Do we have any deists in the house?

[lonelocust]

I've really been wanting to ask a deist what their view is on the argument that if there is something like a conscious being out there to create the universe that that thing needs to itself be more complicated than the universe, so it doesn't really answer any questions as to how a complex universe could always be or come from nothing.

It's something I always really want to ask the sorts of theists who accept the First Cause Argument and/or Argument from Design, but they tend to not be down for discussing the nitty gritty of why they find those answers reasonable.

So, if we have an deists, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

[John E]

I sort of float between atheism, deism and a sort of quazi-gnosticism. So, I'm kind of a part-time, half-hearted deist. Maybe not the best person to answer your questions, and I might not be able to get as deep into the "nitty gritty" as you'd like, but I'll drop my two cents off.

First of all, I do NOT accept the Argument from Design. I find it to be pretty weak and based on semantics as much as anything. "Creation needs a creator," only works if you call the universe "creation." Doesn't follow if you call it "existence" or "reality."

As for the first cause argument, this I think is the best argument for god I've heard, but it can really only take you as far as agnostic deism before you start making huge leaps of faith based on speculation. The way I see it, it just doesn't make sense (to me) that the universe just happened without any cause, and that it takes a bigger leap to say that reality has no cause than to say that something probably caused it.

What is that something, though? We don't know, and may never know, but whatever it was, if it created the universe, either consciously or not, it would probably be appropriate to call it "god."

Long story short, it seems likely that something (which can be called god but might or might not fit any of our notions about god) caused the creation of reality as we know it, but there's no way of knowing just what it was. Agnostic deism.

P.S. I recognize that all my inclinations toward belief in god, spirituality and an afterlife are more emotional and intuitive than logical. I don't see this as a problem, as long as those inclinations don't contradict logic and evidence and I don't try to push those inclinations on people who don't share them.

[kristine]

Jan 31, 2010 1:35:05 GMT -5 John E said:

I sort of float between atheism, deism and a sort of quazi-gnosticism. So, I'm kind of a part-time, half-hearted deist. Maybe not the best person to answer your questions, and I might not be able to get as deep into the "nitty gritty" as you'd like, but I'll drop my two cents off.

First of all, I do NOT accept the Argument from Design. I find it to be pretty weak and based on semantics as much as anything. "Creation needs a creator," only works if you call the universe "creation." Doesn't follow if you call it "existence" or "reality."

As for the first cause argument, this I think is the best argument for god I've heard, but it can really only take you as far as agnostic deism before you start making huge leaps of faith based on speculation. The way I see it, it just doesn't make sense (to me) that the universe just happened without any cause, and that it takes a bigger leap to say that reality has no cause than to say that something probably caused it.

What is that something, though? We don't know, and may never know, but whatever it was, if it created the universe, either consciously or not, it would probably be appropriate to call it "god."

Long story short, it seems likely that something (which can be called god but might or might not fit any of our notions about god) caused the creation of reality as we know it, but there's no way of knowing just what it was. Agnostic deism.

P.S. I recognize that all my inclinations toward belief in god, spirituality and an afterlife are more emotional and intuitive than logical. I don't see this as a problem, as long as those inclinations don't contradict logic and evidence and I don't try to push those inclinations on people who don't share them.

^this.

Also other hypothesis could be:

- The powerful consciousness evolved just like we did and only directed the order of things later - the way humans breed animals for certain traits; we don't 'create' the animals but we can certainly change circumstance to allow them to be more docile - smarter - or glow in the dark.

- The being in charge changes hands and is actually just a position; like Pope or president or king. Maybe old gods die and new ones are born, just like us.

- Maybe the Universe is created like a biological cell, that splits into it's twin and there is another universe much like ours - and that whole universe is the 'real' one and ours is only a shadow that reflects the original (like resonance).

- Reality is just a dream and we are all part of the Matrix, a machine that gained sentience and took over the human race, which was created by our own ancestors...well you get the idea.

I admit this is more of an agnostics argument than a deists, but the fact is we don't really know right now, and probably never will know what 'caused' reality as we know it. We will probably have to go on faith and supposition no matter what we believe about The Beginning Of Everything.

[lonelocust]

Thanks for the response. So I guess my question is, given that "it takes a bigger leap to say that reality has no cause than to say that something probably caused it" why does the same not apply for the thing that created the universe and then the thing that created that and the thing that created that, etc.?

I think that cause-speaking, it might be turtles all the way down. Maybe the universe was caused by the uncertainty principle, and the uncertainty principle was caused by something else that fits the physics outside spacetime but not inside the universe, and that was caused by was caused by was caused by...

Or maybe there's just one cause. But at any rate, it seems to me that nothing answers the question "why is there something instead of nothing". It is. Now if you're willing to call the uncertainty principle for example "god" if it caused the universe, then I'm probably with you there. However, if it seems like there might be a "someone" and not just a "something" that caused the universe, is there a reason that it seems like that someone doesn't also need to be caused?

[lonelocust]

Jan 31, 2010 2:11:28 GMT -5 kristine said:

Jan 31, 2010 1:35:05 GMT -5 John E said:

I sort of float between atheism, deism and a sort of quazi-gnosticism. So, I'm kind of a part-time, half-hearted deist. Maybe not the best person to answer your questions, and I might not be able to get as deep into the "nitty gritty" as you'd like, but I'll drop my two cents off.

First of all, I do NOT accept the Argument from Design. I find it to be pretty weak and based on semantics as much as anything. "Creation needs a creator," only works if you call the universe "creation." Doesn't follow if you call it "existence" or "reality."

As for the first cause argument, this I think is the best argument for god I've heard, but it can really only take you as far as agnostic deism before you start making huge leaps of faith based on speculation. The way I see it, it just doesn't make sense (to me) that the universe just happened without any cause, and that it takes a bigger leap to say that reality has no cause than to say that something probably caused it.

What is that something, though? We don't know, and may never know, but whatever it was, if it created the universe, either consciously or not, it would probably be appropriate to call it "god."

Long story short, it seems likely that something (which can be called god but might or might not fit any of our notions about god) caused the creation of reality as we know it, but there's no way of knowing just what it was. Agnostic deism.

P.S. I recognize that all my inclinations toward belief in god, spirituality and an afterlife are more emotional and intuitive than logical. I don't see this as a problem, as long as those inclinations don't contradict logic and evidence and I don't try to push those inclinations on people who don't share them.

^this.

Also other hypothesis could be:

- The powerful consciousness evolved just like we did and only directed the order of things later - the way humans breed animals for certain traits; we don't 'create' the animals but we can certainly change circumstance to allow them to be more docile - smarter - or glow in the dark.

- The being in charge changes hands and is actually just a position; like Pope or president or king. Maybe old gods die and new ones are born, just like us.

- Maybe the Universe is created like a biological cell, that splits into it's twin and there is another universe much like ours - and that whole universe is the 'real' one and ours is only a shadow that reflects the original (like resonance).

- Reality is just a dream and we are all part of the Matrix, a machine that gained sentience and took over the human race, which was created by our own ancestors...well you get the idea.

I admit this is more of an agnostics argument than a deists, but the fact is we don't really know right now, and probably never will know what 'caused' reality as we know it. We will probably have to go on faith and supposition no matter what we believe about The Beginning Of Everything.

I probably wouldn't classify that into the sort of deism I'm curious about unless there's a belief that one of those origins being ultimate seemed like the most likely explanation. I appreciate your feedback!

If our universe is part of another universe's single cell or whatever, you're really not trying to push back the need for a cause or whathaveyou.

[John E]

Jan 31, 2010 2:15:06 GMT -5 lonelocust said:

Thanks for the response. So I guess my question is, given that "it takes a bigger leap to say that reality has no cause than to say that something probably caused it" why does the same not apply for the thing that created the universe and then the thing that created that and the thing that created that, etc.?

Ultimately, I don't know. Maybe because we know that the universe had a beginning, so it follows that it had a cause, but we don't know that whatever might have come before had a beginning.

However, if it seems like there might be a "someone" and not just a "something" that caused the universe, is there a reason that it seems like that someone doesn't also need to be caused?

When I say "god," in the context of my own ideas (not held strongly enough to call them beliefs), I don't think of god as a person, in a sense we would recognize. To me, that's one of the faults of most religions: They make god small and limited, like us, with a personality, emotions, moods, a train of thought, etc.

[Bluefinger]

The problem with saying that the Universe MUST have something as a cause implies that everything has a cause of some form. But in reality, there are effects and phenomena which arise without cause. Of course, such phenomena only arise at the quantum level, but the point is that stuff happens anyway, cause or no cause. Considering the Universe was once at one point existing at the quantum level in terms of size, for then the Universe to be prone to quantum phenomena is not a leap at all. The only problem here is identifying whether the Universe really had a true beginning, or whether it is simply a transition between what the Universe was before to the Universe we know.

Simply put, we don't know, because the models required to effectively study the Universe in that particular state don't exist or are incomplete. We have no effective model of Quantum Gravity, nor do we understand quite fully what happens to space-time at such tiny sizes and incredible densities.

So the point is, we don't even know whether the Universe had even a 'beginning', only that a transition occurred. The full details of that transition are still not fully known, and whether this transition constitutes as a 'beginning' or not remains to be seen.

[John E]

Jan 31, 2010 12:31:52 GMT -5 Bluefinger said:

The problem with saying that the Universe MUST have something as a cause...

Except that I didn't say the universe "must" have a cause.

Simply put, we don't know,

Thus the agnostic part.

So the point is, we don't even know whether the Universe had even a 'beginning', only that a transition occurred. The full details of that transition are still not fully known, and whether this transition constitutes as a 'beginning' or not remains to be seen.

Every beginning is just a transition. The difference is semantic.

[kristine]

If you consider the words 'In the beginning' it could mean a lot of things depending on your interpretation...the beginning of this planet? this solar system? this universe? This reality?

Usually the argument goes all the way back and includes other planets...What if the religous scriptures were only talking about this planet?

I just think there are more questions then answers about 'The Beginning' at this time to say anything definitive. It is my belief that a lot of 'pushback' occurs in response to someone else's beliefs - You don't believe in one of the founding underpinnings of my reality? then I must disagree with you on every aspect you say about this! - even if my true answer should be "I don't know".

[MaybeNever]

I'm pretty well a full-fledged atheist, so I don't hold that any kind of consciousness had anything to do with the creation of the universe. One of the more interesting ideas I (think I)'ve heard, though, is that at the quantum level effects can precede causes. So we may some day find that some circumstance or other in the first nanoseconds after the Big Bang were the very cause of the Big Bang itself.

[Thejebusfire]

I'm like a cross between an agnostic and a deist.

[syndrome]

I tend to bounce from Deism to Animism. While I believe there is a supreme being or spirit, I don't believe it has control or any major influence in our world. But do think if there is one, it's something that has always been and always will be, kind of silly sounding I know.

[Bluefinger]

Jan 31, 2010 13:12:00 GMT -5 John E said:

Except that I didn't say the universe "must" have a cause.

Yes, you said "something probably caused it" or at least finding the first cause argument the best one out of current ones (though not without its flaws), but I'm pointing out that in this Universe, there's still examples of things arising without cause, and thus a requirement of said Universe needing a cause itself is moot.

Jan 31, 2010 13:12:00 GMT -5 John E said:

Every beginning is just a transition. The difference is semantic.

I don't think you quite understood what I was trying to get across. I was talking about the Universe either having a true beginning, or what we know as the Universe in its current form beginning at point X, but the Universe still existing in some other form before that point. The latter would be a transition in states, not a transition from a beginning point.

[shykid]

Feb 2, 2010 2:14:55 GMT -5 Thejebusfire said:

I'm like a cross between an agnostic and a deist.

This is me, pretty much.

[John E]

Feb 2, 2010 11:14:52 GMT -5 Bluefinger said:

Jan 31, 2010 13:12:00 GMT -5 John E said:

Except that I didn't say the universe "must" have a cause.

Yes, you said "something probably caused it" or at least finding the first cause argument the best one out of current ones (though not without its flaws), but I'm pointing out that in this Universe, there's still examples of things arising without cause, and thus a requirement of said Universe needing a cause itself is moot.

I wouldn't say that it's moot, just not a slam dunk. And I didn't say that the universe "required" a cause.

If the fact that it's possible for things to happen without a cause makes it a moot point to look for causes, then why do we bother searching for the cause of anything? Why, when the police show up at a crime scene and find someone dead do they not say, "Well, science has proven that things can happen without causes, so it's a moot point looking for a murderer"? Because in the VAST majority of cases, events have causes. As such, it seems to me that the most reasonable position is to assume any particular event has a cause unless shown to be otherwise.

I realize the creation of the universe as we know it is in a whole different class of events than anything else we've observed, which is why I'm not as firmly convinced that it has a cause as I would be of any mundane case. But that is also why I think other people are equally full of it when they are so sure that it doesn't. The only reasonable answer, IMHO is, "I don't know."

Jan 31, 2010 13:12:00 GMT -5 John E said:

Every beginning is just a transition. The difference is semantic.

I don't think you quite understood what I was trying to get across. I was talking about the Universe either having a true beginning, or what we know as the Universe in its current form beginning at point X, but the Universe still existing in some other form before that point. The latter would be a transition in states, not a transition from a beginning point.[/quote]
No, I think I understood that quite well. My point is that what we call a "beginning" is always a type of transition. In the case of the universe, it might be a transition from non-existence to existence or it might be a transition from one form of existence to another. In either case, the question remains, "Why did the beginning/transition take place?"