Are you a Deist?

[disappoint]

Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge. Deism gained prominence in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment—especially in Britain, France, Germany and America—among intellectuals raised as Christians who believed in one god, but found fault with organized religion and could not believe in supernatural events such as miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity.
Deism is derived from deus, the Latin word for god...

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

So are you a Deist?

 

[BoomerD]

Not really

I have problems with some of the following:

If God exists, where was he before he created the universe?
WHERE did he create the universe?
If God is all-powerful, why would he want us to worship him?

Then again, I have much the same problems with "the big bang theory."
Where did the explosion happen?
What was there before the explosion?
What exploded?
Where did all that material come from?

I know science has its theories about the origin of the universe...but none of it really answers those questions.

 

[disappoint]

You've got a lot of questions there. My answers are in bold.

Not really

I have problems with some of the following:

If God exists, where was he before he created the universe?
There is a branch of Deism called Pandeism. Pandeism holds that God was a conscious and sentient force or entity that designed and created the universe, which operates by mechanisms set forth in the creation. God thus became an unconscious and nonresponsive being by becoming the universe. Other than this distinction (and the possibility that the universe will one day return to the state of being God), pandeistic beliefs are deistic.

WHERE did he create the universe?
As far as we know there is no "outside of the universe" The universe is all there is and will ever be.
If God is all-powerful, why would he want us to worship him?
That depends what you mean by worship. If you mean be more like God and love mankind and wish it no harm, and wish it to progress into a more Godlike state through increasing knowledge (move toward omniscience rather than away from it) then you can see he would want this for the betterment of mankind.

Then again, I have much the same problems with "the big bang theory."
Where did the explosion happen?
The big bang is an expansion of spacetime itself not an explosion is space.
What was there before the explosion?
There is nothing before the expansion of spacetime.
What exploded?
The parts of the universe unbounded by gravity are expanding.
Where did all that material come from?
All the material in the universe started out as a singularity. It did not originate from anywhere else.
I know science has its theories about the origin of the universe...but none of it really answers those questions.
Science answers many questions and makes many predictions and is constantly changing, evolving and answering more questions everyday. It is a worthwhile endeavor to undertake and learn more so than even Religion in my opinion.

Some of my answers are based on science, some are not science but philosophy.

 

[BoomerD]

You've got a lot of questions there. My answers are in bold.



Some of my answers are based on science, some are not science but philosophy.

See? The answers don't answer the questions...especially since, at best, they're all theories...or mythology.

 

[disappoint]

See? The answers don't answer the questions...especially since, at best, they're all theories...or mythology.

Actually, at best, they are scientific theories based on observations and evidence. Example: The Big Bang down to 10^-43 seconds. That is a decimal point followed by 43 zeros and ending with a 1.
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds

At worst, they are philosophical viewpoints as espoused by a poster with both a science and theological interest with some decent critical thinking skills.

Einstein famously wrote: "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind"

You don't want to be lame or blind do you?

 

[IronWing]

No. I'm an agnostic with strong atheist and animist sympathies tending toward animism. I see no value to creating a god but animism is just plain fun.

 

[disappoint]

No. I'm an agnostic with strong atheist and animist sympathies tending toward animism. I see no value to creating a god but animism is just plain fun.

Animism (from Latin animus, -i "soul, life")[1] is the religious worldview that natural physical entities—including animals, plants, and often even inanimate objects or phenomena—possess a spiritual essence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism#cite_note-Harvey-2

So you tend to believe inanimate objects have a spiritual essence? Whatever floats your boat. I suppose boats wouldn't float without virtual particles. And neither would you nor your thoughts.

 

[sandorski]

See? The answers don't answer the questions...especially since, at best, they're all theories...or mythology.

Theories are nothing like Mythology.

 

[reallyscrued]

Einstein famously wrote: "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind"

You don't want to be lame or blind do you?

What's Einstein got to do with anything?

Is this thread's purpose to gauge how many forum members are Deists or is its purpose to convince people to become Deists?

 

[Scotteq]

Cease and Deist?

 

[disappoint]

What's Einstein got to do with anything?

Is this thread's purpose to gauge how many forum members are Deists or is its purpose to convince people to become Deists?

He was an expert in his field?

This thread's purpose is to discuss Deism, and to get people to think. Think about their own beliefs, even the nature of reality itself. An expert in the field of physics seems appropriate to the discussion.

 

[Printer Bandit]

thiest

 

[homercles337]

Einstein famously wrote: "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind"

You don't want to be lame or blind do you?

A more recent letter has Einstein saying this:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

 

[lxskllr]

You've got a lot of questions there. My answers are in bold.



Some of my answers are based on science, some are not science but philosophy.

I have a problem with your universe description. I think the universe is one of many, and there's some evidence that points to that conclusion. Therefore, the material used to make the universe could have come from accretion of cosmic soup.

 

[disappoint]

A more recent letter has Einstein saying this:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Ah, now we're really getting to the meat of the sandwich of the human experience.

Without revealing whether I agree with that quote I will say this with the assumption that that quote is correct and that there is no creator: Some people are not ready to reject the notion of a creator. If you lead off with calling them childish, weak and primitive you risk putting them off by insulting them and they may remain in the dark for much longer.

If your goal is to enlighten people to the truth as you see it, you do yourself and your reader a disservice by insulting them right off the bat. Perhaps at any point really.

 

[disappoint]

I have a problem with your universe description. I think the universe is one of many, and there's some evidence that points to that conclusion. Therefore, the material used to make the universe could have come from accretion of cosmic soup.

I would like to see the evidence. My guess is I may already have heard of it, but I hold out hope you might surprise me with something I haven't read yet.

 

[lxskllr]

I would like to see the evidence. My guess is I may already have heard of it, but I hold out hope you might surprise me with something I haven't read yet.

I'm not even an amateur as far as astronomy goes, but I read the occasional light story, usually on Ars. What I'm thinking of specifically is a story that noted evidence of "bruising" on the outside of the universe, as though it collided with something else.

My multiverse hypothesis is little more than religious belief. IOW, the evidence isn't especially strong, but it "feels" right to me. I think it'll eventually pan out, but I suppose time will tell. Of course, that doesn't settle the god problem. That just pushes it farther out than it is currently. Who created the multiverse? I think it just is. There doesn't have to be a god, unless you take a philosophical stance that the... Everything, whatever that entails always was, and always will be; the "god" if you will. The everything that stuff is made of, and is a part of everything. I'm not especially philosophical, so I'm happy with the answer that everything was always here, with no creator :^D

 

[sandorski]

Ah, now we're really getting to the meat of the sandwich of the human experience.

Without revealing whether I agree with that quote I will say this with the assumption that that quote is correct and that there is no creator: Some people are not ready to reject the notion of a creator. If you lead off with calling them childish, weak and primitive you risk putting them off by insulting them and they may remain in the dark for much longer.

If your goal is to enlighten people to the truth as you see it, you do yourself and your reader a disservice by insulting them right off the bat. Perhaps at any point really.

Except that's not what the statement does. The Idea(s) are being insulted, not the People holding those ideas.

 

[disappoint]

I'm not even an amateur as far as astronomy goes, but I read the occasional light story, usually on Ars. What I'm thinking of specifically is a story that noted evidence of "bruising" on the outside of the universe, as though it collided with something else.

Despite going against popular science, I'm going to submit why I reject the hypothesis of "bruising" as evidence of multiverse collisions. I am familiar with WMAP's picture of the CMB radiation and the different colored regions in that picture depict very small differences in radiation intensity. I would think a collision with another universe should show up as a more intense change in the CMB rather than such a small difference to the background.

 

[disappoint]

Except that's not what the statement does. The Idea(s) are being insulted, not the People holding those ideas.

Except you cannot insult ideas. They have no feelings.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Deists are atheists without the courage of their convictions. They don't believe in any particular god, but they want to keep open the possibility of an afterlife, so they delude themselves into believing in some generic unnamed god.

 

[SlitheryDee]

No. The way deists seem to view God is as an entity that is there, but doesn't do anything. If he doesn't do anything, then he doesn't need to be there to explain anything we see in the universe. If that's true, then why postulate his existence in the first place?

 

[chalmers]

more annoying religion threads...sweet


Posted from Anandtech.com App for Android

 

[HeXen]

No. The way deists seem to view God is as an entity that is there, but doesn't do anything. If it doesn't do anything, then it doesn't need to be there to explain anything we see in the universe. If that's true, then why postulate it's existence in the first place?

fixed. If God has a dick, then there must be a second God that is female which therefore has the purpose of having children.

 

[SlitheryDee]

fixed. If God has a dick, then there must be a second God that is female which therefore has the purpose of having children.

Unless I'm talking about a specific other God, I'm always talking about the Christian God. The Christian God is aggressively male in temperament, if not necessarily in physiology. Deists often reject the bible though, so they might have something to say about that. Strange thing is that many Deists simultaneously consider themselves to be a pure form of Christian. I wonder how they reconcile that?