Scientific Deism Expalined

[C1ay]

He is talking about the age old notion of prima causa. It is a fundamental aspect of many notions of god, especially in monotheistic religions and, more ore less tacitly or explicitly, it is at the root of many politheistic ones. As for the Abrahamic faiths, The Name shares roots with the Hebrew for be and exist but I so far haven't been able to trace the roots of Allah.

 

In the type of Deism which includes Spinoza, the notion of god is stripped down to that of prima causa, with no inclinatoin to intervene in events or even judge our actions.

 

I realize that and still question why that definition is any more accurate that anyone else's. Where's the evidence to draw a conclusion that this definition is THE one?

[Alumno deVerum]

Perhaps you can let us know why YOUR definition is the right one and everyone else's is wrong. I suspect you can't though so it's a moot point.

I never said it was the right one but if you would actually read the essay before you make such comments would see why it is the only one I can logically accept.

[jedaisoul]

Firstly, in my opinion, the OP is way too long. It should have been placed elsewhere on the web, and an abstract put here. Forums are not the place for major expositions of philosophic ideas. They are the place for discussion of ideas. This could, and should, have been summarized.

 

Now lets turn to the specifics...

 

Science is the logical examination of what we perceive. As a Deist I believe science is compatible with a belief in God. Therefore that belief must itself be logical. So what is logic, how is it derived, and how does it lead to a belief in God that is compatible with science?

Untrue. A belief needs to be logical. There is no reason to assume that just because you believe something, then it must be logical.

 

The phrase “I think therefore I am” is a self-referential observation that provides certain knowledge of our own conscious existence (in fact it is the only thing of which we may be absolutely certain even though it says nothing about the nature of the "I").

No. It does not provide certain knowledge of our own existence. It only provides certain knowledge of MY existence. Not anyone else. Projecting that as a proof of other peoples existence to themselves does not follow. They could all be a figment of my imagination.

 

This is the basis of all philosophy and everything we know about logic is derived from it.

Not true. Logic has nothing to do with "cogito ergo sum". It is a purely abstract field that neither cares, nor needs to care, whether any of its predictions match reality. Logic determines whether a statement is valid, not whether it is sound.

 

But potential is a property and the world could not exist if it did not have the potential to. So how can "nothing" have potential?

No. The idea that the universe had a "potential" to exist before it DID exist is a theory you have not justified. You have merely assumed it.

 

"Nothingness" is the only thing, and since it has property it is a thing, that can be thought of in completely negative terms except for the fact it is a concept that can be thought of. Nothingness is a concept. You're thinking about it right now!

We can have a concept of a green troll called Shrek. That does not mean that Shrek actually exists.

 

Likewise what we mistakenly call "nothingness" is not an empty void "without property" but is actually a neutral concept (which is something) permitting us to now define it as a concept in absolute equilibrium. All other definitions must, for the time being, be dismissed as unfounded and meaningless. So how can the world emerge from that?

This does not follow. Nothingness does not exist. It is not something. Science does not say that the world emerged from nothing. Science says that at moment zero the universe existed. It says nothing prior to that.

 

However all the evidence we have says that for a concept to exist there must be a mind to consider it. And if you claim to believe in science and reason you have to go with the evidence you have not the "evidence" you want to have. And there is just no evidence I am aware of that even suggests concepts can exist without being observed. If anyone knows of any please let me know.

True. Concepts exist in our minds.

 

Such a line has only one dimension- length and thus is analogous to "nothingness" by this definition because "nothingness" has but one property- it is a concept in equilibrium (this technique is called the principle of equivalence and was used by Albert Einstein to equate gravity with acceleration when he formulated the theory of relativity).

No. Nothingness has no dimensions, because it does not exist.

 

But if, as the evidence suggests, the world is basically concept and concepts must be observed what was observing it before intelligent life evolved? This "problem" is really no problem at all. Lines may curve in many ways. One is a circle. Bending the line representing the "concept of absolute equilibrium" in on itself and joining the ends makes it self referential or self observing. That also makes It conscious because structurally It is identical to the self referential observation "I am" which tells us just what "concept" it is in equilibrium and thus gives it meaning. It is awareness itself and it is a true tabula rasa.

No, the evidence does not suggest the world is basically concept. It suggests that the world exists outside our concepts of it.

 

Thus may we construct a model, derived from logic itself, providing us with a possible answer to our original question, “why is there something instead of nothing?” But though it is not a proof when contrasted with the apparent contradictions, which must be dismissed, arising from the only alternative (atheistic materialism) I know of it seems, to me at least, the only reasonable conclusion because it obeys all the rules of logic by which we are bound, explains itself because it is based on a logically derived definition of "nothingness", has no "gaps", and not only matches but predicts what we see in the world.

 

But it's consequences are clear. If it's true then God exists. However It is the God of Deism not Theism and there is no purpose other than that which we choose to make for ourselves.

As I have already pointed out, logic only provides that a conclusion is valid, not that it is sound.

[C1ay]

I never said it was the right one but if you would actually read the essay before you make such comments would see why it is the only one I can logically accept.

 

I did read your essay but it is irrelevant. Deism asserts that the Universe was created by a creator. You cannot deduce via logic whether or not the Universe was created by anything or that it hasn't existed for all eternity for that matter. You also cannot deduce that the existence of anything implies the existence of a creator.

[Alumno deVerum]

Firstly I'd point out that the OP is way too long. It should have been placed elsewhere on the web, and an abstract put here. Forums are not the place for major expositions of philosophic ideas. They are the place for discussion of ideas. This could, and should, have been summarized.

 

Now lets turn to the specifics...

 

 

Untrue. A belief needs to be logical. There is no reason to assume that just because you believe something, then it must be logical.

 

 

No. It does not provide certain knowledge of our own existence. It only provides certain knowledge of MY existence. Not anyone else. Projecting that as a proof of other peoples existence to themselves does not follow. They could all be a figment of my imagination.

 

 

Not true. Logic has nothing to do with "cogito ergo sum". It is a purely abstract field that neither cares, nor needs to care, whether any of its predictions match reality. Logic determines whether a statement is valid, not whether it is sound.

 

 

No. The idea that the universe had a "potential" to exist before it DID exist is a theory you have not justified. You have merely assumed it.

 

 

We can have a concept of a green troll called Shrek. That does not mean that Shrek actually exists.

 

 

This does not follow. Nothingness does not exist. It is not something. Science does not say that the world emerged from nothing. Science says that at moment zero the universe existed. It says nothing prior to that.

 

 

True. Concepts exist in our minds.

 

 

No. Nothingness has no dimensions, because it does not exist.

 

 

No, the evidence does not suggest the world is basically concept. It suggests that the world exists outside our concepts of it.

 

 

As I have already pointed out, logic only provides that a conclusion is valid, not that it is sound.

 

 

 

I did read your essay but it is irrelevant. Deism asserts that the Universe was created by a creator. You cannot deduce via logic whether or not the Universe was created by anything or that it hasn't existed for all eternity for that matter. You also cannot deduce that the existence of anything implies the existence of a creator.

I would like to congratulate both of you for getting every single thing about this wrong! It's quite an accomplishment. You should both be proud! LOL!

[Vox]

our nature is as such to ask the how and why. To simply accept, such as blind faith, is to diminish ourselves and place us as mindless conformity within the masses

 

 

 

you are digressing here- maybe you should start a new thread with your views on the ego

 

 

 

It is always dangerous on a slippery slope:cutewink:

 

For all respect Pamela, what is wrong with the masses? We are all part of masses and even our ego thinks that "I" must be better than "Masses" we are not...for "individual" only place to find and encounter "mindless conformity" is in our own head..it is useless to project that problem to "masses"

 

Considering already the ego topic

 

Then let´s be cautious not afraid ..

[Vox]

I would like to congratulate both of you for getting every single thing about this wrong! It's quite an accomplishment. You should both be proud! LOL!

 

How you can prove, state, belive or whataver way say that these earlier comments are all wrong? Where do you get that kind of superior knowledge of knowing the thruth? No human on earth knows any absolute truth. Only what we can achieve is truthfulness as aim.

[coldcreation]

If it's true then God exists. However It is the God of Deism not Theism and there is no purpose other than that which we choose to make for ourselves.

 

...And if false then god doesn't exist: neither the god of deism or theism. The entire presumption or purpose you are making for yourself may be based on nothing but false hope.

 

CC

[Vox]

The picture which you have attached creates postive emotions within me without me knowing why.. should I be enjoing more by knowing why I enjoy this picture? Is not knowing taking something away from this enjoyment?

 

"Feeling is sensing without consciously knowing"..quote by Vox ;-)

[Qfwfq]

I realize that and still question why that definition is any more accurate that anyone else's. Where's the evidence to draw a conclusion that this definition is THE one?

I'd say it's a moot point, I don't see any reason for attempting to deliberate one definition as "being THE one" but it does make sense to say what the most essential aspects are. There's no doubt that the metaphysical questions about existence of reality and its causes underlie much of mankind's religious and theological speculations.

 

As long as Alumno avoids replies such as his last post, I think it's fine for him to discuss his own form of Deism without having to be challenged to first make every single member of the species agree with it. For one, that would be preaching/proselytizing and against our rules.

[jedaisoul]

I would like to congratulate both of you for getting every single thing about this wrong! It's quite an accomplishment. You should both be proud! LOL!

I do not regard that as a valid answer to any of the points I made, and I doubt that many others here will do so either. If you want people to read your posts and write considered comments, you really need to respond in like manner.

 

So I'll just pick up on one of the points I made, and see if you can give a considered reply:

 

Logic has nothing to do with "cogito ergo sum". It is a purely abstract field that neither cares, nor needs to care, whether any of its predictions match reality. Logic determines whether a statement is valid, not whether it is sound.

Do you understand the the difference between a valid statement and a sound one? If so, why do you consider the distinction I made is incorrect?

[Pyrotex]

To emphasize my point, ...

Why we position ourselves as default: Mind/thinking can understand "everything" (if we just try hard and long enough) ?...

Reading your posts and trying to understand them has been rather painful. If I knew where you were "coming from", it would be easier. For example, if you were to tell me that you were only 15 years old, or that you were a Baptist Missionary, or that you suffered from Asperger's, or you had to drop out of school in the 10th grade so you could help your parents run the farm these many years, I believe I could do far better at answering your questions.

 

But I don't know where you are "coming from". So I have to make guesses.

 

The answer to your question above is: we position ourselves as default because it is the only game in town. There is no other "position". We have the minds that we have. Indeed, we ARE our minds. We cannot change this and take some "other position".

 

We find ourselves in a real world. The only tool we have for understanding it is our mind. And we try to understand because in understanding there is power and utility. To have understanding is to have some element of control. And we are hard-wired to seek control -- over our lives and over our environment.

 

There is no other game in town. Live and learn, or you don't live long.

[C1ay]

I would like to congratulate both of you for getting every single thing about this wrong!

 

Not at all. THe only thing wrong is your assumption that you can solve the debate about the existence of a deity with logic alone. You obviously don't comprehend the limits of that endeavor. You belief is just that, your belief. It is NOT scientific evidence of anything though.

[Vox]

Reading your posts and trying to understand them has been rather painful.

 

Who is the one who is creating this pain ?

[jedaisoul]

Not at all. THe only thing wrong is your assumption that you can solve the debate about the existence of a deity with logic alone. You obviously don't comprehend the limits of that endeavor. You belief is just that, your belief. It is NOT scientific evidence of anything though.

I agree, but I think it is worthwhile to expand on the limitation of deductive logic. Basically, all that deductive logic does is make explicit things that are implicit in the assumptions. So to conclude logically that God exists, you have to assume that is so in the first place. And that conclusion is only as sound as the assumptions it is based on. So really, it "proves" nothing. Which is what, I suspect, you were saying.

[Pyrotex]

How you can prove, state, belive or whataver way say that these earlier comments are all wrong? Where do you get that kind of superior knowledge of knowing the thruth? No human on earth knows any absolute truth. Only what we can achieve is truthfulness as aim.

It would be really nice if you stopped using cheap rhetorical TRICKS.

 

Knowledge is, by definition, access to facts.

Facts are, by definition, statements of truth, or true statements.

Superior knowledge, by definition, is access to more truth than those with inferior knowledge.

 

But nobody said anything about "absolute truth".

Indeed, there is no such thing as absolute truth.

No claims were made that we had absolute truth, because such a claim would be ridiculous.

 

What we DO have is knowledge. And you seem to want to insult knowledge and those who have it. This is very sad.

 

I wish you luck in your life. Though, without knowledge, it will likely be a very unaccomplished life.

[Alumno deVerum]

Dear Alumno deVerum,

 

You have received a warning at Science Forums.

 

Reason:

-------

Rude and Offensive Behavior

 

This attitude is antithetical to participation in reasonable discussion. You don't give the slightest reason for describing those points as wrong. Stating this should always be accompanied by reason and the lack of this makes your tone even less acceptable.

 

Considering that this type of dicussion can so easily degenerate, it is wise to exercise utmost caution. Please try to be cooperative. Continuing such behaviour will lead to infractions and banning.

-------

 

Original Post:

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/23697-scientific-deism-expalined-post300551.html#post300551

Firstly I'd point out that the OP is way too long. It should have been placed elsewhere on the web, and an abstract put here. Forums are not the place for major expositions of philosophic ideas. They are the place for discussion of ideas. This could, and should, have been summarized.

 

Now lets turn to the specifics...

 

 

Untrue. A belief needs to be logical. There is no reason to assume that just because you believe something, then it must be logical.

 

 

No. It does not provide certain knowledge of our own existence. It only provides certain knowledge of MY existence. Not anyone else. Projecting that as a proof of other peoples existence to themselves does not follow. They could all be a figment of my imagination.

 

 

Not true. Logic has nothing to do with "cogito ergo sum". It is a purely abstract field that neither cares, nor needs to care, whether any of its predictions match reality. Logic determines whether a statement is valid, not whether it is sound.

 

 

No. The idea that the universe had a "potential" to exist before it DID exist is a theory you have not justified. You have merely assumed it.

 

 

We can have a concept of a green troll called Shrek. That does not mean that Shrek actually exists.

 

 

This does not follow. Nothingness does not exist. It is not something. Science does not say that the world emerged from nothing. Science says that at moment zero the universe existed. It says nothing prior to that.

 

 

True. Concepts exist in our minds.

 

 

No. Nothingness has no dimensions, because it does not exist.

 

 

No, the evidence does not suggest the world is basically concept. It suggests that the world exists outside our concepts of it.

 

 

As I have already pointed out, logic only provides that a conclusion is valid, not that it is sound.

 

 

 

I did read your essay but it is irrelevant. Deism asserts that the Universe was created by a creator. You cannot deduce via logic whether or not the Universe was created by anything or that it hasn't existed for all eternity for that matter. You also cannot deduce that the existence of anything implies the existence of a creator.

I would like to congratulate both of you for getting every single thing about this wrong! It's quite an accomplishment. You should both be proud! LOL!

 

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

 

All the best,

Science Forums

Yeah I figured something like this would happen. You know as well as I do this is just an excuse to get rid of me because you don't like what I wrote and you can't refute it without misrepresenting it. I never broke any forum rules and you know it. In fact all I did was point out that you got every single thing in your reply to me wrong because you did get it wrong. And you can't handle that. So I get a "warning" for "rude and offensive behavior". Tell me what's ruder pointing out that what you said is being misrepresented or the misrepresentation itself? The only reason I posted anything here is because I was trying to correct some misconceptions about modern Deism being expressed here. That's it. I don't care if anyone here agrees with me or not. I just don't want to be misrepresented. I never even considered becoming an active member. But you don't care about that. Twisting peoples words around is just fine as long as it's someone you disagree with. Makes it easier to "refute" them. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.