Are you a Deist?

[sandorski]

Except you cannot insult ideas. They have no feelings.

True, so why the fuss?

 

[Annisman*]

I don't find myself needing to explain where God came from, or how/why he acts or his desire for us to worship Him. I can believe in something quite unexplainable, just like some people believed and understood what gravity was and how it acted long before it was explained scientifically.

If you can't get yourself to think like this, it will be hard to ever believe in the Christian God.


Then again, anybody who believes in something like the big bang and rejects God entirely probably needs to re-examine their motive for being able to convince themselves of one thing and deny the possibility of the other.

 

[disappoint]

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?

They claim Christianity has been corrupted for the purposes of power and money, and that the original intent of Christianity before all the corruption was to understand the nature of God which they believe in.

 

[disappoint]

True, so why the fuss?

No fuss,
just something to discuss,
if you are so inclined,
You are welcome here to share your mind.

Sounds poetic, doesn't it?

 

[lxskllr]

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.

Perhaps... The idea of a universe existing in nothing really bothers me. Nothing is something, even if that something is empty space(nothing? :^D ). The multiverse hypothesis fixes that, and adds "stuff" around the outside of our something.

As I said, it's more a religious belief than fact based, but I think that's the way things will pan out. It doesn't matter what I think anyway. It doesn't affect my daily life, and only serves to entertain me when bored. I just wish I could live to see whether I was right or wrong. I think the stuff around us will prove to be more amazing than we can currently conceive.

 

[sandorski]

No fuss,
just something to discuss,
if you are so inclined,
You are welcome here to share your mind.

Sounds poetic, doesn't it?

Haikuish

 

[SlitheryDee]

Then again, anybody who believes in something like the big bang and rejects God entirely probably needs to re-examine their motive for being able to convince themselves of one thing and deny the possibility of the other.

No one has to deny the possibility of either one. I simply formed and opinion based on what seems most likely given what I know. So I have allowed for the possibility of God's existence, even though I think it's unlikely. Would you meet me halfway and allow for the possibility that God may not exist? It would be asking no more than what you seem to expect of everyone else.

 

[disappoint]

Perhaps... The idea of a universe existing in nothing really bothers me. Nothing is something, even if that something is empty space(nothing? :^D ). The multiverse hypothesis fixes that, and adds "stuff" around the outside of our something.

I don't see how it fixes anything. It just adds another layer to the model. Then you have to explain what surrounds that other layer, and you end up in an endless loop of layers explaining the ones inside of it.

The way I view the universe is not something inside of something else, but rather all that there is. There is nothing outside of the universe if it is all that exists. This is based on not having observed anything outside of the universe thus far. I do not feel the need to explain that which has not been observed. We have enough of a job explaining that which we have observed.

As I said, it's more a religious belief than fact based, but I think that's the way things will pan out. It doesn't matter what I think anyway. It doesn't affect my daily life, and only serves to entertain me when bored. I just wish I could live to see whether I was right or wrong. I think the stuff around us will prove to be more amazing than we can currently conceive.

It is fun to think about what is possible. As Einstein said "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind" He also is quoted as saying creativity and imagination are as important as science, but I'm paraphrasing. I think they are a part of science, the evidence for or against such hypothetical ideas will have to come later. But would anyone look for evidence if no hypotheses were made?

 

[darkswordsman17]

more annoying religion threads...sweet

Posted from Anandtech.com App for Android

We got him guys! You do realize its all just a conspiracy to annoy you, right? Its all just so we can get you to come in and post your inane whiny drivel. Frankly I'm disappointed, you could've at least come up with a fictional conversation. :biggrin:

Then again, anybody who believes in something like the big bang and rejects God entirely probably needs to re-examine their motive for being able to convince themselves of one thing and deny the possibility of the other.

I almost want to say that I'd love to see why you think this but I already know how it will turn out and its just not entertaining enough to bother.

No one has to deny the possibility of either one. I simply formed and opinion based on what seems most likely given what I know. So I have allowed for the possibility of God's existence, even though I think it's unlikely. Would you meet me halfway and allow for the possibility that God may not exist? It would be asking no more than what you seem to expect of everyone else.

You don't understand! It doesn't work that way!

 

[Annisman*]

No one has to deny the possibility of either one. I simply formed and opinion based on what seems most likely given what I know. So I have allowed for the possibility of God's existence, even though I think it's unlikely. Would you meet me halfway and allow for the possibility that God may not exist? It would be asking no more than what you seem to expect of everyone else.

I can't meet you halfway, though it sounds fair, it would be lying to myself to say there is a possibility of there being no God, as for me personally it is not debatable. The best I can do is be understanding of views contrary to my own and realize that my belief is no evidence at all for others.

 

[ThinClient]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is God able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is God both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is God neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

 

[ThinClient]

I can't meet you halfway, though it sounds fair, it would be lying to myself to say there is a possibility of there being no God, as for me personally it is not debatable. The best I can do is be understanding of views contrary to my own and realize that my belief is no evidence at all for others.

...and that no evidence at all is what every religious person bases their belief on :whiste:

 

[disappoint]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is God able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is God both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is God neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

1. Clueless theist: God works in mysterious ways! And it's too much trouble for me to find out what those ways are! So just accept it!

2. Me: This might be a good time to tell you that the walls of the maze are not evil. No one can blame you for seeing the universe through human mind colored glasses. Perhaps a bit cryptic, but you'll figure it out. If so, then goto 3 else goto 1.

3. Fill in the blank: _______________

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I've always thought deism was dumb.

 

[disappoint]

I've always thought deism was dumb.

Sounds like you're projecting.

 

[Kadarin]

I am not a Deist. I see no reason whatsoever to "believe" in a higher power, let alone to "worship" such. If there ever comes to exist evidence of such a higher power (in whatever form that takes), then I'll accept the possibility, but until then any consideration of the thought other than conjecture is a waste of time and energy.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Sounds like you're projecting.

Looks like I can put "projecting" alongside "objective" on the list of words you use despite being ignorant of their meanings.

 

[tcG]

This response that I posted in a thread where atheists were asking for evidence for the existence of God might be of interest to you, OP:

"Here is a question for the people asking for the evidence: Is it possible that an individual's sum total of unique experiences -- some of which could be what you would consider anomalous -- properly analyzed by that person, could constitute evidence for the existence of something more than a strictly material universe? Note: "evidence" here doesn't necessarily mean empirical evidence; it means "evidence" more broadly construed as a valid reason for believing something, which could be formalized into a logical proof.

If so, then it is possible that somebody could have perfectly logical, reason-based evidence for the existence of God, but that it would be only known by that person because only that person possesses their unique experience."

...it attempts to show that because of the subjective aspect of our experience, there may exist valid evidence for something that is only experienced by an individual, and that can't be communicated directly, but only as anecdotes.

This is one of the lines of thinking that is in my opinion important when talking about deism. The other are the truly objective and communicable philosophical belief systems which allow one to reasonably argue deism. In that vein, I'm basically saying that once you get into the meat of philosophical topics such as epistemology, phenomenology, morality, metaphysics, et. al., the existence of the God of deism is not a far stretch and can be incorporated/argued for.

 

[lxskllr]

I don't see how it fixes anything. It just adds another layer to the model. Then you have to explain what surrounds that other layer, and you end up in an endless loop of layers explaining the ones inside of it.

My view fixes it by being limitless. I don't think there's an end; it just keeps going.

The way I view the universe is not something inside of something else, but rather all that there is. There is nothing outside of the universe if it is all that exists. This is based on not having observed anything outside of the universe thus far. I do not feel the need to explain that which has not been observed. We have enough of a job explaining that which we have observed.

My problem with that kind of universe, is what happens when you stand on the very outer edge, and look out. What do you see? If you take one step outside the universe, what happens?

Almost everything from the very smallest particles, up to the largest systems, consist of stuff orbiting around other stuff. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this universe was part of a larger system that was circling around /something/.

I'm not enough in love with the idea to write a book about it or anything, and I'm more than willing to change given decent evidence, but that's what I think is out there. More of this, with our universe being a bubble in a greater whole. Like those Orbitz blobs floating in a bottle, but without the glass barrier :^D