Atheists don't like the idea of a laissez-faire God....

[Rick O'Shez]

Pantheism is seeing all of reality as holy but not because of simply relabeling reality but because those are attributes of the universe, being timeless, omnipotent, omnipresent, to name a few.

So how is the universe timeless, given that the fabric of the cosmos is referred to as "space-time"?

How is the universe omnipotent, having unlimited power? It sounds anthropomorphic.

And how is the universe omnipresent, present everywhere at the same time?

It feels like you are trying to force the universe into a God mould, trying to bang a square peg into a round hole.

 

[idav]

I do not make any claim of "not god".
I flat out say "I Do Not Know".
I have not seen/heard/experienced/etc. anything that convinces me god exists.
However, I understand that that does not mean god does not exist.
Thus I do not know.

OK, that sounds more agnostic than anything. Though if I were to ask you if you think any type of god is the reason for existence, I take it your answer would be no. Correct me if I'm wrong but at that point the answer would be "not god" even with the caveat of "i don't know".

 

[idav]

So how is the universe timeless, given that the fabric of the cosmos is referred to as "space-time"?

How is the universe omnipotent, having unlimited power? It sounds anthropomorphic.

And how is the universe omnipresent, present everywhere at the same time?

It feels like you are trying to squeeze the universe into a God mould, trying to bang a square peg into a round hole.

Well as I mentioned there is some opinion there but I feel that the evidence is pointing in those directions.

Time dilation at the point of the singularity.

Multi-verse theory.

The big bang literally happened at every point in space and keeps everything still connected at the quantum level. EPR paradox.

 

[Sapiens]

,....because it side steps their argument for atheism which is simply a straw man argument attacking all the "revealed" gods. It's so much easier to shoot fish in a barrel than to argue against a deist God which is indistinguishable to us, from atheism. Don't get me wrong, soft atheism is reasonable, but deism is equally reasonable--or equally unreasonable, if you will. But it appears that some atheists are as emotionally invested in an irrational eradication of doubt, as theists are.

I find all varieties of deities completely unnecessary. I dismiss laissez faire gods on the basis of parsimony.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Well as I mentioned there is some opinion there but I feel that the evidence is pointing in those directions.
Time dilation at the point of the singularity.
Multi-verse theory.
The big bang literally happened at every point in space and keeps everything still connected at the quantum level. EPR paradox.

Well, OK, but saying the universe is "God" seems like a real stretch to me. I think part of the problem is that words like "God" and "theism" have an awful lot of baggage attached, it's like you need a new vocabulary. It sounds a bit like the way Pagans revere nature.

 

[LuisDantas]

Huh?

God-beliefs are simply way too personal and too subjective. Attempts at convincing others that they "logically should" have a certain specific flavor of those are doomed to fail.

It does not help that the distinctions between deism and pantheism are particularly tenuous. Nor that ultimately deism is only distinguishable from atheism in that it insists in having a largely symbolic deity.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It does not help that the distinctions between deism and pantheism are particularly tenuous.

Yes, and people seem to have different ideas about these distinctions. From the outside it looks like a spectrum, a progressive "watering down" of theism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well until now, you didn't seem to be that familiar with deism?

Why would you think that? Just because I reject it?

I'm familiar enough with deism, if we're talking about, say, what Thomas Paine argues for in Age of Reason. Whatever you call deism, though... maybe not.

Belief is something based on evidence somewhere between ignorance and certainty.

You're trying to pack a lot of extra meaning into the word. "Belief" just means accepting an idea as true. Whether it has been accepted as true for good reasons is a separate matter.

So what is there to base a belief?

In the case of deism, nothing. This is why I reject deism as irrational.

All I can claim is a preference, which I do. I think all this is important and worthy of precise thought.

But "I would prefer that the deistic God were to exist" doesn't necessarily imply "I am a deist."

How/where did that happen?

Most recently in the OP of this thread, but I remember it from other threads as well. I'd have to dig to find them.

Hard=certain. Soft=uncertain. There are all kinds of terms floating around that express those modifiers. Was my meaning unclear to you? If so, has it been cleared up now?

Ah - that's what you meant. I interpreted "hard" as "explicit" and "soft" as "implicit". I tried to clarify my interpretation with my last sentence of the paragraph.

So if I'm not certain (word for accepting something as absolutely true) of deism, I'm not a deist?

No. Unless you actually believe in a deistic God - at any level of certainty - you're not a deist.

You equate belief with certainty?

No, I don't.

As is plainly stated below my avatar, I'm an agnostic-deist. Would you deny that label as well?

That depends. Do you actually believe in a deistic god? So far, you haven't come out and said that you do, but you also haven't clearly said that you don't.

 

[idav]

Well, OK, but saying the universe is "God" seems like a real stretch to me. I think part of the problem is that words like "God" and "theism" have an awful lot of baggage attached, it's like you need a new vocabulary. It sounds a bit like the way Pagans revere nature.

I don't really think I need a new vocabulary. I agree completely the word comes with baggage but thats not really my fault, it's an issue for theists who clobber the whole concept. Although it is an issue for people being able to accept a concisely defined god concept.

For example I can easily label the Avenger, The Vision, as god-like based on my above definition, being able to warp space and walk through walls and in the comics has power over time. Thats because of some crazy stone that he has, one of five I think, that control entire aspects of the universe. Another example Thor has from what I can tell immortality to fit a definition of god-like. These definitions are not arbitrary.

I have no issue with it being similar to pagan nature belief. However as I pointed out, its much more than relabeling nature as god. Nature has to have god-like qualities which I believe it does.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The likelihood of 1 of 2 unknown probabilities is not 50/50.

It is unknown.

If there's no evidence for or against either possibility, it's 50-50, however much one doesn't like it.

Atheism and Deism do have commonalities in which we are in agreement. They believe the natural universe but add something to what is though to be the cause of existence, while one says "not god" the other says "god" but without being able to prove otherwise cause both will look just like nature. With deism its like saying some supernatural thing exists just outside the universe and conveniently enough has no evidence against it, which is another agreement we have. That is the "no evidence against it part".

And there's no evidence for or against spontaneous "creation" either. It's a big, blank information firewall either way.

Pantheism is seeing all of reality as holy but not because of simply relabeling reality but because those are attributes of the universe, being timeless, omnipotent, omnipresent, to name a few.

The universe isn't timeless, and there's no evidence for any omnipotent being, past or present any more than any other theistic god.

Atheists and science will not label the universe as such due to bias but that doesn't change the fact that the attributes are there.

There are no such facts.

The omniscience(not named above) is one very important aspect harder to gain evidence of but its similar to physicists describing the universe as a computer matrix which would give our reality a default intelligence.

The universe is essentially a giant quantum computer. But that doesn't mean it contains a conscious will any more than your laptop does.

There is still a bit of opinion of course but there is no evidence against pantheism either and evidence leans towards its validity as far as I can tell.

You could say there's no evidence against pandeism (which is an irrelevant deistic possibility), but there's just as much evidence against pantheism as against any other brand of theism--that being that all the evidence for it is phony hearsay, and for 13 billion lightyears in all directions, we can see no interruption or supernatural intervention in natural law.

 

[idav]

And there's no evidence for or against spontaneous "creation" either. It's a big, blank information firewall either way.

Sure theres evidence against it, its called evolution, and spontaneous generation has been very well debunked.

The universe isn't timeless

I've shown science implies otherwise. Time dilation to the point of planck scale gives you just that.

There are no such facts.

The universe is much more remarkable than some arbitrary existence.

The universe is essentially a giant quantum computer. But that doesn't mean it contains a conscious will any more than your laptop does.

Yet this implies intelligence right off the bat. People generally have the notion that a computer can never be aware, this simply cannot be true. It's not like it needs a soul, the brain is just a machine similar to a computer matrix. Sure I will grant consciousness is a stretch which I've already said is not provable but its where the evidence leads.

You could say there's no evidence against pandeism (which is an irrelevant deistic possibility), but there's just as much evidence against pantheism as against any other brand of theism--that being that all the evidence for it is phony hearsay, and for 13 billion lightyears in all directions, we can see no interruption or supernatural intervention in natural law.

Yes I did already say there is no evidence against pandeism either.

Naturalistic pantheism does not have to invoke the supernatural. I simply have to point out that physics does not obey everyday laws that we are used to. We live in a realm where time dilation exists and many worlds theory is a very real possibility which solve the same dilemmas you claim of the transactional interpretation.

Deism is the same as the monotheistic concept, saying there must be some supernatural creator that is not part of existence as we know it. The only difference is deism not claiming god intervenes outright.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Why would you think that? Just because I reject it?

I'm familiar enough with deism, if we're talking about, say, what Thomas Paine argues for in Age of Reason. Whatever you call deism, though... maybe not.

The only difference between Paine and my deism is he believed in divine providence. And I don't think he came up with the my motivation for God creating the universe was for creatures with free will, but what he said elsewhere makes me think he would probably agree with that.

You're trying to pack a lot of extra meaning into the word. "Belief" just means accepting an idea as true. Whether it has been accepted as true for good reasons is a separate matter.

Because what the refers to is faith. And faith with no foundation is reason is blind faith.

In the case of deism, nothing. This is why I reject deism as irrational.

Nothing but an entire universe with an unknown cause for it's start.

But "I would prefer that the deistic God were to exist" doesn't necessarily imply "I am a deist."

If preference between atheism and deism without evidence is all we have, then I'm a deist, regardless of your drive-by declarations of what a deist or one preferring any philosophy is or should be.

Most recently in the OP of this thread, but I remember it from other threads as well. I'd have to dig to find them.

I do add some "If God, then...." speculations here and there, but they don't alter the one and only deist tenet that if God exists, that It doesn't interact in the universe.

Ah - that's what you meant. I interpreted "hard" as "explicit" and "soft" as "implicit". I tried to clarify my interpretation with my last sentence of the paragraph.

But it's not explicit or implicit, they both express a lack of doubt" while soft and hard, and their alternatives, indicate a claim certainty or a lack of it.

No. Unless you actually believe in a deistic God - at any level of certainty - you're not a deist.

Yes you accuse me of redefinition.

That depends. Do you actually believe in a deistic god? So far, you haven't come out and said that you do, but you also haven't clearly said that you don't.

So what would you call someone who prefers deism over atheism, but has no evidence with which to make a reasonable argument favoring a belief in it, because no evidence exists at all. But saying I can't choose a label, and explain what it means if asked, is quibbling beyond the extreme. And your use of the word belief is artificial due to its abuse over the centuries by conflating it into a mishmash with knowledge and faith.[/QUOTE]

 

[dust1n]

,....because it side steps their argument for atheism which is simply a straw man argument attacking all the "revealed" gods.

Why would anyone care if there is a laissez faire god? You mine as well have no god... there would be no difference, and no distinction of value. Also, you'd still be in the same position of insisting something is there without any evidence of it actually being the case.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Why would anyone care if there is a laissez faire god? You mine as well have no god... there would be no difference, and no distinction of value.

Except for hope. It's the only reason I bother.

Also, you'd still be in the same position of insisting something is there without any evidence of it actually being the case.

But I'm not insisting it's there, only that God is as likely an explanation for the universe as a spontaneous Big Bang out of nothing.

 

[dust1n]

Except for hope. It's the only reason I bother.

If the God is Laissez Faire.. then what exactly are you hoping for?

But I'm not insisting it's there, only that God is as likely an explanation for the universe as a spontaneous Big Bang out of nothing.

That's not what the Big Bang theory says, firstly. Secondly, you can claim that they both have equal likelihood for being the actual cause of the universe, but that claim isn't actually being evidenced by anything.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the God is Laissez Faire.. then what exactly are you hoping for?
That's not what the Big Bang theory says, firstly. Secondly, you can claim that they both have equal likelihood for being the actual cause of the universe, but that claim isn't actually being evidenced by anything.

Aye, there's a common misconception that if one proposes 2 alternatives,
then the odds of each being correct is one in two, or 50%. In reality, the
probability is simply unknown (without more information).

Btw, I've proposed before the idea of gods who create our universe, but
don't direct its course. Why would anyone presume we all hate this idea?
I just disregard it as an interesting but useless proposition.

 

[dust1n]

Aye, there's a common misconception that if one proposes 2 alternatives,
then the odds of each being correct is one in two, or 50%. In reality, the
probability is simply unknown (without more information).

We don't even know what all the possibilities to measure against. What's the likelihood that either of those 2 alternatives are the case? No one could ever know because no would could know the likelihood of different outcomes that we don't even know.

Btw, I've proposed before the idea of gods who create our universe, but
don't direct its course. Why would anyone presume we all hate this idea?
I just disregard it as an interesting but useless proposition.

I agree, it's just a useless proposition. If God's indifference is the same as the indifference as no God at all, then I don't really understand anyone would care...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only difference between Paine and my deism is he believed in divine providence.

Paine believed in God. So you believe in God?

And I don't think he came up with the my motivation for God creating the universe was for creatures with free will, but what he said elsewhere makes me think he would probably agree with that.

I have too much respect for Thomas Paine to believe that he would have agreed with such a hubristic, baseless assumption.

Because what the refers to is faith. And faith with no foundation is reason is blind faith.

I can't make sense of what you're saying here. Can you rephrase?

Nothing but an entire universe with an unknown cause for it's start.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to be related to the part of post that you quoted.

If preference between atheism and deism without evidence is all we have, then I'm a deist, regardless of your drive-by declarations of what a deist or one preferring any philosophy is or should be.

So you do believe in a god?

I do add some "If God, then...." speculations here and there, but they don't alter the one and only deist tenet that if God exists, that It doesn't interact in the universe.

That isn't "the one and only deist tenet"; that would be "God exists and it doesn't interact with the universe. No if.

With the "if/then" all you have is someone considering deism, not necessarily an actual deist.

And since we're talking about tenets, the only tenet of explicit atheism is "I'm not convinced that any gods exist." You reject this?

But it's not explicit or implicit, they both express a lack of doubt" while soft and hard, and their alternatives, indicate a claim certainty or a lack of it.

Who is this "they" who expresses a lack of doubt? I'm having trouble figuring out who you're referring to.

Yes you accuse me of redefinition.

That's right; I do.

So what would you call someone who prefers deism over atheism, but has no evidence with which to make a reasonable argument favoring a belief in it, because no evidence exists at all.

"Preference" is irrelevant. Whether or not you're a deist depends on what you accept as true.

There are plenty of things that we would prefer to be true but acknowledge as false.

Edit: soneone who prefers deism but sees no justification is one of two things, depending on what he concludes:

- not a deist (if he doesn't accept that a deistic god exists)
- a deist for bad reasons (if he does accept it)

But saying I can't choose a label, and explain what it means if asked, is quibbling beyond the extreme.

No, it isn't. A deist is someone who actually believes in the deistic God. It isn't just someone who hasn't ruled deism out or finds deism appealing.

And your use of the word belief is artificial due to its abuse over the centuries by conflating it into a mishmash with knowledge and faith.

Come again?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

,....because it side steps their argument for atheism which is simply a straw man argument attacking all the "revealed" gods. It's so much easier to shoot fish in a barrel than to argue against a deist God which is indistinguishable to us, from atheism. Don't get me wrong, soft atheism is reasonable, but deism is equally reasonable--or equally unreasonable, if you will. But it appears that some atheists are as emotionally invested in an irrational eradication of doubt, as theists are.

one of the sentences seems really really romantic to me in a sense. Odd. I'm gonna have to like it even though, I already know, thanks Jesus.lol

 

[McBell]

OK, that sounds more agnostic than anything. Though if I were to ask you if you think any type of god is the reason for existence, I take it your answer would be no. Correct me if I'm wrong but at that point the answer would be "not god" even with the caveat of "i don't know".

I already told you my answer would be "I Do Not Know".
How you get that I believe/think/state/claim/etc. anything other than "I Do Not Know" is beyond me.

I agree that that makes me agnostic.
What makes me an atheist is that I have no active belief concerning god(s).