@wildreams Note that the key word is "conclude". Once you "conclude" something, without evidence, it IS the end of further intellectual discourse, by definition.
Even though I do not think "finding/proving God" is the most productive way a scientist should work or find solutions, I agree that at least in principle, you can try.
Why believe something you think is less than 50% chance of it being true? Why not? Even if there is only 1% of it being true, and it makes you feel good, you believe in it. For example, aliens, aliens within our solar system, ancient civilizations that where never discovered (Alantis) etc. Even fairies, sea monsters and dragons etc. I don't think it is a bad thing to dream. There was no conclusive evidence that the Earth was round, but Columbus still tried to sail around the world.
@TheAtheistExperience RazorsharpLT has a good point about Logic. I would direct you to read Heidegger's "Introduction to Metaphysics" for an impressive treatise on the subject. Logic is simply a formal requirement. It is not, however, truth, and although it is a useful tool for determining truth, it is certainly not the only tool. No, some things go beyond logic, which is why the ancient Greek "Logos" had a much more robust meaning than "logic" does today. Creative thinking is stifled by "logic"
4:00 I'm a deist. I was raised Catholic. I've thus put logic in front of faith and came to believe that there is a God who doesn't intervene. I believe that God gave us the tools we needed and let us run wild. Why do I believe that there is a God? Simply because I think that the creation of time space, literally everything, is a bit supernatural.
@MagnusNyborg No, I understand pretty well that without time, there is no cause and effect. Therefore, supernatural. It's not that I'm ignorant, it's just that there is no explanation (as of right now) for the natural creation of the universe .
@SpecTechHD I would ask you if you believe that reality is what is contained in time and space; what we can observe. And if you believe that an entity is (or was at some point) outside of time and space wouldn't that make it not real? A respect for the beginning of our existence is one thing, but to point to a conclusion or definition with a non-realistic answer isn't logical. If I misspoke or am wrong feel free to correct me.
@CotyKelly I believe that God isn't observable. Yes, he lives/lived in a realm outside of time and space, but that doesn't mean he's not real. Again, once science can confirm a more logical solution to the creation, I'll rethink my ways.
@SpecTechHD I guess my question is why is it important enough to believe in him that you feel it's necessary to debate it? Secondly, you're the one asserting something you yourself says is unobservable, so I would say you need to confirm a more logical explanation that "creation" happened. At the very least, both of them have the same likely-hood. One is not confirmable, since "the creator is unobservable," and the other is constantly criticizing itself in hopes of finding truth.
@SpecTechHD even if that were true or relevant to reality, claiming something that is unobservable doesn't make it exist either. Unicorns can exist since you can't observe them... my point was why do you care or have a "need" for anything you can't perceive to exist?
@SpecTechHD I didn't mean that you filled your life with god as much as I did your explanation of life. There are tons of other imaginable ways things "could have" worked out. It seems like you're either choosing that explanation for convenience or you want it to be true. Neither of which are giving your reasoning for believing it, which is why I was originally curious about your attitude towards this subject. You approach it looking for logic, but don't display that you're using any yourself.
@SpecTechHD Not true. We don't fully UNDERSTAND time. But we perceive it nonetheless. It took me time to respond to your post, and I felt it the whole time. That we are a being-in-time is an essential aspect of our being-human.
@SpecTechHD You can observe time, especially in space via light-years with the concept that you can look at stars that don't exist anymore. Just because a manipulation of this dimension doesn't exist yet neither makes a god's existence anymore likely nor less likely for that matter. Pointing out that there are some things we don't know or haven't observed yet is mutually exclusive from claiming the unobservable to be known as existing.
@SpecTechHD Hahahaha!!!!!! We can't travel back in time, good one!!!! We go forward in time steadily. And we perceive this "flow" of time. THEREFORE: You need to read Heidegger.
Deist believe in God simply by observing understanding natural surrounding. If you are born inside a closed cave and evolve with no sight you belive light do not exist and rule out the possibility of its existance simply because there is no way to prove it. But just outside the cave everything is full of life. Concept now turn to earth and the universe from infinite dimentions that we cannot see but know that exist. You may just put a Dot or find out more about Deism. =Stop overcutting our Trees
@Pogi724 Your logic is highly flawed dude. If you are born in a cave you would never have known light/life; it would never come to your mind of it existing until(if able) you left the cave (saw evidence). You're assuming a god exists in the analogy when you make him equal to light/life in the hypothetical. And lastly, we don't say that the universe is infinite because we can't see it. It's not an argument from ignorance like saying a God must exist since we can't see him nor explain some things.
For those who view deism as a "kind of theism" (where theism simply means "belief in any kind of god"), then the caller's question makes sense.
But if by theism you specifically mean an interfering kind of god (a space monster entity, that has visited our planet and specifically humans, and is interested in our morality and sex life!), then a deist already _is_ an atheist. Because a deist _doesn't_ believe in such a space monster-style god. (This view varies from person to person, though.)
@0debug no the view doesn't (or shouldn't). The definition of theism is "Belief in the existence of a god or gods". Many definitions will include the "especially a belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures" as a classification of what a theists "belief" can be but not necessarily the Theist position if you see what i mean. Theist position is the first part.
@RazorsharpLT so tools of science rule when they built the rollercoster but suck when they dont allow everything i want to be true? sure kid. reality, it bites. but you gotta deal with it. there is no god to save your ass when you fuck up. so its up to you. no agro reset.
@greco0994 when there is no angels pulling a cloud do you insist that angels are invisible? or do you pick the more obvius awnser. we can only suspect the things we know to happen. clouds move bechsoe of wind. and universe come in to being from point of singulairty. you cant insert something that you cant prove. that is why we dont blame demons when someone is murderd. this is why we search for natural anwsers to things, bechose those are the only kind that seeme to exist.
Atheists have no need to prove there is a God though mate. The religious are making the claim that he/she/it exists, they are the ones that need to prove it. Atheists look at the evidence and the evidence doesn't show a God existing. I'm not saying he can't exist, I am just saying there is no evidence for him.
@7gamex allso how do you prove the negative? where whuld i go search this thing? where did the theist last time see it? tecnicaly christianity is allready proven wrong. there is no kindom in heaven. allso if jesus rose to the heavens in the bible, where did he go? did he fly trough space? was he trying to reach the edge of space? or was he searchign a black hole? the story made sence only in the universe the christians belive in their time. earth was flat and the sky was firmament.
Atheist experience show is really a snare to fall into.... if the only way to discuss something is about proving something then one can only talk about consensus reality. If we are to discuss something of a philosophical nature then it isn't a consensus reality it is subjective reality and therefore from a subjective point of view, nothing can be proved as such. We juts talk about personal experiences and how we made sense of them.
You first need to define what God is before asking any other questions. When you know exactly what God is, only then can you argue whether God exists or not.
John: Do Axolotls exist?
Matt: Even though I do not know what Axolotls are, I can assure you they do not exist.
@TheAtheistExperience I would have to agree with you AND greco. personally it's a 50/50, and what you said works both ways. No one has been able to prove the existence of a god, but no one has been able to disprove it either. So logically, how can anyone say that they know?
- "... it's a 50/50, and what you said works both ways."
No, it doesn't, because the chance that any particular god exists is not 50%. That's like saying that the chance to throw a 6 with dice must be 50% because "either you do or you don't". It just doesn't work that way.
- "So logically, how can anyone say that they know?"
At this point, nobody really knows anything about God, so the most logical standpoint is not to believe in any god until we actually know about one.
@TheAtheistExperience That's if you're looking at it from a religious stand point. Which, as I was a Deist just about a week ago, I was not particularly religious. I didn't care WHICH god existed, what I was saying is that there is a 50/50 chance that a god exists no matter what. Although that's all null and void for me, since I do consider myself an Atheist now. :p I attribute that to you guys, and this documentary called "Why I am no longer a Christian".
- "I do consider myself an Atheist now. :p I attribute that to you guys"
Cool, but please don't capitalize "a-theist". It's not some religion! :)
- "and this documentary called 'Why I am no longer a Christian'."
... by Evid3nc3 ! Yes, that's a good series. It explains many things that some of the hosts of The Atheist Experience also found out. They just can't all explain all that in a 1-hour talk show, so if this show is your school, Evid3nc3's series is a good study book.
@TheAtheistExperience Well even thieving Aholes that run the lottery have the decency to tell you there is a 1 in 80 chance you'll win 2 dollars :). The church dont tell you shit.
I to agree that Deism for some people can be a transitional state to Atheism. I am a Deist and even though I believe in a high power I know that there is no guarantee that that higher power exists. So why do I believe in a higher power then? Because in my opinion a higher power is the best explanation for me. A deist still uses science, logic, and reasoning to understand how the world works.
Sadly, anyone who studied quantum mecahincs are deist.
an anwser will just lead to more questions, face it, there is no end, if we figure out how all of the energy and mass concetrated in to one point before the big bang, another question will rise.
@RazorsharpLT I definitely agree with you on that. some answers only lead us to more questions and make us become even more confused then we originally were. basically what I was trying to say in my original comment was that there is no guarantee that a creator exists. I do not care what happens to me when I die because death is a long way away. The only reason many people join a religion is because they are afraid of death. The best advice here would be to keep your mind open and enjoy life.
By that argument, the only explanation for your god(s) is that it/they also originated from a higher power, which in turn originated from a higher power, etc. Unless, ofc, you make a special pleading for YOUR god-view, in which case your last line is untrue. Special pleading is NOT science, logic and reasoning. It falls back to the category of argument from ignorance, which Matt mentions too.
NOT gunning for you, just mentioning the consequences of your argument
@tdjdk The GOD Theory is a complicated and flawed theory. I do not believe in my own separate god that would be dumb. I was saying I THINK there is a higher power of some sort. I don't guarantee you or anyone else out there that I know for a fact there is a god. My ultimate answer to the question does or doesn't god exist my answer is I do not know. I think there is a possibility one of these religions are right but I DO NOT know if I am right or wrong. The existence of a god is a 50/50 chance.
Well, then I claim that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe, I claim that fairies make blossoms bloom and I claim that there is no gravity, it's angels holding us down, or maybe intelligent falling.
No, the chance for the flying spaghetti monster, the unicorns or fairies is not 50/50.
Just because you cannot disprove something doesn't make it equally likely as there NOT being a pink unicorn, or an invisible dragon in my garage.
@tdjdk Yea you can make those claims. You can say the flying spaghetti monster created the universe or that fairies exist. All i'm saying is that I THINK there is a God. Richard Dawkins once said it would be unwise for anyone to claim they know for a fact that there is or isn't a God or that fairies exist. Just because I believe there is a God does not mean I guarantee myself that I know for a fact there is one. Most atheists believe there is no god but they do not claim they know for a fact.
Not to mention, it's not a scientific theory - at BEST it's a hypothesis, but since no facts have been presented to support your god-case, it can hardly even be called a hypothesis. So, no, there is no god-theory. Scientific Theories have falsifiable statements and extremely precise predicitions. Nothing like that can be said for god-myths
Yeah, I was definitely an agnostic deist for a while (and also thought of reconsidered Christianity in form of liberal theology) but when I realized that I lacked reasons and evidence for belief of God that's when I decided to be an atheist; so deism for me was also a transitional state, although it does not need to be one for every deists.
@Z3EALOT We no longer live in the Bronze Age. It's time You begin to critically examine the BUY BULL instead of choosing to remain willfully ignorant.
How can anyone be anti-christ? What was so bad about historic Jesus? He subverted some of his countrymen to put down their fishing poles and follow him around for a few years? Did the employers of the day then encounter a lull in the supply of cheap labor because of him? He was a smart-ass who needed a cap popped in his ass? He went around drinking everyone's wine and not paying for it? I don't get it. XD
Too bad you can't come up with a rational definition for God. Just wondering, does the simulation hypothesis have you atheists quaking in your boots? It should.
Fundamentalism (Belief that a religion is truth, w/o fault)>Semi-New Age Christianity (or what ever religion believed) (Mixture of New Agish religion) > New Age / Occult > Irreligious/Deism > Weak Atheism > Strong Atheism > Secular Humanism and Strong Atheism. We must help out the Deist (and all those who are necessary for the transition to Atheism), they are helping with building future Atheist, so keep it up Deist.
I disagree with the statement "If he existed [a God that created the universe but does not interfere], so what? He's not relevant". If such a being existed, it would be in our best interest to determine who it was, how they did it, etc. I find it hard to belief someone of a scientific mind would not want to search for the answers to these questions.
I try to be a rational thinker, but I would still consider myself more Deist than Atheist. However, my belief isn't in God as defined by society. It is in intelligent design. My belief in ID is more than 50%, and Deism's core belief is that a design suggests a designer, so I feel that better describes me. I feel this is more important to me than my <50% belief in God, since God is something I find difficult to define. And I feel I reached this conclusion through rational thought.
I left my church as an agnostic, an agnostic scared of pissing off god and of being too much of an antichrist. A year an a half later and I am now completely through with the asshole christian god and consider myself a deist because of reality/consciousness, and am just waiting to get over that and become an atheist.
I liked your comments. But it is not like "waiting to get over it". Most believers believe because they need to believe, and not because they want to. Maybe you need to believe that some supernatural inexplicable being did create the whole universe, just to explain what science can't (yet). And no mather what happens, there will always be skeptics about science development, because this "need" is part of human nature, just because we are rational beings.
The question that started me on the journey to being an Atheist is... If "God" is a perfect being, no faults, flaws, needs, wants....."Perfect"...Why would a "Perfect God" need or require worship ? ego ? And here is another, If "God" wrote a book. Would there be a need to "interpret" what it means ? Wouldn't such a book be perfectly clear to anyone who read it ? A "perfect" book. So far all that has ever been written is by "men" claiming to speak for this invisible "God" poorly I might add.
It was for me. I seem to recall Matt likening deism to Linus from Peanuts's blanket. It took me a while to admit that I didn't really believe, it was just a comfort thing that I used and I was a bit afraid of the atheist label, but hell, I'm already bisexual, might as well come out as an atheist too.
Why would I hate a Deist? You're not going around proclaiming everyone is going to burn forever for sin that they never had anything to do with and that the only thing that can save them is believing in your god in the face of evidence to the contrary. Especially when a majority of the things in your holy book simply never happened.
So why would I hate some one that just says "Yeah, I believe there's a God out there somewhere, he just doesn't interfere with the universe".
@khasseki no we dont i and several other atheists i know essentially take the postion yes you are so close nice job throwing away those fairy tales still a little off but your beliefs are more rational than most people who belive in gods and not really harmful in any obvious way
@khasseki I don't know of any atheists that hate deists, I am one myself. I only have problems with religious people because they like to force their views on me, deists on the other hand are usually very rational people who I can have an intellectual conversation with without facepalming XP
Something that has be lost with the waning of Deism is the argument that the existence of a Creator is a separate question to whether any of the ideas of god that humans worship as god has ANYTHING to do with the creator of the universe. In other words, all the gods in organised religion are cultural inventions, invented by man, and have nothing to do with the creator of the universe. Whether there is such a creator is a separate question. The god's of organised religion are so provincial.
Something that has be lost with the waning of Deism is the argument that the existence of God is a separate question to whether any of the ideas of God that humans worship as God has ANYTHING to do with the creator of the universe. In other words, all the gods in organised religion are cultural inventions, invented by man, and have nothing to do with the creator of the universe. Whether there is such a creator is a separate question. The god's of organised religion are so provincial.
Something that has be lost with the waning of Deism is the argument that the existence of God is a separate question to whether any of the ideas of God that humans worship as God has ANYTHING to do with the creator of the universe. In other words, all the gods in organised religion are cultural inventions, invented by man, and have nothing to do with the creator of the universe. Whether there is such a creator is a separate question. The god's on organised religion are so provincial.
@berniebay Mine was Catholic, non denominational Christian, sorta pantheist, atheist. There's definitely a progression from dogmatic to purely rational.
I'm a deist,why ? The only think i believe in is that "someone" who's called God by religious people created universe,its like because if there was not a guy called "god" there would not be many things like we have today ... But I dont fuckin believe in GOD (jesus,Allah bla bla) thats bullshit,can anyone proove that god exists ? i'm not joking can u guys prove it ? NO U CANT,i dont wanna have illusions ...
@GTAIVEliteGamer man whole this reality is a big illusion,you are already in illusion.its depending on your perception.The biblical version of god is methaphorical and incorect,and masonic orders put that version to divide people.If you ask me what is god,for me god is some creative force that started big bang,or create universe,again god is beyond words,good and evil,beyond space and time.we humans are limited to 3d reality and consciousness.but masons are set this system and all bad stuff
I'd say this expert "thinker" puts the "Mind of God" issue into a great deistic context. See this web page: bigthink.com/ideas/24868. Atheists see no causation, while deists see a creative intent. Either way, it is what it is. No "belief" required one way or another to live in our shared reality.
@vesmir92505 Let me rephrase it. Theists have failed to convince me that a god exists. Therefore, I cannot accept the claim which makes me an atheist. I believe that there is no possible way to prove that a god does not exist, as you can define god in such a way that that becomes impossible. Therefore I don't know that god does not exist. This makes me an agnostic atheist.
@sharkjack That makes more sense as a true atheist rejects the concept of god altogether. We both see nature as nature. But you and I could look at the same issue (ZFEL for instance) and I would see the inference of creative intent/design, while you would not. Not that it matters - if we were all suppose to know exactly what to believe and how, we'd all know for sure without any question.
@vesmir92505 I'm a little confused about your position on intelligent design because you said earlier: "Deists merely carry the idea that there is a causality to the universe"
Are you saying that the the universe has existed over 10 billion years and life formed on earth purely as chemicals and energy acting according to the laws of nature without any interference, but that this universe was created by something that caused these laws to be this way?
@sharkjack Define "interference." Nature itself has rules that were somehow "designed" to operate a certain way... whether we're talking specifics like gravity or applying physics in general. As I stated earlier, nature's randomness and (for me especially) ZFEL are a prime qualities in deist thought. So the "interference" (laws of nature) from my perspective has always been present.
@vesmir92505 ah you said inference, not interference. It seems I don't really need to define interference as you've answered the question. just fine. Your causality is one that has no effect on the current world (it can't be convinced by prayer) ZFEL is the zero force evolutionary law right, that even without a force to pushing it diversity will increase in a hereditary system? I might very well be misrepresenting this, if so please correct the viewpoint and answer what it has to do with deism?
@vesmir92505 nature's tendency is actually towards breaking down and chaos, called entropy. The only reason life can exist on the planet in such a complex form is because the sun keeps bombarding us with energy. This is also a force in creating mutations, another is chemical reactions being chance events
Anyway diversity of life comes from a fundemental lack of homogenity of the environment, and the mistakes in copying heritable structures that can make it more suited for a different environment
@sharkjack Entropy exists, yes. But I find it extraordinarily amusing that you are actually promoting a position that creationists typically point to as an argument AGAINST the reality of evolution (entropy, along with the 2nd law of thermodynamics). You also aren't accurately accounting for the ZFEL dynamic, which further validates the reality of more complex biological systems despite these forces working against it. You simply added exampled support to my randomness and complexity stance.
@vesmir92505 Entropy is not an argument against evolution, as we have a sun bombarding us with energy. However you could go back and say where did the sun come from and how did it get to have energy. To be honest, I don't have the answer. I don't know enough about the big bang theory to provide a satisfying exlplanation and I doubt anyone exists who does, but that give you no right to imply intelligence.
If I didn't represent ZFEL correctly, please submit a more accurate description
@sharkjack Yes, entropy is strongly argued as a point against evolution, and evolution actually works against entropy in the generational breakdown of the genome. Entropy is one of the more recent ones points of contention used by creationists, all the while following your points on equilibrium and breakdown as it relates to genetics.
@vesmir92505 and if life on earth was in a closed system, it would eventually vanish. But because there is an open system the effects of entropy are countered by energy income. On the molecular level, where entropy most directly plays into biology, there is indeed very little diversity. We use the same pathways to digesting glucose as bacteria. Some minor differences are present in the enzymes performing the reactions, but they function the same way and have largely identical protein domains.
@sharkjack See my other responses, I posted without replying directly to your last note. Also, your example of digestive processes speaks volumes about larger systems having a higher/more complex "design" that incorporates and evolves from primitive ones. It's difficult for a deist to see that capability/adaptability as being merely accidental. Regardless, atheist, deist, theist - just doesn't matter - belief or non-belief isn't required either way to exist in our commonly shared reality!
@vesmir92505 On the higher levels entropy exerts practically no pressure, it's the environment that becomes the thing to adapt to. Replication also uses up resources which gives organisms an effect on each other, which really gets the ball rolling for evolution. I view us as an accident only in the sense that nobody created us with a purpose in mind for us. If even exists. Maybe for the universe as a whole, but not us in particular. If we want a purpose in life, we have to create our own.
@sharkjack Yes...as you put it...IF earth was a closed system, but it's not. Entropy as any discussion to counter complexity in nature is largely a non-starter. Not to mention, applying ZFEL, even within an isolated system, spontaneous diversity would still occur. Complexity appears to be a "designed" principle of nature with as much, if not more, influence as any other.
I already tought a lot about deism and atheism, then I got a simple idea:
When I'm wanting to think, I'm atheist.
When I'm over thinking, or just too tired, I'm deist.
Because actually, for me, doesn't matter how someone difines himself, but what he really does, how he acts, what/how he thinks about life, moral, other people, the world on it's own...
Because, after all, his beliefs wont change what really happens.
I hear this definition of a Deistic God a lot. Why is it necessary to think that God made the universe and left or abandoned it. In fact why is it necessary for a God to have interaction with you(one of 8 billion people) or present himself to the six senses? Doesn't anyone realize that the framework was established by "revealed" religions. Just because they put God in that framework it must be absolutely necessary to interact or see miracles or for "heaven" to exist?
@metahelix True deists, following a logic based rationale, acknowledge the POSSIBLE inference of a creative intent (in its simplest form: why is there something instead of nothing). Today's deists, if applying sound logic, don't adhere to any sort of approach in doctrine or belief system beyond acknowledging what atheists also acknowledge, that nature is what it is, plus seeing a possible creative source. Nature's randomness and tendency toward complexity are prime qualities in deist thought.
Deists merely carry the idea that there is a causality to the universe. Atheists are very akin to theists - the flip side of the same coin. Dogma vs. no causality. Deists simply ask: why is there something instead of nothing, acknowledging the likelihood of a causal source to the universe and its operational parameters. We don't play guessing games beyond what nature and science show us as reality.
@vesmir92505 I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I asume your definition of atheism is: the belief that there is no god. I disagree. My definition of atheism is: the rejection of the claim that god exists. Theists claim there is a god. Atheists find that there is no evidence for this claim and therefore don't accept the claim as true. Therefore we don't believe. There is another claim, that god does not exist (or no gods exist). You could call it antitheism or strong atheism
theres the big bang theory, everything came from a single point, but that is impossible without time standing still because obviously the chemical mixture that is the universe is insustainable at a single point
exidence: the big bang.
Now what force started time? it cant have always existed for reasons i stated earlier.
Here's a hint for Nathan, not to seem mean: By asking if Deism is a transitional state, you admit you know very little about Deism. To me, Nathan sounds more like an agnostic. If he was a true Deist, he'd know that the stance is: God exists. Now lets learn about science. Yeesh, a fifty fifty chance that God exists? That statement alone tells me that Nathan is not a true Deist.
Wow. Talk about a complete failure of a Deist. That was the weakest arguement for Deism I can think of. I can appreciate the appeal to Atheists, because of the shared appreciation of reason and logic. And I like Nathan's observation that Deists and Atheists are very alike. But seriously, why ask someone their opinion on reality? Yes, living forms evolve based on necessity and benefit. Who asks that? Does Nathan want a banana sticker on his grovelment or something?
I'm just one person but for me, it was the other way around, Atheism was my transition from Christianity into Agnosticish Deism. (I dislike labeling myself a Deist, too specific, but it's close.)
Fwiw, I think as a Deist, you should live your life as most Atheists describe, after all, we *are* humans and we currently live in a world with imperfect knowledge about our origin.
So whatever you're speculation is about the nature of the origin of the universe, it's important to embrace reality.
Atheism or true believer, it's a guessing game either way. Two sides of the same coin. The question of why there is something (re: the universe itself) instead of nothing is the counter argument to wanting proof of any particular god. Considering ZFEL one argument for some type of base "intention" with the reality we all share, regardless of our beliefs or non-beliefs.
Atheism or true believer, it's a guessing game either way. Two sides of the same coin. The question of why there is something (re: the universe itself) instead of nothing is the counter argument to wanting proof of any particular god. Considering ZEFL one argument for some type of base "intention" with the reality we all share, regardless of our beliefs or non-beliefs.
Atheism or true believer, it's a guessing game either way. Two sides of the same coin. The question of why there something (re: the universe) instead of nothing is the counter argument to wanting proof of any particular god.
how would Ray Comfort debate a deist? deism destroy his argument of nothing creating everything. he is used to debating atheist so how would he debate a deist?
At best it'd be proof that this universe isn't eternal, it doesn't by default mean that any other meta universe that made this universe or any other made up explanation isn't. I say at best because we have insufficient understanding to even say that there was a time where this universe in some form didn't always exist.
Also if something is timeless it doesn't become immeasurable, what's with these leaps of logic?
It's both a part of the space-time continuum and a concept that we use to measure between a sequence of events.
I fail to see how this question addresses the problems of your flawed logic where something is changeless yet changed and eternally existed but doesn't suffer the same problems you accuse of infinite regression when you apply the term infinity to it. Not to mention the use of the false dichotomy.
As I stated before, as far as we can tell time is merely a component of space-time where the passage of it is dependent upon the warping of the space-time continuum or by the speed of the observer.
If you want to talk about the concept of time, it may be nonsensical to talk about anything before "time" if it came into existence with this universe.
As far as possible events for this universe who knows? We need a unified theory to have a chance at figuring that out.
Pointing out your logic is flawed doesn't mean I accept any current explanation to the universe. Pointing out that your explanation suffers from the exact same problem if you apply the terms in the exact same way doesn't mean I accept it either.
For all I know this universe is a result of another meta universe or just another iteration in a series of cyclical universes, it could be created by a God, a pantheon of gods or a pixie.
If you mean eternal as in "always existing" then it suffers from the same issue of waiting for an eternity before creating the universe, it suffers from the same problem as infinite regress if you continue to use the concept as a value.
"changeless"
If there is no change then there's no reason for the universe, change is required even in a claimed eternal being to want to do anything or things always stay the same.
No, more like pointing out that you have an outdated concept of time, Newton and people before Einstein (not hawking) where time is relative and a part of the space-time continuum. This concept has been tested and makes useful things with it's predictions. Time is a component of our universe.
Says a guy attempting to apply the ancient Newtonian understanding of time which is known to be wrong. The concept is enslaved to reality on the matter =P.
Also as stated before if you wanted to make up a creator to "fix" the problem of the infinite regress then he waited an eternity and is still waiting an eternity to create the universe because he always exist, it doesn't "fix" the problem at all.
Technically we don't know that this universe has a beginning, our current understanding stops at the big bang about how the universe has changed over time from a singularity state our understanding stops with something already existing.
Technically we also don't know that the universe has an end, if the big freeze is true then the universe will continue existing forever, if the big crunch is true then only this frame of the universe is finite
"There must be an eternal, changeless, timeless cause."
Why?
If it was eternal then it waited an infinite amount of time before creating the universe if you apply it as a value rather than a concept
If it's changeless then that makes change resulting in this universe impossible.
timeless would need to be defined, do you mean space-time continuum, if so wouldn't that apply to any universe that doesn't have a time component to it's existence or a previous form of this universe?
@Omnicron777 infinite regress? do not know what that is.
I do not agree however, time is just the label which we put on how long it's been since this and this. If time had a beginning that means there was once nothing, at least as far as I can tell, so considering the universe eternal would make sense but on the other hand that it's expanding implies it once started. Time is one of the hardest concepts to understand.
The caller seems well-meaning. I think he is just grappling with the conflict between his sense of reason and his sense of spiritual optimism.
Also, for anyone to say this is not transitional, that's like saying the caller does not have current thoughts. Only past and future thoughts. That's clearly an irrational assertion. One could argue that EVERY thought or belief is transitional, logically speaking. Deism might not be transitional by definition, but it's transitional for HIM.
In HIS case, it is. It's not a transitional state for every person. He's thinking strictly from a scientific perspective...not from a theological perspective. If you still believe that there's a good chance that God exists, then by all means, be a Deist...that's where I am.
There are a few reasons that believing something that is less than 50/50 likely to be true. At the time Einstein developed the theory of GR everyone thought that it was less likely than 50/50 to be true (or it seems very plausible that they did considering when he published his papers on one gave a shit.) So logic is one reason.
@wildreams Note that the key word is "conclude". Once you "conclude" something, without evidence, it IS the end of further intellectual discourse, by definition.
Even though I do not think "finding/proving God" is the most productive way a scientist should work or find solutions, I agree that at least in principle, you can try.
wildreams 3 weeks ago
Why believe something you think is less than 50% chance of it being true? Why not? Even if there is only 1% of it being true, and it makes you feel good, you believe in it. For example, aliens, aliens within our solar system, ancient civilizations that where never discovered (Alantis) etc. Even fairies, sea monsters and dragons etc. I don't think it is a bad thing to dream. There was no conclusive evidence that the Earth was round, but Columbus still tried to sail around the world.
wildreams 3 weeks ago
he believes it because he wants to be true.
NutNapalm 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistExperience RazorsharpLT has a good point about Logic. I would direct you to read Heidegger's "Introduction to Metaphysics" for an impressive treatise on the subject. Logic is simply a formal requirement. It is not, however, truth, and although it is a useful tool for determining truth, it is certainly not the only tool. No, some things go beyond logic, which is why the ancient Greek "Logos" had a much more robust meaning than "logic" does today. Creative thinking is stifled by "logic"
TheAndyChandy 1 month ago
@greco0994 not all athiests say they "know" there is no god...anyone who does is just as much a fool as those that say they "know" there is a god.
CotyKelly 1 month ago
4:00 I'm a deist. I was raised Catholic. I've thus put logic in front of faith and came to believe that there is a God who doesn't intervene. I believe that God gave us the tools we needed and let us run wild. Why do I believe that there is a God? Simply because I think that the creation of time space, literally everything, is a bit supernatural.
SpecTechHD 2 months ago
@SpecTechHD "I think that the creation of time space, literally everything, is a bit supernatural"
You dont understand, therefor god?
I am sure a god would look through such an argument.
MagnusNyborg 1 month ago
@MagnusNyborg No, I understand pretty well that without time, there is no cause and effect. Therefore, supernatural. It's not that I'm ignorant, it's just that there is no explanation (as of right now) for the natural creation of the universe .
SpecTechHD 1 month ago
@SpecTechHD well, noone knows (yet).
But there is atleast two possible solutions to the cause-and-effect problem at the start of time.
1. A first cause
2. No first cause needed due to no time existing
There may also be so far completely unknown reasons, and none of this would lead me to conclude there is a god at this point.
MagnusNyborg 1 month ago
@MagnusNyborg Once science confirms a cause, I will become an atheist. Until the, I'll remain a deist.
SpecTechHD 1 month ago
@SpecTechHD I would ask you if you believe that reality is what is contained in time and space; what we can observe. And if you believe that an entity is (or was at some point) outside of time and space wouldn't that make it not real? A respect for the beginning of our existence is one thing, but to point to a conclusion or definition with a non-realistic answer isn't logical. If I misspoke or am wrong feel free to correct me.
CotyKelly 1 month ago
@CotyKelly I believe that God isn't observable. Yes, he lives/lived in a realm outside of time and space, but that doesn't mean he's not real. Again, once science can confirm a more logical solution to the creation, I'll rethink my ways.
SpecTechHD 1 month ago
@SpecTechHD I guess my question is why is it important enough to believe in him that you feel it's necessary to debate it? Secondly, you're the one asserting something you yourself says is unobservable, so I would say you need to confirm a more logical explanation that "creation" happened. At the very least, both of them have the same likely-hood. One is not confirmable, since "the creator is unobservable," and the other is constantly criticizing itself in hopes of finding truth.
CotyKelly 1 month ago
@CotyKelly Humans can't perceive the 4th dimension. I suppose you think that is just made up nonsense as well?
SpecTechHD 1 month ago
@SpecTechHD I'm not read up on the subject enough to give an honest opinion, but what does it have to do with what I said or my question?
CotyKelly 1 month ago
@CotyKelly My point being that just because something is unobservable doesn't mean it's nonexistent.
SpecTechHD 1 month ago
@SpecTechHD even if that were true or relevant to reality, claiming something that is unobservable doesn't make it exist either. Unicorns can exist since you can't observe them... my point was why do you care or have a "need" for anything you can't perceive to exist?
CotyKelly 1 month ago
@CotyKelly I don't have a need for God... I just don't see the natural means of the world possible at the moment.
SpecTechHD 1 month ago
@SpecTechHD so why fill it it with a god(s) until you find out the answer?
CotyKelly 1 month ago
@CotyKelly I'm not filling my life with God... I'm merely offering it as a solution until someone proves how the universe was created.
I'm getting tired of replying to comments.
SpecTechHD 1 month ago
@SpecTechHD I didn't mean that you filled your life with god as much as I did your explanation of life. There are tons of other imaginable ways things "could have" worked out. It seems like you're either choosing that explanation for convenience or you want it to be true. Neither of which are giving your reasoning for believing it, which is why I was originally curious about your attitude towards this subject. You approach it looking for logic, but don't display that you're using any yourself.
CotyKelly 1 month ago
@SpecTechHD I thought the 4th dimension is supposed to be Time. Humans perceive Time. So, you're wrong? Or, what....?
TheAndyChandy 1 month ago
@TheAndyChandy Humans cannot at this moment fully perceive or see time.
SpecTechHD 1 month ago
@SpecTechHD Not true. We don't fully UNDERSTAND time. But we perceive it nonetheless. It took me time to respond to your post, and I felt it the whole time. That we are a being-in-time is an essential aspect of our being-human.
TheAndyChandy 1 month ago
@TheAndyChandy Then I challenge you to go back to the point in time when you commented. Humans can't interact with it.
SpecTechHD 1 month ago
@SpecTechHD You can observe time, especially in space via light-years with the concept that you can look at stars that don't exist anymore. Just because a manipulation of this dimension doesn't exist yet neither makes a god's existence anymore likely nor less likely for that matter. Pointing out that there are some things we don't know or haven't observed yet is mutually exclusive from claiming the unobservable to be known as existing.
CotyKelly 1 month ago
@SpecTechHD Hahahaha!!!!!! We can't travel back in time, good one!!!! We go forward in time steadily. And we perceive this "flow" of time. THEREFORE: You need to read Heidegger.
TheAndyChandy 1 month ago
I'm a deist. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
sunonthewindow 2 months ago
Deist believe in God simply by observing understanding natural surrounding. If you are born inside a closed cave and evolve with no sight you belive light do not exist and rule out the possibility of its existance simply because there is no way to prove it. But just outside the cave everything is full of life. Concept now turn to earth and the universe from infinite dimentions that we cannot see but know that exist. You may just put a Dot or find out more about Deism. =Stop overcutting our Trees
Pogi724 2 months ago
@Pogi724 Your logic is highly flawed dude. If you are born in a cave you would never have known light/life; it would never come to your mind of it existing until(if able) you left the cave (saw evidence). You're assuming a god exists in the analogy when you make him equal to light/life in the hypothetical. And lastly, we don't say that the universe is infinite because we can't see it. It's not an argument from ignorance like saying a God must exist since we can't see him nor explain some things.
CotyKelly 1 month ago
For those who view deism as a "kind of theism" (where theism simply means "belief in any kind of god"), then the caller's question makes sense.
But if by theism you specifically mean an interfering kind of god (a space monster entity, that has visited our planet and specifically humans, and is interested in our morality and sex life!), then a deist already _is_ an atheist. Because a deist _doesn't_ believe in such a space monster-style god. (This view varies from person to person, though.)
0debug 2 months ago
@0debug no the view doesn't (or shouldn't). The definition of theism is "Belief in the existence of a god or gods". Many definitions will include the "especially a belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures" as a classification of what a theists "belief" can be but not necessarily the Theist position if you see what i mean. Theist position is the first part.
CotyKelly 1 month ago
Change that any god exist is 0% or 1/infinite. Anyway 0% doesnt always mean totally impossible.
reddeadfinland 3 months ago
@greco0994 If Atheists don't believe in a God..why would they waste time wanting/trying to prove dat he doesn't exist??
RudeBoiAKaRudeRaVagE 3 months ago
@greco0994 I believe in invisible Pink Unicorns.
You don't believe they exist?
Go on then, prove it!
Yeah, I thought so.
Uberlaser 4 months ago
@RazorsharpLT so tools of science rule when they built the rollercoster but suck when they dont allow everything i want to be true? sure kid. reality, it bites. but you gotta deal with it. there is no god to save your ass when you fuck up. so its up to you. no agro reset.
gethsoftware 4 months ago
@gethsoftware
Really? Your post doesn't make sence, at all
how does my post relate to rollecoasters? Or anything you've said at all?
Try finding better arguments kid, i can copy paste my comment and explain every bit if you don't understand.
RazorsharpLT 4 months ago
@greco0994 when there is no angels pulling a cloud do you insist that angels are invisible? or do you pick the more obvius awnser. we can only suspect the things we know to happen. clouds move bechsoe of wind. and universe come in to being from point of singulairty. you cant insert something that you cant prove. that is why we dont blame demons when someone is murderd. this is why we search for natural anwsers to things, bechose those are the only kind that seeme to exist.
gethsoftware 4 months ago
@greco0994
Atheists have no need to prove there is a God though mate. The religious are making the claim that he/she/it exists, they are the ones that need to prove it. Atheists look at the evidence and the evidence doesn't show a God existing. I'm not saying he can't exist, I am just saying there is no evidence for him.
7gamex 4 months ago
@7gamex allso how do you prove the negative? where whuld i go search this thing? where did the theist last time see it? tecnicaly christianity is allready proven wrong. there is no kindom in heaven. allso if jesus rose to the heavens in the bible, where did he go? did he fly trough space? was he trying to reach the edge of space? or was he searchign a black hole? the story made sence only in the universe the christians belive in their time. earth was flat and the sky was firmament.
gethsoftware 4 months ago
@gethsoftware a universe that we know to be falce.
gethsoftware 4 months ago
@TheAtheistExperience *installs a belt for the car, stops it flying of the ferry*
gleehmee 4 months ago
Deism scares me because it's fucking wierd.
chrismstrshk 4 months ago
Atheist experience show is really a snare to fall into.... if the only way to discuss something is about proving something then one can only talk about consensus reality. If we are to discuss something of a philosophical nature then it isn't a consensus reality it is subjective reality and therefore from a subjective point of view, nothing can be proved as such. We juts talk about personal experiences and how we made sense of them.
o0POSH0o 4 months ago
@greco0994 and why would you talk to an atheist about god?
oldpiq 5 months ago
@greco0994 Why would you demand a prove of absence? If you claim presence - it's your job to prove it.
oldpiq 5 months ago
Comment removed
oldpiq 5 months ago
@greco0994
Are you serious?
matszz 5 months ago
You first need to define what God is before asking any other questions. When you know exactly what God is, only then can you argue whether God exists or not.
John: Do Axolotls exist?
Matt: Even though I do not know what Axolotls are, I can assure you they do not exist.
Ommok1000 5 months ago
@greco0994
- "im pretty sure its 50% sense neither side can prove anything"
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, because it's the other way around.
Theist: "I just know that my God is real!"
Atheist: "OK, so prove it."
Theist: "..." [sound of chirping crickets]
Atheist: "After more than 2000 years, that is all you have?!"
Besides that, the Bible is a work of fiction.
TheAtheistExperience 5 months ago 7
@TheAtheistExperience I would have to agree with you AND greco. personally it's a 50/50, and what you said works both ways. No one has been able to prove the existence of a god, but no one has been able to disprove it either. So logically, how can anyone say that they know?
bluesyrastapunkraver 2 months ago
@bluesyrastapunkraver
- "... it's a 50/50, and what you said works both ways."
No, it doesn't, because the chance that any particular god exists is not 50%. That's like saying that the chance to throw a 6 with dice must be 50% because "either you do or you don't". It just doesn't work that way.
- "So logically, how can anyone say that they know?"
At this point, nobody really knows anything about God, so the most logical standpoint is not to believe in any god until we actually know about one.
TheAtheistExperience 2 months ago
@TheAtheistExperience That's if you're looking at it from a religious stand point. Which, as I was a Deist just about a week ago, I was not particularly religious. I didn't care WHICH god existed, what I was saying is that there is a 50/50 chance that a god exists no matter what. Although that's all null and void for me, since I do consider myself an Atheist now. :p I attribute that to you guys, and this documentary called "Why I am no longer a Christian".
bluesyrastapunkraver 1 month ago
@bluesyrastapunkraver
- "I do consider myself an Atheist now. :p I attribute that to you guys"
Cool, but please don't capitalize "a-theist". It's not some religion! :)
- "and this documentary called 'Why I am no longer a Christian'."
... by Evid3nc3 ! Yes, that's a good series. It explains many things that some of the hosts of The Atheist Experience also found out. They just can't all explain all that in a 1-hour talk show, so if this show is your school, Evid3nc3's series is a good study book.
TheAtheistExperience 1 month ago
deism is actually closer to atheism than theism
gogolplex74 6 months ago
@gogolplex74 no it's not it's exactly what theism is.
CotyKelly 1 month ago
Or Buddhism
gogolplex74 6 months ago
Deism makes much more sense than atheism
gogolplex74 6 months ago 5
I don't know how to argue with the "but there has to be SOMETHING out there..!" kind of believer...
Protoman85 6 months ago
@timo86m
- "And I think he means 50 50 chance of god cuz of the question: Either there is a go or not. It is 50 50 yes or no."
Likewise, the chance to win the lottery is also 50/50: either you do or you don't, right? #LOL
TheAtheistExperience 6 months ago
@TheAtheistExperience Well even thieving Aholes that run the lottery have the decency to tell you there is a 1 in 80 chance you'll win 2 dollars :). The church dont tell you shit.
timo86m 6 months ago
I to agree that Deism for some people can be a transitional state to Atheism. I am a Deist and even though I believe in a high power I know that there is no guarantee that that higher power exists. So why do I believe in a higher power then? Because in my opinion a higher power is the best explanation for me. A deist still uses science, logic, and reasoning to understand how the world works.
MrSammy2014 6 months ago
@MrSammy2014
Sadly, anyone who studied quantum mecahincs are deist.
an anwser will just lead to more questions, face it, there is no end, if we figure out how all of the energy and mass concetrated in to one point before the big bang, another question will rise.
RazorsharpLT 6 months ago
@RazorsharpLT I definitely agree with you on that. some answers only lead us to more questions and make us become even more confused then we originally were. basically what I was trying to say in my original comment was that there is no guarantee that a creator exists. I do not care what happens to me when I die because death is a long way away. The only reason many people join a religion is because they are afraid of death. The best advice here would be to keep your mind open and enjoy life.
MrSammy2014 6 months ago
@MrSammy2014
By that argument, the only explanation for your god(s) is that it/they also originated from a higher power, which in turn originated from a higher power, etc. Unless, ofc, you make a special pleading for YOUR god-view, in which case your last line is untrue. Special pleading is NOT science, logic and reasoning. It falls back to the category of argument from ignorance, which Matt mentions too.
NOT gunning for you, just mentioning the consequences of your argument
tdjdk 6 months ago
@tdjdk The GOD Theory is a complicated and flawed theory. I do not believe in my own separate god that would be dumb. I was saying I THINK there is a higher power of some sort. I don't guarantee you or anyone else out there that I know for a fact there is a god. My ultimate answer to the question does or doesn't god exist my answer is I do not know. I think there is a possibility one of these religions are right but I DO NOT know if I am right or wrong. The existence of a god is a 50/50 chance.
MrSammy2014 6 months ago
@MrSammy2014
Well, then I claim that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe, I claim that fairies make blossoms bloom and I claim that there is no gravity, it's angels holding us down, or maybe intelligent falling.
No, the chance for the flying spaghetti monster, the unicorns or fairies is not 50/50.
Just because you cannot disprove something doesn't make it equally likely as there NOT being a pink unicorn, or an invisible dragon in my garage.
50/50? come on, you sound like a troll
tdjdk 6 months ago
@tdjdk Yea you can make those claims. You can say the flying spaghetti monster created the universe or that fairies exist. All i'm saying is that I THINK there is a God. Richard Dawkins once said it would be unwise for anyone to claim they know for a fact that there is or isn't a God or that fairies exist. Just because I believe there is a God does not mean I guarantee myself that I know for a fact there is one. Most atheists believe there is no god but they do not claim they know for a fact.
MrSammy2014 6 months ago
@MrSammy2014
Not to mention, it's not a scientific theory - at BEST it's a hypothesis, but since no facts have been presented to support your god-case, it can hardly even be called a hypothesis. So, no, there is no god-theory. Scientific Theories have falsifiable statements and extremely precise predicitions. Nothing like that can be said for god-myths
tdjdk 6 months ago
How do you determine the probability of something for which you have no evidence?
greyeyed123 7 months ago
Yeah, I was definitely an agnostic deist for a while (and also thought of reconsidered Christianity in form of liberal theology) but when I realized that I lacked reasons and evidence for belief of God that's when I decided to be an atheist; so deism for me was also a transitional state, although it does not need to be one for every deists.
philonous09 7 months ago
this isn't 1775 you assholes. you deists better start reading scripture instead of believing in pseudo atheist crap.
Z3EALOT 7 months ago
@Z3EALOT We no longer live in the Bronze Age. It's time You begin to critically examine the BUY BULL instead of choosing to remain willfully ignorant.
tranquility4all 7 months ago
How can anyone be anti-christ? What was so bad about historic Jesus? He subverted some of his countrymen to put down their fishing poles and follow him around for a few years? Did the employers of the day then encounter a lull in the supply of cheap labor because of him? He was a smart-ass who needed a cap popped in his ass? He went around drinking everyone's wine and not paying for it? I don't get it. XD
mknomad5 7 months ago
Too bad you can't come up with a rational definition for God. Just wondering, does the simulation hypothesis have you atheists quaking in your boots? It should.
mknomad5 7 months ago
Here is how atheism comes (in most cases):
Fundamentalism (Belief that a religion is truth, w/o fault)>Semi-New Age Christianity (or what ever religion believed) (Mixture of New Agish religion) > New Age / Occult > Irreligious/Deism > Weak Atheism > Strong Atheism > Secular Humanism and Strong Atheism. We must help out the Deist (and all those who are necessary for the transition to Atheism), they are helping with building future Atheist, so keep it up Deist.
KevZen2000 7 months ago
I was a Christian, then I was a Christian and finally I became a Christian. What a wonderfull development :)
royalsteven 8 months ago
Wow. It's nice to hear a caller and the hosts calmly and politely, yet firmly, disagreeing.
d00df00d 8 months ago
I disagree with the statement "If he existed [a God that created the universe but does not interfere], so what? He's not relevant". If such a being existed, it would be in our best interest to determine who it was, how they did it, etc. I find it hard to belief someone of a scientific mind would not want to search for the answers to these questions.
JasonHouston77 8 months ago
I try to be a rational thinker, but I would still consider myself more Deist than Atheist. However, my belief isn't in God as defined by society. It is in intelligent design. My belief in ID is more than 50%, and Deism's core belief is that a design suggests a designer, so I feel that better describes me. I feel this is more important to me than my <50% belief in God, since God is something I find difficult to define. And I feel I reached this conclusion through rational thought.
JasonHouston77 8 months ago
I'd say I am a pantheist, in that I believe 'God' is merely the numerous forces that work together to keep the universe in motion.
PepsiGolem 8 months ago
I left my church as an agnostic, an agnostic scared of pissing off god and of being too much of an antichrist. A year an a half later and I am now completely through with the asshole christian god and consider myself a deist because of reality/consciousness, and am just waiting to get over that and become an atheist.
Daghead 8 months ago
@Daghead
I liked your comments. But it is not like "waiting to get over it". Most believers believe because they need to believe, and not because they want to. Maybe you need to believe that some supernatural inexplicable being did create the whole universe, just to explain what science can't (yet). And no mather what happens, there will always be skeptics about science development, because this "need" is part of human nature, just because we are rational beings.
flavioavmello 7 months ago
The question that started me on the journey to being an Atheist is... If "God" is a perfect being, no faults, flaws, needs, wants....."Perfect"...Why would a "Perfect God" need or require worship ? ego ? And here is another, If "God" wrote a book. Would there be a need to "interpret" what it means ? Wouldn't such a book be perfectly clear to anyone who read it ? A "perfect" book. So far all that has ever been written is by "men" claiming to speak for this invisible "God" poorly I might add.
odiewan58 9 months ago 2
@odiewan58 amen
rock2metal666 8 months ago
It was for me. I seem to recall Matt likening deism to Linus from Peanuts's blanket. It took me a while to admit that I didn't really believe, it was just a comfort thing that I used and I was a bit afraid of the atheist label, but hell, I'm already bisexual, might as well come out as an atheist too.
AhiruXFakir 9 months ago
I was a Christian, then a Deist, then a Pantheist, then an atheist.
The path to logic..it is a wonderful transition.
qadry15 9 months ago
mormon, questioning mormon, dieist, atheist
lonewolfM16 10 months ago
Atheists hate Deists, I love it and yes I am a Deist.
khasseki 10 months ago 4
@khasseki I don't hate Deists, nor do I know any other Atheists who do...
cruelzeppelin666 10 months ago
@cruelzeppelin666
Why would I hate a Deist? You're not going around proclaiming everyone is going to burn forever for sin that they never had anything to do with and that the only thing that can save them is believing in your god in the face of evidence to the contrary. Especially when a majority of the things in your holy book simply never happened.
So why would I hate some one that just says "Yeah, I believe there's a God out there somewhere, he just doesn't interfere with the universe".
carom1 10 months ago
@khasseki no we dont i and several other atheists i know essentially take the postion yes you are so close nice job throwing away those fairy tales still a little off but your beliefs are more rational than most people who belive in gods and not really harmful in any obvious way
lonewolfM16 10 months ago
@khasseki I don't know of any atheists that hate deists, I am one myself. I only have problems with religious people because they like to force their views on me, deists on the other hand are usually very rational people who I can have an intellectual conversation with without facepalming XP
xYNewZealandRulzXy 10 months ago
I was deist when I was about 12. Definitely a transitional phase to atheism for me.
punkonater 11 months ago 16
Something that has be lost with the waning of Deism is the argument that the existence of a Creator is a separate question to whether any of the ideas of god that humans worship as god has ANYTHING to do with the creator of the universe. In other words, all the gods in organised religion are cultural inventions, invented by man, and have nothing to do with the creator of the universe. Whether there is such a creator is a separate question. The god's of organised religion are so provincial.
qspacetemp 11 months ago
Something that has be lost with the waning of Deism is the argument that the existence of God is a separate question to whether any of the ideas of God that humans worship as God has ANYTHING to do with the creator of the universe. In other words, all the gods in organised religion are cultural inventions, invented by man, and have nothing to do with the creator of the universe. Whether there is such a creator is a separate question. The god's of organised religion are so provincial.
qspacetemp 11 months ago
Something that has be lost with the waning of Deism is the argument that the existence of God is a separate question to whether any of the ideas of God that humans worship as God has ANYTHING to do with the creator of the universe. In other words, all the gods in organised religion are cultural inventions, invented by man, and have nothing to do with the creator of the universe. Whether there is such a creator is a separate question. The god's on organised religion are so provincial.
qspacetemp 11 months ago
I was a Catholic, then a non-religious Theist, then a deist, and now I'm an atheist.
So it is rather transitional.
berniebay 1 year ago
@berniebay Mine was Catholic, non denominational Christian, sorta pantheist, atheist. There's definitely a progression from dogmatic to purely rational.
93tomb 1 year ago
@93tomb
I thought about becoming a pantheist at some point.
But, then I realized that one does not need to see the universe as a god just to be in awe of the amazing-ness of it.
berniebay 1 year ago 10
I'm a deist,why ? The only think i believe in is that "someone" who's called God by religious people created universe,its like because if there was not a guy called "god" there would not be many things like we have today ... But I dont fuckin believe in GOD (jesus,Allah bla bla) thats bullshit,can anyone proove that god exists ? i'm not joking can u guys prove it ? NO U CANT,i dont wanna have illusions ...
GTAIVEliteGamer 1 year ago
@GTAIVEliteGamer man whole this reality is a big illusion,you are already in illusion.its depending on your perception.The biblical version of god is methaphorical and incorect,and masonic orders put that version to divide people.If you ask me what is god,for me god is some creative force that started big bang,or create universe,again god is beyond words,good and evil,beyond space and time.we humans are limited to 3d reality and consciousness.but masons are set this system and all bad stuff
MrGlape 1 year ago
Oh STFU and get a life you gossipy bunch of old women.
sickofcommies 1 year ago
I'd say this expert "thinker" puts the "Mind of God" issue into a great deistic context. See this web page: bigthink.com/ideas/24868. Atheists see no causation, while deists see a creative intent. Either way, it is what it is. No "belief" required one way or another to live in our shared reality.
vesmir92505 1 year ago
@vesmir92505 Let me rephrase it. Theists have failed to convince me that a god exists. Therefore, I cannot accept the claim which makes me an atheist. I believe that there is no possible way to prove that a god does not exist, as you can define god in such a way that that becomes impossible. Therefore I don't know that god does not exist. This makes me an agnostic atheist.
sharkjack 1 year ago
@sharkjack That makes more sense as a true atheist rejects the concept of god altogether. We both see nature as nature. But you and I could look at the same issue (ZFEL for instance) and I would see the inference of creative intent/design, while you would not. Not that it matters - if we were all suppose to know exactly what to believe and how, we'd all know for sure without any question.
vesmir92505 1 year ago
@vesmir92505 I'm a little confused about your position on intelligent design because you said earlier: "Deists merely carry the idea that there is a causality to the universe"
Are you saying that the the universe has existed over 10 billion years and life formed on earth purely as chemicals and energy acting according to the laws of nature without any interference, but that this universe was created by something that caused these laws to be this way?
Or did the causality interfere to form life?
sharkjack 1 year ago
@sharkjack Define "interference." Nature itself has rules that were somehow "designed" to operate a certain way... whether we're talking specifics like gravity or applying physics in general. As I stated earlier, nature's randomness and (for me especially) ZFEL are a prime qualities in deist thought. So the "interference" (laws of nature) from my perspective has always been present.
vesmir92505 1 year ago
@vesmir92505 ah you said inference, not interference. It seems I don't really need to define interference as you've answered the question. just fine. Your causality is one that has no effect on the current world (it can't be convinced by prayer) ZFEL is the zero force evolutionary law right, that even without a force to pushing it diversity will increase in a hereditary system? I might very well be misrepresenting this, if so please correct the viewpoint and answer what it has to do with deism?
sharkjack 1 year ago
@sharkjack Serving nature's tendency toward complexity, ZFEL, more than anything else to me, implies a creative intent.
vesmir92505 1 year ago
@vesmir92505 nature's tendency is actually towards breaking down and chaos, called entropy. The only reason life can exist on the planet in such a complex form is because the sun keeps bombarding us with energy. This is also a force in creating mutations, another is chemical reactions being chance events
Anyway diversity of life comes from a fundemental lack of homogenity of the environment, and the mistakes in copying heritable structures that can make it more suited for a different environment
sharkjack 1 year ago
@sharkjack Entropy exists, yes. But I find it extraordinarily amusing that you are actually promoting a position that creationists typically point to as an argument AGAINST the reality of evolution (entropy, along with the 2nd law of thermodynamics). You also aren't accurately accounting for the ZFEL dynamic, which further validates the reality of more complex biological systems despite these forces working against it. You simply added exampled support to my randomness and complexity stance.
vesmir92505 1 year ago
@vesmir92505 Entropy is not an argument against evolution, as we have a sun bombarding us with energy. However you could go back and say where did the sun come from and how did it get to have energy. To be honest, I don't have the answer. I don't know enough about the big bang theory to provide a satisfying exlplanation and I doubt anyone exists who does, but that give you no right to imply intelligence.
If I didn't represent ZFEL correctly, please submit a more accurate description
sharkjack 1 year ago
@sharkjack Yes, entropy is strongly argued as a point against evolution, and evolution actually works against entropy in the generational breakdown of the genome. Entropy is one of the more recent ones points of contention used by creationists, all the while following your points on equilibrium and breakdown as it relates to genetics.
vesmir92505 1 year ago
@vesmir92505 and if life on earth was in a closed system, it would eventually vanish. But because there is an open system the effects of entropy are countered by energy income. On the molecular level, where entropy most directly plays into biology, there is indeed very little diversity. We use the same pathways to digesting glucose as bacteria. Some minor differences are present in the enzymes performing the reactions, but they function the same way and have largely identical protein domains.
sharkjack 1 year ago
@sharkjack See my other responses, I posted without replying directly to your last note. Also, your example of digestive processes speaks volumes about larger systems having a higher/more complex "design" that incorporates and evolves from primitive ones. It's difficult for a deist to see that capability/adaptability as being merely accidental. Regardless, atheist, deist, theist - just doesn't matter - belief or non-belief isn't required either way to exist in our commonly shared reality!
vesmir92505 1 year ago
@vesmir92505 On the higher levels entropy exerts practically no pressure, it's the environment that becomes the thing to adapt to. Replication also uses up resources which gives organisms an effect on each other, which really gets the ball rolling for evolution. I view us as an accident only in the sense that nobody created us with a purpose in mind for us. If even exists. Maybe for the universe as a whole, but not us in particular. If we want a purpose in life, we have to create our own.
sharkjack 1 year ago
@sharkjack Yes...as you put it...IF earth was a closed system, but it's not. Entropy as any discussion to counter complexity in nature is largely a non-starter. Not to mention, applying ZFEL, even within an isolated system, spontaneous diversity would still occur. Complexity appears to be a "designed" principle of nature with as much, if not more, influence as any other.
vesmir92505 1 year ago
As I think I've made clear in my previous posts...no, deism is NOT a transitional state.
vesmir92505 1 year ago
I already tought a lot about deism and atheism, then I got a simple idea:
When I'm wanting to think, I'm atheist.
When I'm over thinking, or just too tired, I'm deist.
Because actually, for me, doesn't matter how someone difines himself, but what he really does, how he acts, what/how he thinks about life, moral, other people, the world on it's own...
Because, after all, his beliefs wont change what really happens.
Well, just what I think. =)
SweetLittleLala 1 year ago
I hear this definition of a Deistic God a lot. Why is it necessary to think that God made the universe and left or abandoned it. In fact why is it necessary for a God to have interaction with you(one of 8 billion people) or present himself to the six senses? Doesn't anyone realize that the framework was established by "revealed" religions. Just because they put God in that framework it must be absolutely necessary to interact or see miracles or for "heaven" to exist?
metahelix 1 year ago
@metahelix True deists, following a logic based rationale, acknowledge the POSSIBLE inference of a creative intent (in its simplest form: why is there something instead of nothing). Today's deists, if applying sound logic, don't adhere to any sort of approach in doctrine or belief system beyond acknowledging what atheists also acknowledge, that nature is what it is, plus seeing a possible creative source. Nature's randomness and tendency toward complexity are prime qualities in deist thought.
vesmir92505 1 year ago
Deists merely carry the idea that there is a causality to the universe. Atheists are very akin to theists - the flip side of the same coin. Dogma vs. no causality. Deists simply ask: why is there something instead of nothing, acknowledging the likelihood of a causal source to the universe and its operational parameters. We don't play guessing games beyond what nature and science show us as reality.
vesmir92505 1 year ago
@vesmir92505 I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I asume your definition of atheism is: the belief that there is no god. I disagree. My definition of atheism is: the rejection of the claim that god exists. Theists claim there is a god. Atheists find that there is no evidence for this claim and therefore don't accept the claim as true. Therefore we don't believe. There is another claim, that god does not exist (or no gods exist). You could call it antitheism or strong atheism
sharkjack 1 year ago
theres the big bang theory, everything came from a single point, but that is impossible without time standing still because obviously the chemical mixture that is the universe is insustainable at a single point
exidence: the big bang.
Now what force started time? it cant have always existed for reasons i stated earlier.
CoolParkourName 1 year ago
Here's a hint for Nathan, not to seem mean: By asking if Deism is a transitional state, you admit you know very little about Deism. To me, Nathan sounds more like an agnostic. If he was a true Deist, he'd know that the stance is: God exists. Now lets learn about science. Yeesh, a fifty fifty chance that God exists? That statement alone tells me that Nathan is not a true Deist.
fowlkesbrian 1 year ago
Wow. Talk about a complete failure of a Deist. That was the weakest arguement for Deism I can think of. I can appreciate the appeal to Atheists, because of the shared appreciation of reason and logic. And I like Nathan's observation that Deists and Atheists are very alike. But seriously, why ask someone their opinion on reality? Yes, living forms evolve based on necessity and benefit. Who asks that? Does Nathan want a banana sticker on his grovelment or something?
fowlkesbrian 1 year ago
You gotta love Jeff's eyebrows xD
Darthmas2242 1 year ago
@Darthmas2242 LOL they're pretty great, huh?
jippzmcghee 1 year ago
@jippzmcghee Seriously, he beats me in the eyebrows department. And I've been called Brow Bush xD
Darthmas2242 1 year ago
I love this show. It's taught me so much
anzwertree 1 year ago
I'm just one person but for me, it was the other way around, Atheism was my transition from Christianity into Agnosticish Deism. (I dislike labeling myself a Deist, too specific, but it's close.)
Fwiw, I think as a Deist, you should live your life as most Atheists describe, after all, we *are* humans and we currently live in a world with imperfect knowledge about our origin.
So whatever you're speculation is about the nature of the origin of the universe, it's important to embrace reality.
ichoiboy 1 year ago
Atheism or true believer, it's a guessing game either way. Two sides of the same coin. The question of why there is something (re: the universe itself) instead of nothing is the counter argument to wanting proof of any particular god. Considering ZFEL one argument for some type of base "intention" with the reality we all share, regardless of our beliefs or non-beliefs.
vesmir92505 1 year ago
Atheism or true believer, it's a guessing game either way. Two sides of the same coin. The question of why there is something (re: the universe itself) instead of nothing is the counter argument to wanting proof of any particular god. Considering ZEFL one argument for some type of base "intention" with the reality we all share, regardless of our beliefs or non-beliefs.
vesmir92505 1 year ago
Atheism or true believer, it's a guessing game either way. Two sides of the same coin. The question of why there something (re: the universe) instead of nothing is the counter argument to wanting proof of any particular god.
vesmir92505 1 year ago
how would Ray Comfort debate a deist? deism destroy his argument of nothing creating everything. he is used to debating atheist so how would he debate a deist?
LogicalThinker667 1 year ago
@LogicalThinker667
Well, first he needs a banana....
Phage0070 1 year ago
@Omnicron777
"Time is proof the universe is not eternal."
At best it'd be proof that this universe isn't eternal, it doesn't by default mean that any other meta universe that made this universe or any other made up explanation isn't. I say at best because we have insufficient understanding to even say that there was a time where this universe in some form didn't always exist.
Also if something is timeless it doesn't become immeasurable, what's with these leaps of logic?
garith21 1 year ago
@Omnicron777
It's both a part of the space-time continuum and a concept that we use to measure between a sequence of events.
I fail to see how this question addresses the problems of your flawed logic where something is changeless yet changed and eternally existed but doesn't suffer the same problems you accuse of infinite regression when you apply the term infinity to it. Not to mention the use of the false dichotomy.
garith21 1 year ago
@Omnicron777
As I stated before, as far as we can tell time is merely a component of space-time where the passage of it is dependent upon the warping of the space-time continuum or by the speed of the observer.
If you want to talk about the concept of time, it may be nonsensical to talk about anything before "time" if it came into existence with this universe.
As far as possible events for this universe who knows? We need a unified theory to have a chance at figuring that out.
garith21 1 year ago
@Omnicron777
"so you admit you beleive in infinite regress?"
Pointing out your logic is flawed doesn't mean I accept any current explanation to the universe. Pointing out that your explanation suffers from the exact same problem if you apply the terms in the exact same way doesn't mean I accept it either.
For all I know this universe is a result of another meta universe or just another iteration in a series of cyclical universes, it could be created by a God, a pantheon of gods or a pixie.
garith21 1 year ago
@Omnicron777
"timeless"
If you mean eternal as in "always existing" then it suffers from the same issue of waiting for an eternity before creating the universe, it suffers from the same problem as infinite regress if you continue to use the concept as a value.
"changeless"
If there is no change then there's no reason for the universe, change is required even in a claimed eternal being to want to do anything or things always stay the same.
garith21 1 year ago
@Omnicron777
"LMAO APPEAL TO AGE"
No, more like pointing out that you have an outdated concept of time, Newton and people before Einstein (not hawking) where time is relative and a part of the space-time continuum. This concept has been tested and makes useful things with it's predictions. Time is a component of our universe.
garith21 1 year ago
@Omnicron777
Says a guy attempting to apply the ancient Newtonian understanding of time which is known to be wrong. The concept is enslaved to reality on the matter =P.
Also as stated before if you wanted to make up a creator to "fix" the problem of the infinite regress then he waited an eternity and is still waiting an eternity to create the universe because he always exist, it doesn't "fix" the problem at all.
garith21 1 year ago
@Omnicron777
Technically we don't know that this universe has a beginning, our current understanding stops at the big bang about how the universe has changed over time from a singularity state our understanding stops with something already existing.
Technically we also don't know that the universe has an end, if the big freeze is true then the universe will continue existing forever, if the big crunch is true then only this frame of the universe is finite
garith21 1 year ago
@Omnicron777
"There must be an eternal, changeless, timeless cause."
Why?
If it was eternal then it waited an infinite amount of time before creating the universe if you apply it as a value rather than a concept
If it's changeless then that makes change resulting in this universe impossible.
timeless would need to be defined, do you mean space-time continuum, if so wouldn't that apply to any universe that doesn't have a time component to it's existence or a previous form of this universe?
garith21 1 year ago
@Omnicron777 infinite regress? do not know what that is.
I do not agree however, time is just the label which we put on how long it's been since this and this. If time had a beginning that means there was once nothing, at least as far as I can tell, so considering the universe eternal would make sense but on the other hand that it's expanding implies it once started. Time is one of the hardest concepts to understand.
xxRockst4r 1 year ago
@Omnicron777 then how is deism more rational? x)
xxRockst4r 1 year ago
@Omnicron777 no it's not because there's no evidence for it while atheism would be the default position "not believing due to lack of evidence".
xxRockst4r 1 year ago
it was transitional state for me, first i was a roman catholic, then i was a deist and then i was atheist.
nataq01 1 year ago
all Christians wank into there momma's socks....FACT!
100peppard 1 year ago
@Omnicron777 lol wut? Well now that you've told us I suppose we can stop arguing.
dan7564 1 year ago
Interestingly enough, many Atheists become Deists. So in a sense Deism is a transition for both sides.
A perfect example of this is Antony Flew who born in 1923 didn't come to the conclusion that he was a Deist until 2004.
mbanderson83 1 year ago
Interestingly enough, many Atheists become Deists. So in a sense Deism is a transition for both sides.
A perfect example of this is Antony Flew who born in 1928 didn't come to the conclusion that he was a Deist until 2004.
mbanderson83 1 year ago
The caller seems well-meaning. I think he is just grappling with the conflict between his sense of reason and his sense of spiritual optimism.
Also, for anyone to say this is not transitional, that's like saying the caller does not have current thoughts. Only past and future thoughts. That's clearly an irrational assertion. One could argue that EVERY thought or belief is transitional, logically speaking. Deism might not be transitional by definition, but it's transitional for HIM.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
agnosticism sunds more transitional to me.
BeamSurfer 1 year ago
For a good friend of mine Deism has been a transitional state from Atheism to Christianity.
You see, it works in the other direction as well.
Gronkor 1 year ago
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ITS NOT A Transitional State
pliskin543 1 year ago
@pliskin543 thank you for being smart.
ScaryKid1015 1 year ago
@ScaryKid1015 lol
pliskin543 1 year ago
@pliskin543
In HIS case, it is. It's not a transitional state for every person. He's thinking strictly from a scientific perspective...not from a theological perspective. If you still believe that there's a good chance that God exists, then by all means, be a Deist...that's where I am.
FrizzKid05 1 year ago
There are a few reasons that believing something that is less than 50/50 likely to be true. At the time Einstein developed the theory of GR everyone thought that it was less likely than 50/50 to be true (or it seems very plausible that they did considering when he published his papers on one gave a shit.) So logic is one reason.
sulthus 1 year ago
What a likeable man!
Yahntia 1 year ago