effort to create as accurate a map as possible. Unlike, traditional religious worldviews though, mine evolves and updates as human knowlege progresses. If I sincerely thought that 19th century Materialism was the final word on reality, my map-making days would be over.
* I apologize for the biblical references, but those ancient metaphors are still timeless.
** Here's my image of G*D :
çanta çiçe?i bitkisi, gölge ve serin ortamlar?, organik madde yönünden zengin bitek topraklan sever. çiçek sepeti Bitkinin ye?ledi?i s?cakl?klar 1820 derecelerdir. çanta çiçe?i bitkisi, kesinlikle güne?e kar?? b?rak?lmamal?d?r. Çünkü güne?te çabuk bozulur. Bak?m? ve yeti?tirilmesi hayli özen gerektiren çanta çiçe?i bitkisinin üretimi tohumlar?yla yap?l?r. Bitkinin tohumlar? temmuz a?ustos aylar?nda saks? ya da özel tüplere ekilir. 1015 gün içinde çimlenen bitkinin fideleri çiçekçi tohumlar?n?n ekiminden 57 hafta sonra yerlerine ?a??rt?labilir. Ancak bitkinin, k??? ?s?t?lmayan kapal? mekânlarda geçirmesi gerekir. ?lkbaharda havalar ve toprak uygun s?cakl??a gelince bahçelerdeki yerlerine ya da yeti?tirilece?i di?er yerlere ?a??rt?lan çanta çiçe?i fideleri, 20'?er cm. aral?kla dikilir.
Thanks for the constructive feedback :) Promosyon Klasör regarding the Overworld limitations and linearity, I only felt it limited in the sense that you aren't truely able to 'explore' fully in the way that could in other Zelda games - remember the underground caverns you could once find? - and quite frankly I miss that and it is basically linear in the sense that your destination is already chosen, yes you are still exploring and in a wonderful new way but this Overworld 'Transport' also highlights the limitations of what Nintendo can do with a 3D Zelda game on the DS but what they 'have'Video izle achieved is still impressive and I do acknowledge that fully.
And yes it's true that because of full oyun indir the new Overworld mechanic, it doesn't seem 'empty' at times like TWW did when you were sailing around huge open masses of sea - the sailing in TWW is still captivating though and was a refreshing change at the time - as for the sidequests, I didn't go into detail because I don't want to spoil anything... this review may be late but I am aware that are still people out there who have yet to play it, but yes there is 'plenty to see and do' which I specifically highlighted as a positive, so I didn't ignore that aspect.
@Benedetto - No... I was informed that I'd be receiving the game so going out and buying another copy of it would have been counter-productive in this instance; November was a busy time both for myself and for game oyun releases in general, if I had received the game earlier then of course I would have endeavoured to get the review done earlier and it would have perhaps been longer too but that was not the case and while it saddens me that I wasn't able to provide a review of a Zelda game soon after it being released I feel that I still did my best considering the circumstances.
Please don't forget that N-europe is in?aat run 'voluntarily' and so sometimes setbacks and delays occur not because we want them to but due to other real-life happenings beyond our reasonable control; I'm not trying to hide behind excuses but merely attempting to give you all a better insight into why these instances occur because sometimes it seems like it's all too easy for people to forget just how much of their own time people put into this website.
Anyway, I hope this clears thingsup and hopefully answers a few questions, thank you all for the constructive feedback as it is always appreciated :) now if you will excuse me I have VC Weekly #122 to finish writing.pes 2010 türkçe spiker
Thanks for the constructive feedback :)golden köpek regarding the Overworld limitations and linearity, I only felt it limited in the sense that you aren't truely able to 'explore' fully in the way that could in other Zelda games - remember the underground caverns you could once find? - and quite frankly I miss that and it is basically linear in the sense that your destination is already chosen, yes you are still exploring and in a wonderful new way but this Overworld 'Transport' also highlights the limitations of what Nintendo can do with a 3D Zelda game on the DS but what they 'have' achieved is still impressive and I mp3 indirdo acknowledge that fully.
And yes it's true that because of the new Overworld mechanic, it doesn't seem 'empty' at times like TWW did when you were sailing around huge open masses of sea - the sailing in TWW is still captivating though and was a refreshing change at the time - as for the sidequests, I didn't go into detail because I don't want to spoil anything... this review may be late but I am aware that are still people out there who have yet to play it, but yes there is 'plenty to see and do' which I specifically highlighted as a positive, so I didn't ignore that aspect.
@Benedetto - No... I was informed that I'd be receiving the game so going out and buying another copy of it would have been counter-productive in this instance; November was a busy time both for myself and for game then of course I would have endeavoured to get the review done earlier and it would have perhaps been longer too but that was not the case and while it saddens me that I wasn't able to provide a review of a Zelda game soon after it being released I feel that I still did my besthq wallpapers considering the circumstances.
Please don't forget that N-europe is run 'voluntarily' and so sometimes setbacks and delays occur not because we want them to but due to other real-life happenings beyond our reasonable control; I'm not trying to hide behind excuses but merely attempting to give you all a better insight into why these instances occur because sometimes it seems like it's all too easy for people to forget just how muchporn videos of their own time people put into this website.
Anyway, I hope this clears things up and cod black opshopefully answers a few questions, thank you all for the constructive feedback as it is always appreciated :) now if you will excuse me I have VC Weekly #122 to finish writing.