407 replies to this topic

[Joshpantera]

So, yes, while the use of the phrase "God as Creation" can be tricky to an extent, this view completely dispels the theological baggage that comes along with "God as Creator".

 If the idea is to help people along then this all seems fine and well.

 

But Deism may not be the best description of what you're suggesting unless you're talking about Pan-deism.

 

God as creation points to Pan ("All") concepts in any event. And it certainly is a middle ground between theism and atheism. There is no God in the sense of a separate and isolated deity floating around in some far off place called heaven, but there is a God in the sense that God is merely a place holder term for the whole of natural existence itself, which is where you're going with it by claiming that God is the natural laws and basically everything that mere existence itself entails.

 

That's ok as a middle ground until, like you said, one starts to question why in the world do we need to call the natural universe God, why not just call it the universe and take the confusion out of it?

 

Then Scientific or Natural Pantheism enters the arena where people feel reverence towards the natural universe and respect it as such, as the interconnected whole, but do not call it "God."

 

I agree, exploring these options for lurking eye's may be beneficial for them in some way.

[Joshpantera]

Anyway, how does my objection deal with this?

 

My objection is based on the premise that we exist in a fractal Multiverse.  (Btw, you'll note that I held to this before that fact was confirmed by the recent Planck data.  So my objection was theoretical, but is now factual.) The true nature of this fractal Multiverse decapitates Intelligent Design by destroying the Fine-Tuned Universe argument - which is foundational and fundamental to ID.

 

In a fractal Multiverse ALL possible permutations of the natural physical laws will evolve.  Not just once and not just a few times, but an infinite number of times.  Therefore it's not surprising that our region appears to be designed for life.  Such an outcome is... inevitable.  And not just once... but an infinite number of times.

 

Therefore, there's no need whatsoever to invoke the supernatural hand of an Intelligent Designer to account for our existence.  Regions like our universe MUST spring out of the Multiverse.  If this result is simply a logical and inevitable result of the math, then no supernatural agencies are required to account for our existence. Thus, ID has no basis in fact!

.

.

.

.

As you say... Checkmate.

 

Right back to what I was suggesting earlier without the hard evidence to back it up, life and intelligent life is an inevitable outcome.

 

So then simply put:

 

Fractual Universe = Natural Tendency.

Edited by Joshpantera, 05 April 2013 - 03:42 PM.

[BlackCat]

As you say... Checkmate.

 

This concludes my explanation of my cosmology-based objection to Intelligent Design.  Thank you very much for your patience and diligence, BC.

 

 

Yours respectfully,

 

BAA.

 

Hi BAA.  Checkmate indeed.     This has been a very interesting and enlightening journey and I thank you very much, and the other guys here who have also been contributing to this awesome discussion.       Now I need to let it sink in......  

[bornagainathiest]

BAA,

 

You are correct, on both points. The concept I described is not new with me by any means.

 

It has some beneficial uses. The primary benefit is that such a view can satisfy the "God" gene. That is, there seems to be some recent thought indicating that humans are predisposed to create "God" or "gods". A Deist view fully embraces science and cosmology as it exists now and as it will evolve. It is the bridge between science and the need for spirituality that you observe.

 

It can useful when speaking with people who are dissatisfied with the traditional "God" and see the contradictions and paradoxes, but don't want to or can't make the leap to atheism. This gives them something that eliminates not only the logical problems, but the moral ones and the whole issue of damnation and salvation. This can be a helping hand, so to speak, for those who want to break free from the bonds of the teaching they grew up with.

 

It is also useful when debating with the hardcore Christian who has absolutely no doubts and no desire to change. In that case it can be used to counter the several claims being made. However, it does lead one to be tempted to say "puny god" at times. (That was a great line.)

 

Last, once a person is fully comfortable with this view they can decide later if they continue to see a need for it, or want to move to a fully agnostic position.

 

So, yes, while the use of the phrase "God as Creation" can be tricky to an extent, this view completely dispels the theological baggage that comes along with "God as Creator". Obviously someone who is fully comfortable with agnosticism or atheism has most likely already deduced this position.

 

It should also be noted that a Deist view is also compatible with existentialism.

 

I would not be surprised to find out that there are lurkers reading this thread who are "on the fence" about "God". This discussion between us on this particular item might be helpful for them.

 

Hey Botfx!

 

I like what you say about the benefits and the bridge-building. 

In a way, this can been seen as movement in the opposite direction to that which I described to BlackCat in #398, yesterday.  Just as, thru gradual means, Christians seek to draw people into their belief-system, so those wishing to leave need to do so via a gradual process. 

 

Perhaps I'm somewhat atypical, in that respect - flipping quickly from atheism to Christianity and just as quickly back to atheism?  (Hence my handle.) But if Deism is helpful to others and assists them in their journey out of Christianity, that's fine by me.

 

On the subject of people's predisposition to create 'Gods', are you familiar with the work of Michael Shermer?  He's the driving force behind this organization... http://www.skeptic.com/  ...and he's also a regular columnist in Scientific American.

 

His book, 'The Believing Brain' describes the neuroscience of belief and why we are predisposed to see patterns where only noise exists, why we attribute these patterns to personal agents (gods, spirits, extraterrestrials, etc.) and why we then defend these errant beliefs against critical thinking.

 

http://shop.skeptic....uct_Code=b144HB

 

I commend it to you.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Anyway, how does my objection deal with this?

 

My objection is based on the premise that we exist in a fractal Multiverse.  (Btw, you'll note that I held to this before that fact was confirmed by the recent Planck data.  So my objection was theoretical, but is now factual.) The true nature of this fractal Multiverse decapitates Intelligent Design by destroying the Fine-Tuned Universe argument - which is foundational and fundamental to ID.

 

In a fractal Multiverse ALL possible permutations of the natural physical laws will evolve.  Not just once and not just a few times, but an infinite number of times.  Therefore it's not surprising that our region appears to be designed for life.  Such an outcome is... inevitable.  And not just once... but an infinite number of times.

 

Therefore, there's no need whatsoever to invoke the supernatural hand of an Intelligent Designer to account for our existence.  Regions like our universe MUST spring out of the Multiverse.  If this result is simply a logical and inevitable result of the math, then no supernatural agencies are required to account for our existence. Thus, ID has no basis in fact!

.

.

.

.

As you say... Checkmate.

 

Right back to what I was suggesting earlier without the hard evidence to back it up, life and intelligent life is an inevitable outcome.

 

So then simply put:

 

Fractual Universe = Natural Tendency.

 

Great call, Josh! 

 

You nailed it here... http://www.ex-christ...indings/page-10 ...in # 192, back in January 29, tho' you first raised the idea in #172, the day before.

 

Fractual?      Fractal + Factual = Fractual

 

I like it!

 

Cheers,

 

BAA

[bornagainathiest]

As you say... Checkmate.

 

This concludes my explanation of my cosmology-based objection to Intelligent Design.  Thank you very much for your patience and diligence, BC.

 

 

Yours respectfully,

 

BAA.

 

Hi BAA.  Checkmate indeed.     This has been a very interesting and enlightening journey and I thank you very much, and the other guys here who have also been contributing to this awesome discussion.       Now I need to let it sink in......  

 

 

Dear BlackCat,

 

This journey with you and the other folks (friends!) has been enriching and uplifting for me too.  Thank you so much for walking with us.  Such a journey should rightly end with the traveller finding the space and time to rest, relax and absorb what they've seen, heard and discovered.

 

I also would like to extend my warmest thanks for all of the excellent contributions, thoughts and insights from my fellow travellers.  You know who you are, so I needn't list your names.  I've learned much on this journey and I owe a lot of that to you.

 

Thanks,

 

 

BAA.

[Joshpantera]

 

Anyway, how does my objection deal with this?

 

My objection is based on the premise that we exist in a fractal Multiverse.  (Btw, you'll note that I held to this before that fact was confirmed by the recent Planck data.  So my objection was theoretical, but is now factual.) The true nature of this fractal Multiverse decapitates Intelligent Design by destroying the Fine-Tuned Universe argument - which is foundational and fundamental to ID.

 

In a fractal Multiverse ALL possible permutations of the natural physical laws will evolve.  Not just once and not just a few times, but an infinite number of times.  Therefore it's not surprising that our region appears to be designed for life.  Such an outcome is... inevitable.  And not just once... but an infinite number of times.

 

Therefore, there's no need whatsoever to invoke the supernatural hand of an Intelligent Designer to account for our existence.  Regions like our universe MUST spring out of the Multiverse.  If this result is simply a logical and inevitable result of the math, then no supernatural agencies are required to account for our existence. Thus, ID has no basis in fact!

.

.

.

.

As you say... Checkmate.

 

Right back to what I was suggesting earlier without the hard evidence to back it up, life and intelligent life is an inevitable outcome.

 

So then simply put:

 

Fractual Universe = Natural Tendency.

 

Great call, Josh! 

 

You nailed it here... http://www.ex-christ...indings/page-10 ...in # 192, back in January 29, tho' you first raised the idea in #172, the day before.

 

Fractual?      Fractal + Factual = Fractual

 

I like it!

 

Cheers,

 

BAA

Nice save BAA!

 

Of course it was a typo, I meant Fractal Universe = Natural Tendency but the mistake did make for an intersting consideration after all.

 

Fractual Universe, I like it!!!

 

lol

 

None of this is flattering in any way to monotheism or the Bible. And if they even tried to latch on to any of this thinking in order to try and favor thier westernized ID or IC angles they'd be easily smacked down in a moments notice unless they come out and say that nature is essentially God, which, would immediately make them not monotheistic - not Christian, not Jewish, and not Islamic - which is another smack down. It's essentially heresy. So BAA's concern about western religionists trying to latch on is understandable, but not actually a concern at all.

This was intuitive for me. It seemed obvious that the evidence would point in this direction even if there was no such hard landed evidence for eternal inflation at the time when we were considering a multiverse. But it may have been so intuitive because it turns out to be a foundational pillar of universal truth when all of the evidence is finally weighed. Good to see those intuitions and logical deductions began to pan out against the data from space...

Edited by Joshpantera, 06 April 2013 - 10:22 PM.

[BlackCat]

Hi guys, hope you're all ok.  I haven't abandoned you.  I've lent my laptop to my son-in-law and my desktop has been playing up so haven't been able to get on for a while. I've managed to get my desktop working, but not sure for how long..... 

 

I'm still pondering stuff and letting it sink in, and I've started reading 'A History of God' by Karen Armstrong, which is proving very interesting. Bye for now.........