Deism, an intellectually serious position in previous centuries, now must reject scientific explanations

[bilby]

Firstly, who said it is a "god". A creator would be a creator. Computer, upper level existence, some blind set of circumstances.

You can use whatever placeholder word for Creator you like.

So you are using the word "creator" instead of "god". That does make more sense.

Well, that depends. In the context of "everything" a creator makes no sense regardless, because any creator would have to be a part of "everything", and so must either be eternal, or have sprung into existence spontaneously.

If things can spring into existence spontaneously, we need not bother to posit a creator; We can simplify by positing the spontaneous existence of matter/energy.

And if things that are eternal are real, we need not bother to posit a creator; We can simplify by positing an eternal existence of matter/energy.

If it is impossible for things to be eternal, AND it is impossible for things to spontaneously begin from nothing, then it is impossible for anything to exist - including any "creator(s)".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Firstly, who said it is a "god". A creator would be a creator. Computer, upper level existence, some blind set of circumstances.

You can use whatever placeholder word for Creator you like.

So you are using the word "creator" instead of "god". That does make more sense.

Well, that depends. In the context of "everything" a creator makes no sense regardless, because any creator would have to be a part of "everything", and so must either be eternal, or have sprung into existence spontaneously.

Naw. That'd be a "god", which is why Lion IRC went with the word creator instead. Because God typically means power, intent, dickishness. Where as a creator can be many things.

It is possible the universe has a creator and our universe is some microcosm in a much larger whateva. A creator need not encompass anything. Merely, it just needs to be a cause.

If things can spring into existence spontaneously, we need not bother to posit a creator; We can simplify by positing the spontaneous existence of matter/energy.

My argument for a while is if a deity can exist without being created, why aren't there an infinite number of deities. Seems like if existence without creation isn't a problem for god, why aren't there more of 'em? Theists only like that loophole to be used once... and for their personally selected deity.

It's cute they consider it logic.

If it is impossible for things to be eternal, AND it is impossible for things to spontaneously begin from nothing, then it is impossible for anything to exist - including any "creator(s)".

I posit our existence is impossible without a creator!

While I did a use an exclamation point, one will need to notice that my statement carries no weight in nature.

I find it comical that most people want to demand to have a satisfying conclusion regarding origins. The reality is, however, we don't know. We don't have a clue. And that's okay.

 

[bilby]

It is possible the universe has a creator and our universe is some microcosm in a much larger whateva.

Not according to my definition of universe, which is, well, universal in scope - it includes everything that exists.

 

[bilby]

I find it comical that most people want to demand to have a satisfying conclusion regarding origins. The reality is, however, we don't know. We don't have a clue. And that's okay.

It is okay not to know, but it's not true that we don't have a clue. The first law of thermodynamics is a strong hint that mass/energy is probably eternal.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is possible the universe has a creator and our universe is some microcosm in a much larger whateva.

Not according to my definition of universe, which is, well, universal in scope - it includes everything that exists.

The problem here is that this is not a sensible definition for a set, insofar as at certain ranges, existence is not observable nor meaningful, and this allows no interrogation of properties. It might be "true" but it doesn't allow generalization of the sort that lets someone design a similar system of change.

Rather, universe is better treated by equivalence to "closed system of change upon some field or set of fields".

In this way, we can treat the concept of closed systems of change in a sensible way particularly when we recognize that "everything we see" is actually implemented that way.

Certainly defining it with a moving goalpost that one may shift every time someone observes a wider scope means you don't have to change your definition, but again this definition just isn't useful, even if it is trite.

Until you can point to theoretical object that does not necessarily exist and class that object as a "universe", I don't think you really can be said to understand the class of "universes".

 

[bilby]

It might be "true" but it doesn't allow generalization of the sort that lets someone design a similar system of change

Why would that matter one iota?

 

[Jarhyn]

It might be "true" but it doesn't allow generalization of the sort that lets someone design a similar system of change

Why would that matter one iota?

Because THE universe in terms of "everything that exists" is not an approachable concept. NOTHING can be said of it with any kind of certitude other than "something is happening here".

It doesn't allow perspective in terms of hierarchy or systemic structure, it doesn't allow examination of anything really.

It's just a useless word at that point incapable of creating leverage upon any sort of information about it.

There's a reason mathematicians don't work around or treat "the set of all sets".

 

[abaddon]

Firstly, who said it is a "god". A creator would be a creator. Computer, upper level existence, some blind set of circumstances.

You can use whatever placeholder word for Creator you like.

Will "universe" do?

I think cosmological panpsychism is at least "barking up the right tree". It proposes that consciousness is ubiquitous throughout the matter of the universe so that the universe is in effect an evolving brain. This opens up the possibility for teleology and an explanation for fine-tuning that doesn't involve either spiritual beings or a multiverse... maybe this universe "leaned" towards the conditions where life could evolve and eventually become self-aware (thus by extension making the universe self-aware through the minds of the meta-conscious beings within itself).

Is that a "placeholder" for either "creator" or "God"?

I don't think so. It's not what I mean by suggesting the universe is a mind.