Deism

[Milk Sheikh]

What do you think of Deism? Not much has been said around here.

[Princess Luna]

from what i can gather its harmless , silly (at least in my opinion) but harmless. if someone wants to believe in a god without having the bullshit morality , pointless rituals , and holyer-then-thou-art attitude i have no problem with it . also the age of reason by Thomas Pain despite being a deist work still kicks ass.

[graymouser]

Does it really matter whether you believe in a god that doesn't do anything?

In the Enlightenment it was a radical position to take, but then so was liberal democracy. Nowadays it seems pointless: the gaps into which believers can wedge a deity are infinitesimally small, so why bother believing in a god with no other purpose than to fill a couple of them? It's not ridiculously implausible the way classical theism is, but that's not saying much.

[Astarte]

Nowadays it seems pointless: the gaps into which believers can wedge a deity are infinitesimally small, so why bother believing in a god with no other purpose than to fill a couple of them? It's not ridiculously implausible the way classical theism is, but that's not saying much.

well, "believers" have no trouble noticing god/the tao/"the force" in the infinitesimally small or the infinitely large - whether looking down at the infinitely small molecules or above at the infinity of outer space, science will never have all of the answers - it is like someone peeling back layers from an onion, they just keep peeling and peeling back the layers, but new layers of questions and unsolved riddles about the nature of reality and the universe and life and death just arise.

[graymouser]

well, "believers" have no trouble noticing god/the tao/"the force" in the infinitesimally small or the infinitely large - whether looking down at the infinitely small molecules or above at the infinity of outer space, science will never have all of the answers - it is like someone peeling back layers from an onion, they just keep peeling and peeling back the layers, but new layers of questions and unsolved riddles about the nature of reality and the universe and life and death just arise.
Science will never have all the answers, therefore god exists? Nah.

You can't solve any fundamental mysteries, like "why does something exist rather than nothing?". What I mean is not that you can't solve them by inserting gods, but that you can't solve them at all. If there was a reason why everything existed, that thing would itself require an explanation of its own existence. If it was god, then you have to prove why god exists. The cosmological problem posed by the classical theists is not only not a proof of god, it proves that there couldn't be a final reason. The only way to solve the infinite regress is to say, "Something exists with no reason at all." There's no reason why that thing has to be god; it could very well have been the Big Bang singularity or something far stranger.

I do appreciate the Enlightenment Deists' reverence for nature. But you can have that without inserting unnecessary woo in the as yet unknown corners of the universe.

[Astarte]

Science will never have all the answers, therefore god exists? Nah.

You can't solve any fundamental mysteries, like "why does something exist rather than nothing?". What I mean is not that you can't solve them by inserting gods, but that you can't solve them at all. If there was a reason why everything existed, that thing would itself require an explanation of its own existence. If it was god, then you have to prove why god exists. The cosmological problem posed by the classical theists is not only not a proof of god, it proves that there couldn't be a final reason. The only way to solve the infinite regress is to say, "Something exists with no reason at all." There's no reason why that thing has to be god; it could very well have been the Big Bang singularity or something far stranger.

I do appreciate the Enlightenment Deists' reverence for nature. But you can have that without inserting unnecessary woo in the as yet unknown corners of the universe.

Wow. No, that wasn't the argument. But the fact still stands that there are a multitude of questions science will never have an answer to.

The reason why a person cannot transmit "why god exists" to another person verbally, in writing, through sign language or any other way is that because all "God" is is the experience known to the gnostics as "Gnosis" (Knowing), to the Buddhists, Taoists and Hindus as "Enlightenment", etc... it is essentially psychological ego death of the Self without bodily death which usually accompanies it at the time of departure. Enlightenment is simply a near death experience - it is an apotheosis that is completely subjective to one's own self.

You even say it is possible: "Something exists with no reason at all." There's no reason why that thing has to be god; it could very well have been the Big Bang singularity or something far stranger."

You are just playing linguistic acrobatics at this point - the way I define "God" is a primary force running through the entire universe which is supraphysical and is both ineffable and unfathomable - whether you want to call it "God", the Tao, "the force" Dharma, Illumination, Buddha-consciousness, Indra's Net, etc ... I think atheists are just phobic of the word "God" or something.

[ComradeMan]

http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_intelligent_universe.asp

http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_mathematical_universe.asp

http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_universe_computer.asp

[Lobotomy]

The very existence of Deism depends entirely on scientific progress. The more scientific discoveries that are made ---> less unanswered questions ---> less of a reason to believe in a Deist god.

[Black Sheep]

The very existence of Deism depends entirely on scientific progress. The more scientific discoveries that are made ---> less unanswered questions ---> less of a reason to believe in a Deist god.
This, plus it's like an intellectual appendix, without the fatality possibility.
It's a worthless piece of junk-thoughts, like the celestial teapot.

I could hold a deistic-style belief on anything.I.e. i believe that all communist struggle is overlooked by a cosmic- undetectable but omni-everything hair- of Marx's beard.
Same thing.

[Astarte]

This, plus it's like an intellectual appendix, without the fatality possibility.
It's a worthless piece of junk-thoughts, like the celestial teapot.

I could hold a deistic-style belief on anything.I.e. i believe that all communist struggle is overlooked by a cosmic- undetectable but omni-everything hair- of Marx's beard.
Same thing.

Sure, call it whatever you want - it worked for Bob Dylan after all.