Would you/Could you class yourself as a 'Adeist'?

[Roboramma]

All I can really say is that it created the universe.

Except that you don't know that either - it may not exist. The universe may not have been created. It's certainly possible that if there was something which created the universe that it wasn't a mind or a conscious being, or that it had no particular purpose for doing so.

I wouldn't say it's the laws of physics, though since the universe was apparently created with "laws of physics" in effect,

Apparently? Where does that come from?
I think you're making one more step than I'm willing to - taking one (somewhat small, perhaps) step beyond our ignorance, when you say that there was an act of creation at all.

 

[Mobyseven]

Probably not. Can you define the conditions at the center of a black hole, or the state of the universe three hours before the big bang? Some things may simply be unknowable, though there may be clues about them. All I can really say is that it created the universe. If you ask me whether it has a favorite shirt, I don't know.

I can't describe the conditions at the centre of a black hole, but I can infer from the (highly, highly probable) existence of black holes and what we know about them that there is something that could at least be colloquially called a 'centre of a black hole'.

I can't do that with god, because there's no evidence that god, even the god of the deists, exists! There is no void that needs to be filled; nothing that would hint that there is a god out there, if only we could tell what its favourite colour is. The same analogy can be put to the concept of 'the state of the universe three hours before the big bang' - how can I possibly refer to a location prior to there being a universe in which it can be located? It is a analogous to asking, "Where were you ten years before you were born?" The question itself is, for all we can tell at the moment, nonsense - and hinging a belief on some kind of contingent future possibility of knowledge is irrational (much as when a psychic turns a 'miss' into a 'hit' by saying that her predictions will come true at some indeterminate time in the future).

I wouldn't say it's the laws of physics, though since the universe was apparently created with "laws of physics" in effect, I would say it created those too. It didn't create your iPod directly, but made it possible for your iPod to exist.

Okay, so we're talking about a entity, about which you can tell me absolutely nothing. Not where it came from, not where it went, not what it looks like - not even what evidence we could find that could either demonstrate its existence or non-existence. You can tell me, absolutely nothing about this entity for which there is no evidence whatsoever that it even exists.

And you want to tell me that this entity created the universe, and the laws of physics, and presumably let things take their course from there.

In that case, I have a bridge to sell you over the Yarra.

 

[bokonon]

Okay, so we're talking about a entity, about which you can tell me absolutely nothing. Not where it came from, not where it went, not what it looks like - not even what evidence we could find that could either demonstrate its existence or non-existence. You can tell me, absolutely nothing about this entity for which there is no evidence whatsoever that it even exists.

Not true. I can tell you that it is responsible for the existence of the universe in which you find yourself. The evidence that it exists includes the fact that you find yourself in a universe. That I can't answer the questions which seem to be important to you ("Is she pretty?") doesn't delete the one answer I have provided.

 

[Moochie]

Would the One True God please stand up.


M.

 

[Mobyseven]

Not true. I can tell you that it is responsible for the existence of the universe in which you find yourself. The evidence that it exists includes the fact that you find yourself in a universe. That I can't answer the questions which seem to be important to you ("Is she pretty?") doesn't delete the one answer I have provided.

The question that is important to me isn't "Is she pretty?" The question that is important to me is, "What evidence is there that this god exists?"

You've answered that by saying, "Well, there universe exists, therefore god exists." You've completely missed the entire point - that there doesn't seem to be any need for a god to create the universe in the first place. You speak though it is self evident when all you're doing is either begging the question and assuming god exists, or committing an extended affirming the consequent fallacy - If god exists then it created the universe; If god created the universe then the universe exists; The universe exists; Therefore god exists.

In other words, you still haven't answered the important question: What evidence could one find that would confirm or contradict the existence of the deistic god?

 

[bokonon]

Yes, I'm assuming it exists, because I'm defining it as the thing responsible for the existence of the universe. If the universe was created, it is the thing that created it. If the universe was not created, and has existed throughout eternity, then your "laws of physics" might be a reasonable approximation of what it is: it specifies the properties of matter and energy that determine the universe's continuing existence and orderly operation. It is nonsensical to say that such a thing does not exist, when the evidence is all around you.

 

[Dragoonster]

Yes, I'm assuming it exists, because I'm defining it as the thing responsible for the existence of the universe. If the universe was created, it is the thing that created it. If the universe was not created, and has existed throughout eternity, then your "laws of physics" might be a reasonable approximation of what it is: it specifies the properties of matter and energy that determine the universe's continuing existence and orderly operation. It is nonsensical to say that such a thing does not exist, when the evidence is all around you.

I thought you were also affording it a consciousness?

If I'm mistaken, then I don't see a difference between a "deist", a "big bang singluarityist", and a "all atoms that make up my body and brain that lead to me having consciousnessist". I don't think any of us would dispute that "dumb" happenstances of matter can lead to a Universe or in our cases a personality. It's just an objection to whether that happenstance has a consciousness or (psychological) intent.

Or more, whether that can be proven or has any evidence for beyond any other typical theism.

 

[Mobyseven]

Yes, I'm assuming it exists, because I'm defining it as the thing responsible for the existence of the universe. If the universe was created, it is the thing that created it. If the universe was not created, and has existed throughout eternity, then your "laws of physics" might be a reasonable approximation of what it is: it specifies the properties of matter and energy that determine the universe's continuing existence and orderly operation. It is nonsensical to say that such a thing does not exist, when the evidence is all around you.

So, this god is responsible for the existence of the universe. If the universe was created, then this god created it. If the universe wasn't created (which would rule out a deistic creator god, but I digress), this god is still somehow reponsible. And a hypothetical universe in which this god doesn't exist is identical in every respect to a hypothetical universe where this god does exist. So what the hell do you even mean when you say that this god 'exists'?

I can call my stapler 'god'. And my stapler certainly exists. Does that make me a theist? A deist? What? And I can define god as 'a completely imperceivable entity, who cannot be detected in any way, and who is responsible for the existence of jam donuts'. Does the existence of jam donuts serve as evidence for the existence of my 'god'?

 

[JoeEllison]

It's of a great regret that I have never seen Dawkins debate a renowned Deist (Yet I know not if there is one) or even a deist sympathiser.

Deists have a completely incoherent position, therefore there is little or nothing to debate:

Deist: I believe in some sort of something or other.

Dawkins: Do you have any evidence?

Deist: Nope... but I just sort of hope it is true.

Dawkns: ... Oooohhhh.... Kay?

 

[bokonon]

So, this god is responsible for the existence of the universe. If the universe was created, then this god created it. If the universe wasn't created (which would rule out a deistic creator god, but I digress), this god is still somehow reponsible.

Yes. If the universe ceased to exist, that would refute the idea that there is something which is responsible for its existence, so it is falsifiable.

And a hypothetical universe in which this god doesn't exist is identical in every respect to a hypothetical universe where this god does exist.

I'm not sure I follow your thinking here. A hypothetical universe which is different in one respect, yet identical in every respect seems like a logical contradiction to me. Maybe you can clarify.

So what the hell do you even mean when you say that this god 'exists'?

What does it mean to say that the square root of negative one exists? It's a useful concept for dealing with certain types of problems.

I can call my stapler 'god'.

If you like.

And my stapler certainly exists.

I'll take your word for it.

Does that make me a theist? A deist? What?

Without knowing more about your stapler (i.e., is it encased in jello?), I'd probably go with "idolater" or "fetishist," but I'd be willing to consider how you defined yourself.

 

[bokonon]

I thought you were also affording it a consciousness?

Some deists might, but I wouldn't insist it necessarily has consciousness, especially as humans conceive of consciousness.

 

[Mobyseven]

Yes. If the universe ceased to exist, that would refute the idea that there is something which is responsible for its existence, so it is falsifiable.

If you aren't going to take this discussion seriously I'm not going to bother with you. If something requires the spontaneous non-existence the universe and everything contained therein in order to refute its existence, that thing is unfalsifiable by defintion (there is no observation we could make that would falsify it). If you wish to count the deistic god as falsifiable by your reasoning presented here, then you must also count as falsifiable the existence of bigfoot, leprechauns, ghosts, and vampires - as the existence of those things would also be refuted by the spontaneous non-existence of the universe.

I'm not sure I follow your thinking here. A hypothetical universe which is different in one respect, yet identical in every respect seems like a logical contradiction to me. Maybe you can clarify.

Well, that would be part of the point, wouldn't it? A hypothetical universe in which your god exists is identical to a hypothetical universe in which it doesn't exist. Were there some difference between the universes, then that difference could be seized upon as a criteria for falsification. So, as the universes are identical, what do you even mean when you say that this deistic god 'exists'?

What does it mean to say that the square root of negative one exists? It's a useful concept for dealing with certain types of problems.

Oh, Ed, not this again.

The square root of negative one (which, ironically, I'm working with at this very minute in a problem involving complex numbers) is an artificial human construct. It doesn't objectively 'exist' anywhere, much like the number '1' doesn't objectively exist anywhere. It is a construct that we use to describe the relationships we perceive in the world, but not an objectively existing entity itself.

If you wish to change your position and say that god doesn't actually exist, save for being an artificial human construct, then I'll wholeheartedly agree with you. But that would make you an atheist, not a deist, what with the whole 'not believing any god exists' thing, so I think that analogy has backfired on you somewhat.

And, before you bring them up, I'd like to deal with the following too: Love, hate, evil, good, mercy, and justice. Those are all artificial human constructs too. They don't objectively exist. Compare them to god if you wish, but be warned that by doing so you're basically saying, "God doesn't actually exist, humans made it up."

If you like.

I'll take your word for it.

Without knowing more about your stapler (i.e., is it encased in jello?), I'd probably go with "idolater" or "fetishist," but I'd be willing to consider how you defined yourself.

Why would you want to know how I defined myself? I'm white and pale as can be, and if I defined myself as 'African-American' it's likely that, rather than consider how I define myself, you'd tell me that I'm simply wrong. Now, when I call my stapler 'god', I'm not assigning it any extra attributes or responsibilities. I'm simply saying, as a plain matter of fact that my stapler is god. So, am I a theist? A deist? Do I, in any meaningful sense, actually believe in god?

I also note that you ignored my god of the jam donuts analogy. Any particular reason for that?

 

[Mobyseven]

Some deists might, but I wouldn't insist it necessarily has consciousness, especially as humans conceive of consciousness.

So my television could be god?

 

[bokonon]

Well, that would be part of the point, wouldn't it? A hypothetical universe in which your god exists is identical to a hypothetical universe in which it doesn't exist. Were there some difference between the universes, then that difference could be seized upon as a criteria for falsification. So, as the universes are identical, what do you even mean when you say that this deistic god 'exists'?

One of those universes does not exist. From where I sit, it appears to be the hypothetical universe in which god does not exist. That seems to me to be a fairly significant difference.

The square root of negative one (which, ironically, I'm working with at this very minute in a problem involving complex numbers) is an artificial human construct. It doesn't objectively 'exist' anywhere, much like the number '1' doesn't objectively exist anywhere. It is a construct that we use to describe the relationships we perceive in the world, but not an objectively existing entity itself.

If you wish to change your position and say that god doesn't actually exist, save for being an artificial human construct, then I'll wholeheartedly agree with you. But that would make you an atheist, not a deist, what with the whole 'not believing any god exists' thing, so I think that analogy has backfired on you somewhat.

And, before you bring them up, I'd like to deal with the following too: Love, hate, evil, good, mercy, and justice. Those are all artificial human constructs too. They don't objectively exist. Compare them to god if you wish, but be warned that by doing so you're basically saying, "God doesn't actually exist, humans made it up."

Apparently there are modes of existence which are not objective. I'm willing to grant that the god I have proposed may be no more real than love or justice, but I don't agree that this would make me an atheist. I believe love and justice exist, and that their effects can be observed in the "objective" realm. You may argue, as you did above, that a universe without love or justice would be indistinguishable from the universe in which we find ourselves, but I could not agree.

Now, when I call my stapler 'god', I'm not assigning it any extra attributes or responsibilities. I'm simply saying, as a plain matter of fact that my stapler is god. So, am I a theist? A deist? Do I, in any meaningful sense, actually believe in god?

If it's your god, I assume it's meaningful to you.

I also note that you ignored my god of the jam donuts analogy. Any particular reason for that?

It seemed too silly to engage. We can observe donut makers in action, and document the list of ingredients and sequence of events which lead to the creation of jam donuts. I see no reason to respond to an arbitrary list of things which you can extend to infinity.

You can invent a pantheon of silliness to avoid dealing with the definition I have offered, but your "gods" are not the god I have proposed. I have defined god as that which is responsible for the existence of the universe. The universe is a "text" which is available to everyone. If you feel the need to learn more about the deity itself, you could start there.

 

[Moochie]

Some deists might, but I wouldn't insist it necessarily has consciousness, especially as humans conceive of consciousness.

You have phrased that as though you weren't a human.


M.

 

[Mobyseven]

One of those universes does not exist. From where I sit, it appears to be the hypothetical universe in which god does not exist. That seems to me to be a fairly significant difference.

Ah, my mistake. I must have missed the part where you posted evidence that we are living in the universe with the god, and not the one without the god. Perhaps you could restate it for me, so that I know exactly what the evidence is supporting your claim that the deistic god exists is?

After all, you wouldn't be making such a claim if you didn't have any evidence, would you?

(I've also got to chuckle at the line, "One of those universes does not exist." Because positing an undetectable, unknowable being that has no effect on the universe is fine, but positing multiple universes? Haven't you heard of Occam's Razor, buddy?)

Apparently there are modes of existence which are not objective. I'm willing to grant that the god I have proposed may be no more real than love or justice, but I don't agree that this would make me an atheist. I believe love and justice exist, and that their effects can be observed in the "objective" realm. You may argue, as you did above, that a universe without love or justice would be indistinguishable from the universe in which we find ourselves, but I could not agree.

You may argue that the sun is made of light-elves, for all I care, but you'd be wrong. You may also disagree with an argument I never made, but you're going to feel mighty silly when I point that out.

Would a universe without love or justice be indistinguishable from the universe in which we find ourselves? From a physical point of view, yes, that's possible - we could examine all the laws of the universe and not find a tot of love or justice. You might argue that a universe without love or justice would not contain intelligent beings that could invent the concepts, and that that is a distinguishing feature...but what then of the times in our universe where there were no intelligent creatures? What of the time directly following inflation, in the early universe, when the heavy elements had not yet been created? Is that universe a different universe from the one we find ourselves in presently? What of the distant future? What of heat death? Will that universe be a different universe from the one we inhabit?

You are looking at things from an anthropocentric view point, and by [irony] is it egotistical.

But that still doesn't address that you said above that the god you propose may be no more real than love or justice...and that you don't think that this makes you an atheist.

You are proposing a god that is no more than a pattern of firing synapses in the brain. You are proposing a god that would cease to exist should people merely cease to believe in it (or more drastically, if humans were to be somehow wiped out). And, more importantly, you are proposing a god that could not have existed prior to humans conceiving of it.

Your god is younger than the human race. Pray tell, how could it have created the universe?

It seemed too silly to engage. We can observe donut makers in action, and document the list of ingredients and sequence of events which lead to the creation of jam donuts. I see no reason to respond to an arbitrary list of things which you can extend to infinity.

You can invent a pantheon of silliness to avoid dealing with the definition I have offered, but your "gods" are not the god I have proposed. I have defined god as that which is responsible for the existence of the universe. The universe is a "text" which is available to everyone. If you feel the need to learn more about the deity itself, you could start there.

So? I can see all manner of things that make the universe run as it does. Physicists are probing the very big and the very small, and finding out things about the universe that are interesting, if not downright counter-intuitive.

Why should you discount my god of the jam donuts merely because you can see some silly men going around making jam donuts (which my god invented) with various ingredients (which they would never have known about were it not for my god) and then putting them on display in bakeries. What do you think prevents jam donuts from vanishing out of existence the minute they are made? My god does! He is resonsible for their continued existence, and it is insulting that you would discard him as being 'too silly to deal with'.

Honestly, my god is no more silly or nonsensical than your god. It's just that my god is a bit smaller - he's only responsible for jam donuts, rather than the entire universe. Your god is, in comparison, significantly sillier, and a much larger pile of nonsense. You tell me that in order to learn about your god I should study the universe. Do tell me - at what point in this conversation did we even establish that your god exists to be studied? Because I must have missed all the overwhelming evidence you produced.

 

[bokonon]

Ah, my mistake. I must have missed the part where you posted evidence that we are living in the universe with the god, and not the one without the god. Perhaps you could restate it for me, so that I know exactly what the evidence is supporting your claim that the deistic god exists is?

I have defined god as "that which is responsible for the existence of the universe." The evidence which argues that this god exists includes the fact that this universe exists.

Honestly, my god is no more silly or nonsensical than your god. It's just that my god is a bit smaller - he's only responsible for jam donuts, rather than the entire universe. Your god is, in comparison, significantly sillier, and a much larger pile of nonsense. You tell me that in order to learn about your god I should study the universe. Do tell me - at what point in this conversation did we even establish that your god exists to be studied? Because I must have missed all the overwhelming evidence you produced.

I can see that this discussion is veering into "more heat than light" territory, and I have no desire to go there.

 

[articulett]

Yes... but you've made a conscious god which "creates" and "does things on purpose"--
That, itself, is an unsupportable claim, because we don't have any reason or evidence for even considering any kind of consciousness without a brain-- and we know that one of our human tendencies is to see agency and meaning and purpose and design--even when it's not there.

I think deist gods are the most sensible of all gods... kind of like saying "I'll call nature god"... or "that which I don't understand is god"-- but they seem like a step towards atheism to me. They don't seem to be any more coherent than all the other ghosts people have believed in do they?

I can't make sense of any gods which people tell me they believe in... or if I can... it's not something I would call "god". I don't have a belief in any gods... not even a deist one. I don't think consciousness of any sort CAN exist absent a living brain.

 

[Mobyseven]

I have defined god as "that which is responsible for the existence of the universe." The evidence which argues that this god exists includes the fact that this universe exists.

Except you have yet to provide evidence that there is something that can be considered 'responsible' for the existence of the universe. You are discounting the possibility that the universe just 'is', that there is no man behind the curtain.

In other words, what is the difference between your 'god' entity that is responsible for the existence of the universe, and my 'god' entity that is responsible for the existence of jam donuts? The evidence that 'supports' (it does no such thing, but lets just leave that aside for now) the claims is identical: You say that the evidence that your god exists is that the universe exists, and I say that the evidence that my god exists is that jam donuts exist. Why should you be considered justified in your belief, and I not be?

I can see that this discussion is veering into "more heat than light" territory, and I have no desire to go there.

I have no idea what you mean by that statement. Your evasion of the issue is noted - if you don't want a discussion to go somewhere uncomfortable, don't put your beliefs out on the table to be evaluated.

 

[bokonon]

Yes... but you've made a conscious god which "creates" and "does things on purpose"--

I've done no such thing. While a conscious god which creates and does things on purpose is one possibility, it is not the only possibility.

All I've claimed is that something is responsible for the existence of the universe. MobySeven has offered the counterclaim that the universe "just is" (and, presumably, always has been). I see no way of resolving that particular claim, either in his favor or in mine. Certainly, science currently asserts that the universe had a beginning, and where that assertion is accepted, I think the scale tips in my direction. The only way that I can see for a beginning to be possible is if something changed, and something is responsible for that change.

I think deist gods are the most sensible of all gods [...] but they seem like a step towards atheism to me. They don't seem to be any more coherent than all the other ghosts people have believed in do they?

For the theist, they may be a step towards atheism. For the atheist, they may be a step toward theism. Both sides may be unwilling to make that step, for different reasons.

My aim isn't really to convert atheists, but to advocate what I think is (as you say) a more sensible god belief for those who think one is necessary. I've looked at a lot of the texts of the "revealed truth" religions, and most of them contain passages of barbarism or fairy-tale nonsense which would cause any ethical, thinking person to recoil.

Taking the universe itself as a text (including social constructs and the lessons of history) seems to me to be a more reasonable attitude toward any spiritual yearnings one may feel driven to satisfy. Atheists can do so without accepting any idea of a deity behind it all, but that solution is emotionally unsatisfying to vast numbers of theists. For many such people, I think deism may be a viable alternative. It could be even be augmented by some of the more sensible advice in the "revealed truth" texts.

Is "religion without cognitive dissonance" too highbrow a slogan?