Scientific Deism Explained - A Stretmediq Video

[TheCaptainjuicy]

People think as god as a character but really, what if the universe itself is the god. Why would the universe make someone to create the things in it when the universe itself can make the things in there. Plus the universe is doing something right now. Its expanding

[SplitYoWigBack]

excellent

[stretmediq]

reasonandspiritDOTcom/forum/6-­reason-a-spirit-in-our-daily-l­ives/1542-very-short-version-o­f-paradox-of-nothingness

[TheArcaneSanctum]

So my question is why the conclusion G-D does not interact with reality ?

[stretmediq]

@TheArcaneSanctum Because that doesn't logically follow

[TheArcaneSanctum]

@stretmediq How would it not be logical for a sentient being to not interact with something so interactive as a reality?

I think what people get caught up on is that they believe for G-D to interact the laws of physics would need to be suspended, there is no reason to believe the Creator could not operate according to the laws of physics, in my view I propose that the very laws of physics are in fact the Creator operating in this reality.

This is how the laws existed infinitely.

[stretmediq]

@stretmediq I have to disagree. See link below: reasonandspiritDOTcom/forum/6-­reason-a-spirit-in-our-daily-l­ives/1542-very-short-version-o­f-paradox-of-nothingness

[Nervousification]

What does the concept "9" have to exist before we came up with it?

The rest is nonsense to me...

[Nervousification]

I seriously didn't understand the article this is based off of until I saw this.

First, if being a concept means nothingness isn't absolute, isn't it possible that what we think of as "nothingness" isn't really "nothingness"? The word itself has no ontology.

1:48 This is just circular logic, the premise is in the conclusion.

What is it about merged waves with patterns that gives them "meaning" while sine waves have no "meaning"?

Continued...

[stretmediq]

@Nervousification Yes it means what we think of as "nothingness" is not really "nothingness" that point and it's consequences are what this is all about. The rest of your questions are also CLEARLY addressed in both the video and the essay I linked you to: reasonandspiritDOTcom/forum/6-­­reason-a-spirit-in-our-daily-­l­ives/1542-very-short-version­-o­f-paradox-of-nothingness

[stretmediq]

@discjockeyfuture The model is so simple that I think a number of interpretations are possible. If you can expand upon it please be my guest. : )

[robertoshea1]

Vague response. What ' quite' is the difference? 4,000 year old vedic concept that explained all things made of particles. In Charlemagnes era, Zero a new concept. How to draw? A hole. Nothing new. Hindu art even explains waves and movement of energies and how they cancel themselves out. Now give me the 'quite'.

[stretmediq]

@robertoshea1 Buddhism is at it's heart a mystical philosophy. This model rejects mysticism. The things you cite bear only a superficial resemblance.

[robertoshea1]

Yen and yang-something in nothing and nothing in something or all things. Everything from nothing and nothing from everthing. The one in the nothingness. Everything to the extrem cancels itself out to create the one the nothing. snd the one divides itself to create all things. Buhdism what a new concept.

[stretmediq]

@robertoshea1 Not quite

[davlor86]

i don't know why is there so much criticism on Deism, lots of very intelligent people were deists, Aristoteles, Platon, Socrates, immanuel Kant, Benjamin Franklin etc...

[greenelf12]

@davlor86 I don't really get it either, I think if you an atheist and you critisie it to me it's a sign of them being quite a hard atheist if you can't entertain deism, you might as well just go out and say you think god dosen't exist, you can't geet a broarder idea of god than deism, also the amount of misuderstanding's people make when critisizing desim is frustrating.

[mdlittle5466]

Favorited...thank you iDiestPaladin, thank you stretmediq. It is within the comfort and logical realm of reason and science, that I knew we would be able to ascertain the Divine. It is with this knowing that I can only surmise that, if the Creator were so willing, I am certain would show being well-pleased. There is no need of fear, there is no need of doubt, we are all truely a part of a grand Creation. Why, oh why...have we not embraced the stars yet? Can someone please help fund NASA? :)

[stretmediq]

@TheMrDeist PM me your email address and I'll send it to you.

[natmanprime]

And the dramatic music is silly

Why couldn't somene just read out the damn thing

tryin to sound all "stephen hawking" like dat

[stretmediq]

@natmanprime Read the companion essay. It explains how the model was derived.

[stretmediq]

@natmanprime Basically your comments assume a materialistic view of the world. This model is based on mathematical idealism. And the companion essay explains why and how I have come to doubt materialism.

[natmanprime]

@stretmediq I assume no such thing. Material is what's defined by rationalization out of the indefinite probability wave. There is no 'absolute material'. There is, however, an absolute. It's just not a being. It mathematically CANNOT be. My last comment said this. Your deism cannot BE. root2 over 1. That's being, that's the universe. Please take another look. The only things I've assumed are: I have a self, There is that which I don't know, and there's that which I percieve.

[stretmediq]

@natmanprime Of course it can "be". And there is nothing in your reply that contradicts that. I also begin by assuming I exist although I make no assumptions about the nature of the "I". But I can derive the basic rules of logic from that basic premise and from that and that alone I construct the model. Nor do I think material is absolute. Just the opposite. I REJECT materialism. In fact if you read the essay you will see that I also think the world is built of probability waves.

[natmanprime]

@stretmediq I don't dispute your credentials, it's just your result I reject.

I understand your claim.

[stretmediq]

@natmanprime You also seem to be assuming a definition of "God" that does not apply to this model and which has no logical foundation. Here is the link to the essay explaining all this: positivedeismDOTcom/phpbb2/vie­wtopicDOTphp?f=1&t=4222

[natmanprime]

@stretmediq If God is not the Absolute being, then you're not talking about deism. sorry.

If it's just an absolute, then it's atheism.

If it's just a non-absolute being, then it's paganism of some kind.

You can't just mess around with words and their definitions. I'm sure you're a nice guy.

Thank you.

[stretmediq]

@natmanprime If you have problems with the url just google "scientific deism explained essay".

[natmanprime]

@stretmediq I had a look, it's very thorough. first problem: The assumption that there's something rather than nothing.

The something/nothing duality of existence is undermined in infinity.

second: the assumption that atheists are materialists. Complete non-sequitur.

I kind of feel bad, because I know you must've put in a lot of work into it.

You'll be glad later

: )

[stretmediq]

@natmanprime Well thank you for your reply. And I won't press the point but I've also written a book on the subject and, well, I address all the points you just brought up in it and explain why I have come to doubt them.

[stretmediq]

@stretmediq I also explain why I have arrived at all the definitions I use and demonstrate how they are founded so I don't "mess around" with words. But there's no way you could now that from a video and a short essay. But, again, thank you for your reply it was nice to hear from someone who has some understanding of it even though we must agree to disagree. Take care. : )

[natmanprime]

@stretmediq Really?

I have to apologise for my abruptness and rudeness. I was tired and impatient, and I was close-minded to your point of view.

Anyway, I understand that what's deserves respect is the bravery of the thought, not the fineries of the intellect, which will sort itself out in time.

As long as we are all willing to think, there will be an answer.

And I'd been replying to morons all day yesterday, I was in a bad mood ; )

[stretmediq]

@natmanprime I know the feeling.

[stretmediq]

@natmanprime positivedeismDOTcom/phpbb2/vie­­wtopicDOTphp?f=1&t=4222

[natmanprime]

OK, I've had another look. where it starts to fall down is "the world is basicaly concept".

No.

The world is perception. That's not the same thing. Atoms percieve each other.

Basic consciousness is various perceptions meeting at a point, i.e. central nervous system. A 3rd point.

Sentience is occupying a 4th point, recognizing that the dualities you percieve is because of your position.

God is supposed to be: an absolute being.

Being is a dynamic.

The dynamic is undermined in absolution.

[natmanprime]

well, I was following it 3/4's of the way, seemed to make sense, then I zoned out for a moment, when I focused back on it suddenly it's like "...so that's why God exists"

and I'm like "oh, no..."

*facepalm*

I'll have anoher look...

[vmorgun]

Wow this is beautiful. honestly I felt stupid here and there but its its interesting. thank you for the video.

[fedea82]

@TheMrDeist I watched this video twice, and I don´t get it.

How can the universe be self-aware? Up to where I know, only humans have that capacity. Furthermore, if the universe is self-aware, how does this prove a god created it? And if it does, why isn´t this knowledge widely spread already?

Explain it to me like a 5 year-old, please. I thank you in advance.

[stretmediq]

@fedea82 I can't make it any simpler but here is a link to a more comprehensive explanation of the model: positivedeismDOTcom/phpbb2/vie­wtopicDOTphp?f=1&t=4222

[ngrep]

So how is the application for tax exemption going for your religious group??

[ngrep]

In effect, you are just reworking new-age quantum conciousness argument ala Deepak Chopra into religion.

Victor Stenger "computes that the mass of neural transmitter molecules, and their speed across the distance of the synapse, are about three orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential."

Please show your evidence that micro effects influence the macro.

[stretmediq]

@ngrep Yep. I was right. You're an idiot. If you understood what this model REALLY says you would know it is BASED on Stenger you idiot. The only difference is I have serious questions about materialism that are explained in the essay. You know like how can an infinite number of universes be created out of a finite amount of energy? Care to answer that one? Instead I subscribe to mathematical IDEALISM. That has NOTHING to do with Chopra at all. What a moron!

[stretmediq]

@stretmediq Almost EVERYTHING you just posted is WRONG. "Science isn't based on logic." You are an imbecile if you think that. I'm sorry but I just couldn't stop laughing when I read that. Think whatever you want. I don't care. But the fact is you have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.

[stretmediq]

@stretmediq But you did make me laugh so reading this drivel wasn't a complete waste of time.

[ngrep]

@stretmediq yea well you are just abusive to anyone that critiques what you say, as you have with me from the start in asking questions. It's been really hard to even approach you with your high and mighty 'don't question me'. All I can do is work hard to get an answer from you. You expect to be held above critique, and verbally abuse people that question you. You keep claiming your shit is 'above understanding' where it is just simply obfuscation. You call anyone that doesn't accept it a moron.

[ngrep]

@stretmediq I stated observation occurs first, and logic is PART of science, science is a method of interpreting, inclusing logical processes, observation of data. Observation comes first.

[stretmediq]

@ngrep LOL! Just keep diggin' that hole!

[ngrep]

@stretmediq what hole? I ask valid questions and you just have acted like an arsehole from the start. You just claim everything is beyond others when I have raised questions and been a prick basically. Thus, you and your group have garnered my interest. That's a good thing isn't it? I mean you want your stuff to get out there and critique yea? or you just want people to look at something obfuscated and go 'aaah he must know what he is talking about!' lol.

[stretmediq]

@stretmediq I'm talking about what many MATERIALISTS now assert to explain away quantum entanglement dumbass. It's called "the many worlds theory". I'm just pointing out why I DOUBT it. The fact you can't even grasp THAT just shows how ignorant you really are. LOL!

[stretmediq]

@stretmediq No. YOU came on here and did nothing but misrepresent everything that this video and it's companion essay says. Now your claiming I say it's over every bodies head that disagrees with it. NOT TRUE! I've had many long and fruitful conversations with Theists, Atheists, and other Deists some of whom agree with it and others who don't. But they don't misrepresent it as you do because THEY understand it. And YOU don't. You have absolutely NO idea what this means at all.

[ngrep]

@stretmediq that's not what happened when I asked questions .. you just said it was over my head, then others on a forum asked questions as well, and you just refused to answer. You left in a huff because your claims were questioned. sook

[stretmediq]

@stretmediq But I will try one last time to explain it to you. It basically shows how the cosmos can spontaneously emerge from a state of absolute mathematical EQUILIBRIUM which we mistakenly call "nothingness". But that state must be closed because it is unstable otherwise. That's it. There is NO divine intervention here. In fact this model REJECTS it. You're just hung up on the word "God" and you can't see past those 3 little letters.

[stretmediq]

@stretmediq And I NEVER refused to answer questions either. That's just another of your lies. I left because there was no point in "debating" fundamentalists. Every answer I gave was twisted around to make it seem the opposite of what I actually said. That's what cults do. In fact it's CLASSIC cult behavior. And you're still doing it. So you leave me no choice but to assume you're either an idiot, a liar, or both.

[ngrep]

@stretmediq ok we are getting somewhere at least. However as stated it totally appears tp be an assertion. We don't even know if it is a flat, open or closed universe atm

"But it's consequences are clear, God exists" doesn't sound like you are rejecting it at all.

[stretmediq]

@ngrep "As stated". Can't you figure anything out for yourself? That refers to the fact that this model points toward idealism and away from materialism because it must be closed in order to achieve stability. And that makes it self-referential or self-observing. But philosophical (or mathematical) idealism is NOT theistic. It has about as much in common with theism as George Bush does with competent statesmanship. Your constant insistence that it does only suggests you don't understand this.

[ngrep]

@stretmediq I am not talking about the model, other than it is assertions all the way thru as I said, in where you end with : "But it's consequences are clear, God exists" which as I have also said, is simply just making yet another leap

[stretmediq]

@ngrep There are NO leaps here and you know it. In fact non sequiturs were scrupulously AVOIDED. Your constant insistence otherwise only makes you look even more foolish. Everything in this model follows from the basic premise. And that premise is also derived from LOGICALLY based definitions of "nothing" as "without property" and "something" as "that which has property". It has NO other meaning in this model. Idiot.

[stretmediq]

@stretmediq BTW if you're not talking about the model why are here? The video is ABOUT the model.

[ngrep]

@stretmediq they don't assert it as truth at all, they are hypothesis, just as yours is, except you assert 'therefore god' based on stuff that I have shown is FAR from truth, it is pure speculation.

Moron, don't you get it? I'm not taking sides, I am approaching the fact you are asserting your position is truth, you then claim this a scientific position, whilst denying and criticism of it. You have plucked stuff that is convenient to your assertion, therefore 'god'. whatever you mean by that!!!!

[ngrep]

@stretmediq "You know like how can an infinite number of universes be created out of a finite amount of energy?"

As I have stated from the beginning, you are trying to assert that what happens in a closed system, within the set of all things, applies to the set itself.

Please show 1/ that there is an infinite number of universes 2/ that there is a finite amount of energy for them. 3/ what occurs in the set of all things, applies to it as a whole, being a different logical sphere.

[ngrep]

@stretmediq "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."

Yep sounds really scientific there stretmediq.

[ngrep]

Oh how clever, define nothingness, then say it's single property is only a concept, concepts take a mind, therefore god.

FAIL. you are simply equivocating and obfuscating the reality of what you are doing. The above is a summary of what you are stating, throwing in all big mathematical sounding stuff to make it scientific sounding. Talk about new-age theism, remove the scripture, add words associated to science and freethinking and it's a winner eh? lol fail

[stretmediq]

@ngrep Whatever.

[ngrep]

@stretmediq don't you think it important that a group claiming reason and science actually use it? You say nothing is nothing, then turn around drop equivalence and says therefore nothing can be represented as a line, effectively destroying what you just said, then make the leap stating that this nothing as a concept means there must be a mind to think of it, therefore god.

Every time people try talking to you about this, you just tell them it is 'beyond them' and refuse to discuss, like now

[stretmediq]

@ngrep The reason I tell some people, like you, that this is over their head is because it IS over their head. Take what you just posted. I never said "nothing is nothing". I CLEARLY make the distinction between "nothing" meaning "without property" and "nothing" meaning "no difference". The fact you fail to understand this demonstrates you don't comprehend any of this at all. It is YOU who fails to use reason. So why should I waste my time on you? This model is valid and you know it.

[stretmediq]

@stretmediq All the definitions used in this video are logically derived. And the conclusions arrived at follow from them. There is no "leaping" here. And you know that too. Now if you offered a real rebuttal I would listen to what you have to say. But you didn't. All you did was get just about everything about this wrong, make unfounded statements and then called it a "fail". Are you kidding me? Are you really that stupid?

[stretmediq]

@stretmediq From your earlier remarks I would probably have to conclude you are. For instance you stated that Descartes' observation "I think, therefore I am" has been questioned. That's true but what you failed to understand is that it has never been refuted and the nature of the critiques have to do with the conclusion that this observation leads to a an argument for dualism. Again I CLEARLY stated if the essay you referred to that it doesn't say anything about the nature of the "I".

[stretmediq]

@stretmediq All it shows is that something is aware of itself. But whether that something is permanent, impermanent, material, or immaterial cannot be determined from that alone. Another example; I stated science is the logical examination of what we perceive because it is. Then you just rephrase this very statement using the word empiricism and claim what I said was wrong because observation precedes logic. Are you retarded? A worm can "observe" but it can't do science because it can't REASON.

[stretmediq]

@stretmediq Besides I, once again, CLEARLY listed ALL the steps in the scientific method at the end of the essay. If you had read and understood it you would have known that. That and your completely laughable assertion that logic cannot be derived from our own self awareness when it can DEMONSTRATED it does leaves me no other choice but to conclude you, sir, are either an idiot, a liar, or, most probably, both. And I've wasted enough time on you.

[ngrep]

@stretmediq Where did I ever claim that? I am simply saying you are asserting a position ignoring all others not convivient to it.

You have omitted from your simplistic list the scientific step of peer review, with your asserted leaps to your identified end point, with not a shred of evidence along the way, and implies scientifically that your conclusions are rubbish.

Go on, provide the evidence rather than just assert it.

[ngrep]

@stretmediq you said :

'Science is the logical examination of what we perceive'.

No, science is empirical enquiry into observed natural phenomena. Observation is prior to logic because what is observed need not be assumed a priori to conform with any hypothesis. Regularities in observation may suggest their own 'logic', but it is then a posteriori and not a priori. Important scientific findings have emerged from intuitive heuristics and only later subjected to logical inferencing.

Worms? WTF?

[ngrep]

@stretmediq WTF as a worm got to do with the definition of science? observation does precede science, science is a method based on it, not on logic. Logic is part of the method proceeding observation.

Am I retarded? No, I don't resort to such namecalling.

[ngrep]

"part of the method proceeding from observation"

[ngrep]

@stretmediq as you removed the video where I already replied to this, here is what you said :

'"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").'"

cont ..

[ngrep]

@stretmediq cont ...

Descartes' _sceptical assumption_ was that introspection of his mental state provided 'certain knowledge', but this 'foundational' assumption has been challenged time and time again throughout 300 years of epistemology, and there is evidence from neuroscience and experimental psychology that an assumed mental state of 'absolute certainty' is simply not available to human beings. What we may well experience is 'the feeling of being certain' but that's not the same thing

[ngrep]

@stretmediq As stated, you jump from stating nohting is a concept with no properties, associating it to a line with one property length (!), from there you extrapolate this as a model for the universe, then state that a concept needs a mind to conceive of it, and since the earth is a concept, it needs an observer, this being the basis for your positing a god.

Any you cannot see any leaps of logic there eh?

[ngrep]

@stretmediq I don't fail to understand it, you say nothing is a concept, you explain those concepts, then turn around and state that since it is a concept, a concept needs a mind, therefore god. I pointed this out before to you. You are associating the set of all things to having to be contained the same as elements within it. I have asked you for evidence of this before, you just state all this is above me and obfuscate yet again.

[Psytheslasher]

Nothingness is NOT a state. It is the absence of state. It is the absence of existence. You try to sound profound and you fail even defining terms properly. This is a conceptual failure.

No reason to go on after that statement. Speaking theoretically about how nothingness cannot exist is because "it cannot exist" is a semantic paradox. If nothingness existed, it wouldn't exist.

[stretmediq]

@Psytheslasher THAT'S THE POINT. As for how the definition of the terms were arrived at you can read that here: positivedeismDOTcom/phpbb2/vie­wtopicDOTphp?f=1&t=4471

[stretmediq]

@Psytheslasher I don't know what you THINK this video says but what it actually says is what you just said. Nothingness is the absence of state, property, potential, everything. I don't know how you came to the conclusion it said anything different. Maybe it's just over your head.

[stretmediq]

@stretmediq What it actually says is this; "absolute nothingness" cannot "exist" because it is the total absence of "existence".Thus if "absolute nothingness" were the case it would be the same as saying "nonexistence exists" which is paradoxical. Therefore "absolute nothingness" is self contradictory which means there must be "something" (defined as "that which has property" no matter what it is) instead of "nothing" (defined as "the total absence of property").

[stretmediq]

@stretmediq And not only are the terms defined correctly there is NO difference in what I said which is saying "nonexistence exists" is absurd and what you said which is " if 'absolute nothingness' 'existed' then it wouldn't 'exist' ".

[stretmediq]

@stretmediq So either you have NO idea what you're talking about or you are deliberately misrepresenting what the video actually says because you don't like the conclusion and you can't refute it. Which is it?

[Anonymous1226]

This video really make you think, doesn't it?

[chrissjg]

wow this blew my mind and i love deism :D nicely done!

[Surroundx]

@stretmediq I don't understand why being able to imagine something stops it's non-existence from being absolute? Can you please clarify?

[stretmediq]

@Surroundx For ordinary things it doesn't. Kant proved that. But we're dealing with absolutes here so the fallacy of composition may apply to the "concept of absolute nothingness" and exempt it from such restrictions.

[FractaLove358]

A semicircle can be made by the equation: f(x) sqrt((10-x)x). Height will be 5.

A single crest sine super-positioned on the semicircle: sin((pi-(pi/10))/10) + f(x)

A double crest sine super-positioned on the semicircle: sin(((pi-(pi/10))/10) + (2(pi/10)) + (pi/100)) +f(x).

The double crested sine seems to be slightly off (they have to be exact so they wouldn't recursively interfere in a full circle) as well as sines in the continuing series. To get the inverse: simply put a negative in front.

[FractaLove358]

I would like to see a video which shows a Fourier transform which would not contradict another. If all possible Fourier transforms cancel out then how can one particular Fourier manifest? Also, what does a particular Fourier mean with regard to the physics of a single universe? Mathematics in next post...

[stretmediq]

@FractaLove358 Remember this is just an analogy. And the principle of composition explains how a particular Fourier can "precipitate" out of an infinity of Fouriers. It's a matter of scale. The whole vs. it's parts. It's like if the outward energy of the big bang is exactly equaled by the energy of gravity pulling inward. They would cancel so there would be no NET energy to the universe as a whole. But it's subsystems could have net energy. 

[stretmediq]

@stretmediq So we don't have "no universe" just because there is no net energy to the universe as a WHOLE.

[stretmediq]

positivedeismDOTcom/phpbb2/vie­wtopicDOTphp?f=1&t=4222

[stretmediq]

If anyone would like to read an illustrated essay offering a more comprehensive explanation of this model, including supporting evidence, please visit this site. Thank you.

[potem1]

Your use of the words "scientific deism" is a very wide open subject. Your model appears to be complex, yet, you are still making assumptions here to make your model "fit" so to speak. My views about God may be different than yours; I, for one, prefer the simple to. the more complex in this understanding of God.

Some of this may be "in circles" because we cannot prove or disprove this. This is YOUR model, and your model alone.

Others may have other views... Let's hear them!

Peace!

[stretmediq]

It's the explanation that's complex. The model itself is super simple. But I'm curious, just what assumptions am I making?

[stretmediq]

If anyone would like to read an essay providing a more comprehensive explanation of this model (including supporting evidence) please click on my video response entitled "The Paradox Of Nothingness" then click on the link to positivedeism it directs you to on the screen. Thanks! : )

[stretmediq]

I cannot thank you enough for doing this for me. It is simply an awesome job.

[iDeismFounder]

No worries :-)

[lizardman77]

Excellent.

[iDeismFounder]

It's all stretmediq :-)

[stretmediq]

@iDeismFounder Wow! Over 1,000 views! Congratulations!

[Professoranton]

Great video. Thanks

[iDeismFounder]

Thanks, Professor. The idea and text is stretmediq's. I was just helping it out.  I hope all is well with you, it has been a while since we spoke.