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

[Roboramma]

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 that you've given us no reason to believe that the universe requires a creator. What makes you think that the universe needs something to be responsible for it's existence? Why shouldn't it just be?

 

[Roboramma]

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?

I have a lot of respect for that, but why not step back slightly and simply say, "if the universe has a cause, what is it?"
Rather than assuming that said cause exists when you simply can't know (not yet anyway).

 

[bokonon]

Except that you've given us no reason to believe that the universe requires a creator. What makes you think that the universe needs something to be responsible for it's existence? Why shouldn't it just be?

As I've said, the best scientific minds of the day seem to believe that the universe had a beginning. That suggests that the universe transitioned from non-existence to existence, a pretty big change. In my experience, every change has a cause. I'm choosing to apply the label "god" to that cause.

The case is weaker in the case of an eternal universe, where the label can only be applied to "responsible for its continued existence."

 

[articulett]

I think that's fine... I suspect a lot of people do that... but I think they might really be doing it because they "fear" being an atheist and all the stuff that we've learned to attach to the term. Or maybe out of a Pascal's wager sort of fear (just in case this invisible god cause is something that can care.)

I can't really tell the difference from deism and atheism... except the deist seems to think it's important or good to "believe" or hold the door open to the "god" idea. Practically it seems like the same thing but with a different emotional spin. To me, deists are atheists.... I can't tell the difference... except that they don't like to be called atheists.

 

[Moochie]

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.


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?

The latest news I have about the universe having "a beginning" has changed that to "maybe it's an oscillation" or something to that effect. Not sure where I heard it, but it was by someone giving a talk at TED, I think. Frankly, how could anyone know? It's all guesswork, and so is any thought of a "creator."


M.

 

[bokonon]

The latest news I have about the universe having "a beginning" has changed that to "maybe it's an oscillation" or something to that effect. Not sure where I heard it, but it was by someone giving a talk at TED, I think. Frankly, how could anyone know? It's all guesswork, and so is any thought of a "creator."

Still, if someone is predisposed to guess there is one, I'd prefer they guess it's compatible with the real world as revealed through science, rather than guessing it's science's eternal enemy.

I mean, is a god which would bury fossils to trick people into believing something that dooms them to eternal torture really a god worthy of worship?

If you need to worship something, worship the god that gave you a brain and won't punish you for using it. Even if it's imaginary, or indifferent to your worship, at least you won't be stunting your potential by respecting it.

 

[articulett]

I suspect we may be asking the question wrong... or that it's more of a continuum... It would be like saying the earth has an "end"-- such a statement could mean a lot of things... to those who perceived the world as flat, the statement itself would reveal a kind of ignorance. I suspect that our concept of beginning is as muddled as a flat earther's concept of the "end of the earth" they are certain must exist. When you say "the earth likely had a beginning", you could be being as vague as a flat earther exclaiming the "earth must have an end"-- and then calling whatever is at that "end"-- "God".

 

[Mobyseven]

As I've said, the best scientific minds of the day seem to believe that the universe had a beginning. That suggests that the universe transitioned from non-existence to existence, a pretty big change. In my experience, every change has a cause. I'm choosing to apply the label "god" to that cause.

How is what you described at all a 'god'? By what justification can you call this thing a 'god'? You have pointed to a big closed box and said, "Whatever is in there, that is god!"

How is this more rational than me calling my stapler god? At least I know what I am arbitrarily labelling: A stapler. You are arbitrarily labelling the unknown - you could be labelling a particle, a 'meta-universal' law, even an entire other universe! - with the name 'god'.

I can call an apple an egg, but it won't make it one.

 

[bokonon]

How is what you described at all a 'god'? By what justification can you call this thing a 'god'? You have pointed to a big closed box and said, "Whatever is in there, that is god!"

I asked god about this, and it said "Well excuuuuuuuuse me for being too effing ineffable for Mobyseven. The tao that can be spoken of is not the true tao."

I have no idea what that means, just passing it along.

 

[articulett]

it sounds like QM

-- you know, "if you think you understand QM, you don't understand QM"-- or something like that.

(So your god "gives messages"?--forgive me, but it sounds like the voice of your god is Steve Martin)

 

[Mobyseven]

I asked god about this, and it said "Well excuuuuuuuuse me for being too effing ineffable for Mobyseven. The tao that can be spoken of is not the true tao."

I have no idea what that means, just passing it along.

What's that, the argument from 'if I don't understand it, it's gotta be true'?

 

[Moochie]

Still, if someone is predisposed to guess there is one, I'd prefer they guess it's compatible with the real world as revealed through science, rather than guessing it's science's eternal enemy.

I mean, is a god which would bury fossils to trick people into believing something that dooms them to eternal torture really a god worthy of worship?

If you need to worship something, worship the god that gave you a brain and won't punish you for using it. Even if it's imaginary, or indifferent to your worship, at least you won't be stunting your potential by respecting it.

I love my wife. I worship the cat.


M.