Author Topic: I think I'm a Deist and not an Atheist  (Read 907 times)

Offline Goon (OP)

I think I'm a Deist and not an Atheist
« on: September 26, 2016, 02:30:41 PM »
maybe an agnostic deist. I understand the big problem with the fact it seems something would have to had created God in order for it to exist. Isn't there also a problem with nothingness being a universe generator? If you say the universe could be eternal, like nothing never existed, that would require a God, wouldn't it? Isn't it desperation to say it could just exist freely? When I look at atheism now.. this is how I will explain my thought process..

non-conscious energy formed itself as matter in nothingness, after time somehow got added, and then it went bang.

That seems as hard to fathom as God not needing a creator. I'll give atheism one thing, we can prove we're alive. We can prove evolution, scienctific theories out the wazoo, etc.. we can't prove God, but science will never.. and this isn't a god gap.. science will never be like, "We've unlocked the majestic qualities of nothingness!" you know? And it seems something would have to have existed forever. Saying nothingness at one point existed is crazy talk. Betting the universe could be eternal without God seems like a losing proposition. Thoughts? And deism has nothing to do with religion. This is the only place to post this.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 02:34:05 PM by Goon »
You evolutionists are spoiling our fun!

Offline SGOS

Re: I think I'm a Deist and not an Atheist
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2016, 02:57:26 PM »
maybe an agnostic deist. I understand the big problem with the fact it seems something would have to have created God in order for it to exist. Isn't there also a problem with nothingness being a universe generator?

It's not like the choices:  1. Either God or 2. Something from nothing are the only choices.  The reality is we don't know what something comes from, so it would be premature to go off literally half cocked and start making forced choices between variables that aren't or can't be understood, and at the same time, exclude all the other possibilities that could also explain the "problem".  The thing about what you don't know is that you don't know, and from my personal experience, what you eventual learn is most often unexpected.


If you say the universe could be eternal, like nothing never existed, that would require a God, wouldn't it?

Don't know.

Isn't it desperation to say it could just exist freely?

Why would it be desperation?  Just say, "I don't know."

When I look at atheism now.. this is how I will explain my thought process..

non-conscious energy formed itself as matter in nothingness, after time somehow got added, and then it went bang.

That seems as hard to fathom as God not needing a creator. I'll give atheism one thing, we can prove we're alive. We can prove evolution, scienctific theories out the wazoo, etc.. we can't prove God, but science will never.. and this isn't a god gap.. science will never be like, "We've unlocked the majestic qualities of nothingness!" you know? And it seems something would have to have existed forever. Saying nothingness at one point existed is crazy talk. Betting the universe could be eternal without God seems like a losing proposition. Thoughts?

Yes, I have a thought regarding:

Quote
.. and this isn't a god gap..

Actually, this is precisely a god gap.  You are conjuring up a god to explain what you don't know.

Re: I think I'm a Deist and not an Atheist
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2016, 03:21:46 PM »
Isn't there also a problem with nothingness being a universe generator?
To some degree, yeah.  Go far enough down the causal chain and you run out of links.  Lawrence Krauss has an interesting take on the origins of the universe, but suffice it to say that we don't yet know the answer to age-old questions about life, the universe, and everything.

My problem with the first cause argument is that God is just a placeholder for our ignorance and it strikes me as somewhat unseemly to worship my own ignorance.

Quote
If you say the universe could be eternal, like nothing never existed, that would require a God, wouldn't it?
Not necessarily.

Quote
Isn't it desperation to say it could just exist freely?
It's the best guess at the present time.  We have some knowledge of the early universe and none at all of any god.  The former seems like the better bet.

Quote
non-conscious energy formed itself as matter in nothingness, after time somehow got added, and then it went bang.
I have literally no idea what you're talking about here.

Quote
That seems as hard to fathom as God not needing a creator. I'll give atheism one thing, we can prove we're alive. We can prove evolution, scienctific theories out the wazoo, etc.. we can't prove God, but science will never.. and this isn't a god gap.. science will never be like, "We've unlocked the majestic qualities of nothingness!" you know? And it seems something would have to have existed forever.
Yes, there are limits to knowledge.  There may in fact be some stuff that will never be figured out by people at all.  That doesn't mean it should be treated as an open plot of land for religious folks to place statues of their deities.

Quote
Saying nothingness at one point existed is crazy talk.
Yes, it's certainly a difficult idea to fathom.  Vacuum is one thing, but the absence of space and time and matter is not a phenomenon that humans are very acquainted with.  But sounding preposterous hasn't prevented the existence of quite a number of bizarre things in the universe.

Quote
Betting the universe could be eternal without God seems like a losing proposition.
Occam's razor.  Besides, who said our universe was eternal?

Quote
And deism has nothing to do with religion.
And I suppose that belt loops have nothing to do with belts.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 03:24:03 PM by Hydra009 »

Offline Baruch

Re: I think I'm a Deist and not an Atheist
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2016, 07:29:08 PM »
The human asks big questions of the universe, and the universe shrugs ;-)

Cause & Effect is a human invention, and a pre-historic one at that ... prescientific.  The more modern version is dependence ... either something has to happen before something else (but it might not be that what is prior ... caused what is latter) or sometimes if something is a fact, then there are other implied facts that have to be true also ... regardless of their time relationship (say if two things have to be true at the same time ... don't visualize that there is faster than light communication between the first thing and the second thing ... logical consistency doesn't have a speed limit ... hence people being unnecessarily confused by quantum entanglement).  For me, it isn't even clear that something has to happen before something else, or that there is a logically necessary connection between things.  In Special Relativity ... the concept of simultaneousness is slippery ... three observers ... one sees A before B, another A at the same time as B, and the third sees B before A.  Can't carry even classical physics into modernity, let alone Stone Age reasoning.
שלום

Offline SGOS

Re: I think I'm a Deist and not an Atheist
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2016, 08:55:57 PM »
The human asks big questions of the universe, and the universe shrugs ;-)

Cause & Effect is a human invention, and a pre-historic one at that ... prescientific.  The more modern version is dependence ... either something has to happen before something else (but it might not be that what is prior ... caused what is latter) or sometimes if something is a fact, then there are other implied facts that have to be true also ... regardless of their time relationship (say if two things have to be true at the same time ... don't visualize that there is faster than light communication between the first thing and the second thing ... logical consistency doesn't have a speed limit ... hence people being unnecessarily confused by quantum entanglement).  For me, it isn't even clear that something has to happen before something else, or that there is a logically necessary connection between things.  In Special Relativity ... the concept of simultaneousness is slippery ... three observers ... one sees A before B, another A at the same time as B, and the third sees B before A.  Can't carry even classical physics into modernity, let alone Stone Age reasoning.

I prefer it if things happen in the right order.  If the first thing happens at the same time as the thing that follows, it disturbs me.

Offline Baruch

Re: I think I'm a Deist and not an Atheist
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2016, 07:17:20 AM »
I prefer it if things happen in the right order.  If the first thing happens at the same time as the thing that follows, it disturbs me.

This is why there are still people who reject Special Relativity.  It is clear what it says ... that cause/effect at least with observers moving fast relative to each other, is passe.
שלום