Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View How Worlds May Emerge In An Atheistic Deism Model
6 years ago  ::  Sep 06, 2008 - 8:52AM #1
AlumnodeVerum
Posts: 62
There are only two ways we can derive definitions; induction (experience), and deduction (the syllogism). Since we see "something" when we look around us we cannot experience nothingness so we the only way we can define it is by deduction.

You can strip away all the permutations of existence simply by putting a form of the words "is not" in front of "being as a whole". But you are still left with the idea of nothingness (you're thinking about it right now after all). So it is not a void "without property". It is a completely neutral concept. This is consistent with the type of empirical evidence that suggested the laws of mass/energy conservation. So how can the world emerge from that?

Imagine a straight line that extends outward in both directions (see links) http://personal.inet.fi/private/ilkka/t … ration.png . Such a one dimensional line is analogous to nothingness because nothingness has but one property- it is a concept. There are an infinite number of waveforms that exist in potential in such a line http://plus.maths.org/issue38/interview/sine.gif . If things happen simply because they can happen and they can happen because they don't result in contradiction then as long as the probability of an event does not equal zero (which is what happens when two identical but opposite waves try to emerge at the same time http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may00/i … fig1.l.gif ) it may occur for no reason other than the fact there is nothing to prevent it from occuring. Therefore any of these waveforms may emerge spontaneously by themselves or in combination by simple addition http://blog.pandora.com/archives/tour/M … ortion.JPG . By themselves the most basic waveforms (sine waves) have no meaning but merged with others they can create radically different patterns which are analogous to universes with different physics. Compare this (orange) square wave with the previous waveform http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/22017.png .

Here's a few more to illustrate the principle:
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/physic … dthird.jpg
http://universe-review.ca/I13-15-FourierSyn1.jpg
http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/021 … sition.gif
http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_ … sition.gif
Each of these is analogous to different universes with different physics.

The way I see it universes are arrayed in a spectrum. There are an infinite number of them and just as there is a region in the light spectrum which is visible there is an area where the universes that occupy it are conducive to the evolution of life. Which solves the problem of why our universe is so finely tuned. In a cosmos that contains an infinite number of worlds of different properties one must have the ones we see.

Because it is a concept we can say nothingness is not nothing. That is a contradiction thus such a state cannot exist. But an unobserved concept is also paradoxical and therefore unstable. It must collapse into a state that is stable but in order to do that it must have something in common with that state. Since the only property nothingness has is that of a concept it can only be reduced to something else that is also a concept to avoid a non sequitur and all it has to do to accomplish that is bend back on itself, nothing more. http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode … _arrow.png . That makes it self referential. And as there is only one kind of self referential concept, I am, it must be conscious (it also stops an infinite regression). I call this foundational state the Prime Observer because it is literally observing itself. However as you can see there is no need to consider It as supernatural or mystical. In fact the way it hosts worlds seems to be very similar to M theory which says universes may just be ripples in higher dimensional "membranes" of energy. The circle is perfectly smooth and therefore in equilibrium but contains within it an infinite number of potential worlds which may emerge spontaneously as an epiphenomenon or side effect.

Therefore if this argument is correct "God" is self aware and must exist necessarily. But even though all being is contingent on it the world is not a purposeful creation. And that is why I am an Atheistic Deist and not a Theist or an Atheist.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Sep 07, 2008 - 3:49PM #2
RevKeithWright
Posts: 137
Athiest and Deist are mutually exclusive, as Atheist Christian or Atheist Jew, Atheist Muslum, etc.

I could accept Agnostic Deist, but Atheist negates the Deist.  You could argue in quasi-philosophical definitions but you would lose 90-95% of the 7th-grade-reading-level, average American.

Everything else I mostly agree with except the infinite number of universes.  I believe there may be multiple, but not infinite.

(goes away to Google "String Theory" and "Unifying Theory" to find article challenging multiple universes)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/02 … _universe/

Kind of like the universe as bread "sponge", sourdough starter, or yogurt starter...a bit of each is held back to create a new batch but the new batch is a bit different from the previous one.  We can look at the products of the starter culture to get an idea of the starter culture itself but it isn't  THE starter.

AS far as infinite number of universes, it is really a finite number based upon probability and choices.  When a minister asks you, "Will you take this woman?..." there are only two universes there.  The one where you say yes and the one where you say no.  It is the same as the probability of walking in to a room of 50 people in China and finding your mother there.  The chance is 1 in 50.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Sep 13, 2008 - 6:23PM #3
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950
It is the same as the probability of walking in to a room of 50 people in China and finding your mother there. The chance is 1 in 50.

Now that is quite a remarkable dedduction.  Better look in that "Probability" book again.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Sep 16, 2008 - 7:26AM #4
AlumnodeVerum
Posts: 62
I call myself an a-theistic Deist. That seems to confuse alot of people so I will explain it.

Theism is a belief in God based on revelation. That is a type of intervention for if all God does is plant the thought in someone's head It must intervene in the cognitive processes in the brain to do so.

Atheism of course is a disbelief in such a God.

Classical Deism is theistic, or like theism, in that it holds God created the world but is not active in it by choice. But unlike theism it rejects revelation. Theists believe in God because someone else told them to and Deists believe in God because they figured it out for themselves.

I doubt both revelation and intervention, including purposeful creation. I think the world is just an epiphenomenon of what we call God. So by the above definition this form of Deism is a-theistic, or like atheism, in that it is based in reason and rejects all miracles, including purposeful creation.

To summarize:

Belief in: God, Revelation, Intervention, purpose

Theism: yes, yes, yes, yes

Atheism: no, no, no, no

Classical Deism: yes, no, yes but chooses not to, maybe

Atheistic Deism: yes, no, no, not divine purpose but we can choose to make one for ourself.

So being a-theistic is not the same as being an Atheist therefore the terms used in this context are not mutually exclusive.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Sep 18, 2008 - 1:06AM #5
RevKeithWright
Posts: 137
[QUOTE=AlumnodeVerum;763938]I call myself an a-theistic Deist. That seems to confuse alot of people so I will explain it.

Theism is a belief in God based on revelation. That is a type of intervention for if all God does is plant the thought in someone's head It must intervene in the cognitive processes in the brain to do so.

Atheism of course is a disbelief in such a God.

Classical Deism is theistic, or like theism, in that it holds God created the world but is not active in it by choice. But unlike theism it rejects revelation. Theists believe in God because someone else told them to and Deists believe in God because they figured it out for themselves.

I doubt both revelation and intervention, including purposeful creation. I think the world is just an epiphenomenon of what we call God. So by the above definition this form of Deism is a-theistic, or like atheism, in that it is based in reason and rejects all miracles, including purposeful creation.

To summarize:

Belief in: God, Revelation, Intervention, purpose

Theism: yes, yes, yes, yes

Atheism: no, no, no, no

Classical Deism: yes, no, yes but chooses not to, maybe

Atheistic Deism: yes, no, no, not divine purpose but we can choose to make one for ourself.

So being a-theistic is not the same as being an Atheist therefore the terms used in this context are not mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]


You are a bit mistaken.  Deists believe that God created the UNIVERSE by the laws of nature.  The world happened by these laws and not by direct action.

It is the very inaction and random occurance of our world and ourselves which have us in awe of a creation which enables the POSSIBILITY for life to exist.

Pure, Classical Deism...of the 18th-19th centuries...without taking into consideration modern science, physics, astrophysics, et al...would be irresponsible.

Please reconsider your position by coming into the 20th centure and modern man's rationalization for the Deity.

Classical Deists of that time also believed in providence and heaven...we do not believe as such.

Our beliefs are mostly reductionary...we try to simplify our rationalization of God.

ANY interaction/interference by God AFTER the Big-Bang would denote an imperfect being...even the belief that God "loves" us.  To most Deists, God is the catylist for Creation...the perfect celestial software engineer without Zero Day fixes, service packs, virus patches or anything else of that nature.

It is the beauty of Creation and the perfection in its design by mere laws which are the core of our belief.  We celebrate our very being because we are deeply aware of what we are made of...the outside of a star which died billions of years ago...and we have this amazing ability to exist in the manner which we do...and behold everything we see.  We realize how rare our existance is (in relative distance terms...we haven't found life equalling ours yet) and hope to share this important message with the world.

This life is precious and rare.  Stop fighting in the name of God and proclaiming that God gave you the message to give to others.  Live this life as there are no others...don't waste this one because you believe in immortality/reincarnation.

The answers to lifes questions...the equations which define matter and energy, fluid dynamics, sound, heat...are VERY simple equations.

The designer of those equations must be as simple as those equations but beyond our true understanding.  We can only deduce through nature and reason what God is...I doub't we will ever know for sure but the journey is a beautiful one.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 04, 2008 - 6:01AM #6
AlumnodeVerum
Posts: 62
I think you should reread what I wrote. I am not a classical Deist. Did you click on all the links? They are essential. If you do I think you will find my position exceedingly simple. I reject all interference by God... including purposeful creation. The equations that describe the world emerge naturally. Thus I believe the world is nothing more than an epiphenomenon. But you are right. This is not a 20th century model. It is a 21st century model.
Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook