Deism

[Omega Point]

And another point that I forgot to (explicitly) bring up: For creation to better explain life existing than pure chance, the creator has to favor life. Why is that a valid assumption? Again, why is life so special? To use my analogy again, why is it different than a needle in a particular location of a haystack?

I will try to elaborate on my current thought process regarding why the creator favors life through answering this paragraph. You've definitly given me some food for thought though, thanks! As you can tell i'm not concretely set into my viewpoints, so all input is greatly appreciated as it will help me eventually make a final conclusion about why we are here!

Also, just out of curiousity, what's with you favoring deism? You never brought up why you think our creator has let the universe run its course after creating it, which is a core part of deism. Could it be that you're (nearly) sure that we have a creator (for reasons you've already explained), but that you're not sure in any way about the nature of this creator and what it's done since the universe's creation? If so, that's not really deism in my book.

Perhaps the term god is not appropriate in my current form of deism. I will use the term stated on the cover of a book I once read: "intelligent life is the architect of the universe". The nature of the creator is a lifeform from another universe. When a lifeform becomes sufficiently advanced, it could logically colonize the entire universe (omega point theory, where I got my name!). Once the lifeform has taken up every nook and cranny of the universe, it would have a profound effect upon the laws of the universe, perhaps even dictating those laws. Such a being, in it's "omega point" state, could possibly spawn another universe, in which intelligent life could thusly be born again. It has to do with life's inherent will to expand itself. If it takes up the whole universe, make a new universe! So, the universe had a creator (although not "god"), and perhaps one day in the distant future we will be the architect of our own universe(s). As for what the diety has done since creation, it has sat there in omega point state creating more and more universes, to thusly expand life even further.

Of course, you always must remember the weak anthropic principle as well. You can only observe a realm in which "life" can be created. So the probability of us being in a "life" possible universe must be 1

The weak anthropic principle is little more then a tautology. "we are here becuase if we weren't here we wouldn't be here"






p.s.: if nothing else be gained from this topic, notice my newfound ability to split quotes!

 

[WillJ]

Perhaps the term god is not appropriate in my current form of deism. I will use the term stated on the cover of a book I once read: "intelligent life is the architect of the universe". The nature of the creator is a lifeform from another universe. When a lifeform becomes sufficiently advanced, it could logically colonize the entire universe (omega point theory, where I got my name!). Once the lifeform has taken up every nook and cranny of the universe, it would have a profound effect upon the laws of the universe, perhaps even dictating those laws. Such a being, in it's "omega point" state, could possibly spawn another universe, in which intelligent life could thusly be born again. It has to do with life's inherent will to expand itself. If it takes up the whole universe, make a new universe! So, the universe had a creator (although not "god"), and perhaps one day in the distant future we will be the architect of our own universe(s). As for what the diety has done since creation, it has sat there in omega point state creating more and more universes, to thusly expand life even further.

Woah, you're getting a bit too metaphysical for me there.

Where do you get the idea that once a lifeform occupies an entire universe, it can start changing the universe's laws, not to mention create a new universe? And where did this lifeform-creator idea come from? Why do you consider this more likely than a god-like thing creating the universe? As of right now (perhaps you just haven't ellaborated enough, though; or perhaps it's too advanced for me), this omega-point-lifeform-creator hypothesis seems no more logical of an assumption than, say, Christianity. [Edit]: But it certainly is interesting. I'll try letting it sit in my head a little while longer.

 

[Perfection]

Perhaps the term god is not appropriate in my current form of deism. I will use the term stated on the cover of a book I once read: "intelligent life is the architect of the universe". The nature of the creator is a lifeform from another universe. When a lifeform becomes sufficiently advanced, it could logically colonize the entire universe (omega point theory, where I got my name!). Once the lifeform has taken up every nook and cranny of the universe, it would have a profound effect upon the laws of the universe, perhaps even dictating those laws. Such a being, in it's "omega point" state, could possibly spawn another universe, in which intelligent life could thusly be born again. It has to do with life's inherent will to expand itself. If it takes up the whole universe, make a new universe! So, the universe had a creator (although not "god"), and perhaps one day in the distant future we will be the architect of our own universe(s). As for what the diety has done since creation, it has sat there in omega point state creating more and more universes, to thusly expand life even further.

The problem is you are now throwing a whole lot more assumptions into the lot, your logic requires the colonization of a universe by sentient beings, sentient species to be able (and willing) to alter the laws of their universe, the ability (and willingness) to spawn other universes, and the infinite expansion of life.

The weak anthropic principle is little more then a tautology. "we are here becuase if we weren't here we wouldn't be here"

No, many things can be expressed as tautologies yet still aren't. The weak anthropic principle asserts that since we can only operate under certain core circumstances it should not be suprising that those core circumstances exist as without them we wouldn't exist. You cannot seperate the observer from the observed.

 

[carlosMM]

There are many things that all had to be pretty much exactly how they are for the universe to be life-friendly. How could this happen without a creator? The probablity of all these supposed life-allowing coincedences happening is staggeringly tiny, and thus wouldn't it be intellectually dishonest to discount the possibilty that it wasn't just chance that created a life-friendly universe?

I'll just address this:
the universe is (near?) infinite, and thus, over the course of its existence, will have an (near?) infinite number of worlds.

The probability that ONE or more of them are life-friendly is very high.
You just happen to live on it.

 

[Stapel]

The Deism god is just as fake as God or Allah. No logic at all.

Some people think our world/universe is so special, it cannot be formed by chance. Thus these people think it must have been created by a deity. These people simply accept that this deity, that must be more complex than its creation by definition, was always there.

Great logic!

 

[CurtSibling]

Deism is just 'stealth theism'...

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Not really, Curt. If we think about it, a deist's and an atheist's stance is may be diferent, but the consequences of that thought are identical: there is no God to influence the workings of the universe.

But Deism does fail in front of Occam's razor.

And a question:
I want to know how do you think there's a cause for everything (to paraphrase "nothing is accidental"), but not a cause for Everything (including the universe itself)?

 

[CurtSibling]

The simple option is indeed best.

Divine figures are myths, until proven otherwise.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

The simple option is indeed best.

Divine figures are myths, until proven otherwise.

How about the question:

You said: "Nothing happends without reason". Now, why is it that nothing happends without reason and there is no reason (primordial cause, Principle, "God") for the universe itself?

 

[CurtSibling]

How about the question:

You said: "Nothing happends without reason". Now, why is it that nothing happends without reason and there is no reason (primordial cause, Principle, "God") for the universe itself?

That would depend on the nature of the universe, which is an unknown factor.

And whatever that factor is, it has a reason to be so.

I'll be willing to bet our invention of god has nothing to do with it!

 

[Aphex_Twin]

That would depend on the nature of the universe, which is an unknown factor.

And whatever that factor is, it has a reason to be so.

I'll be willing to bet our invention of god has nothing to do with it!

Lose the traditional deffinition of God. If you do believe there is a cause for the universe, therefore, something caused (or created) the universe, then you are without any doubt a deist.

 

[CurtSibling]

Lose the traditional deffinition of God. If you do believe there is a cause for the universe, therefore, something caused (or created) the universe, then you are without any doubt a deist.

Don't try an label me into your religious views please.

We have no idea how the universe came to be, but I see it as a mindless macro-nature.

Why must humans apply thier sad little arrogances to everything?
Does the universe have to be a creation of a giant authority figure?

We should assume adulthood, and lose the child-looking-for-a-parent syndrome!

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Don't try an label me into your religious views please.

We have no idea how the universe came to be, but I see it as a mindless macro-nature.

Why must humans apply thier sad little arrogances to everything?
Does the universe have to be a creation of a giant authority figure?

We should assume adulthood, and lose the child-looking-for-a-parent syndrome!

Then if we replace God by Cause, are we going somewhere? Remember, the Deist "god" simply gave it it's first Impulse, then left it by itself (fundamentally different from Theism).

 

[CurtSibling]

Then if we replace God by Cause, are we going somewhere? Remember, the Deist "god" simply gave it it's first Impulse, then left it by itself (fundamentally different from Theism).

I am not for the idea that the universe had to have a 'start'.

The whole thing is beoynd our ken.

I reject the god concept utterly.

You cannot trap me in this!

 

[Birdjaguar]

I am not for the idea that the universe had to have a 'start'.

That would depend on the nature of the universe, which is an unknown factor.

We have no idea how the universe came to be, but I see it as a mindless macro-nature.

And whatever that factor is, it has a reason to be so.
The whole thing is beoynd our ken.

I reject the god concept utterly.

You cannot trap me in this!

It is clear why you want to beg the issue of a beginning. If the universe has a beginning, logic demands that it have a cause. If the universe is eternal you get the mindless macro nature that we cannot explain. A chink in the armor. The easy answer is "we don't know". Very agnostic. Not very atheisitic. The big bang complicates matters, because it seems to be the beginning of our universe and so you must fall back on a theoretical something that spawns universes blah blah blah.

You are already trapped. But its not by god or any particular version of him. You are trapped by logic and reason.

Good luck, I will enjoy future posts by all sides.

 

[Omega Point]

Woah, you're getting a bit too metaphysical for me there.

Where do you get the idea that once a lifeform occupies an entire universe, it can start changing the universe's laws, not to mention create a new universe? And where did this lifeform-creator idea come from? Why do you consider this more likely than a god-like thing creating the universe? As of right now (perhaps you just haven't ellaborated enough, though; or perhaps it's too advanced for me), this omega-point-lifeform-creator hypothesis seems no more logical of an assumption than, say, Christianity. [Edit]: But it certainly is interesting. I'll try letting it sit in my head a little while longer.

Well, I've read a few books about the subject and they were fairly convincing to me. Obviously I didn't do a great job summing up the whole thing in a paragraph, but maybe an internet search would help if you're more interested. Try searches for "omega point theory" or "selfish biocosm".



On another note, some posters have brought up that deism is close to religion, etc... I think deism has a lot in common with atheism. As birdjaguar pointed out, each theory (deism/atheism) has chinks in its armor, but each provides an identical description of the universe as the other.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

I am not for the idea that the universe had to have a 'start'.

The whole thing is beoynd our ken.

I reject the god concept utterly.

You cannot trap me in this!

In that case, how do you define "everything"?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think that the "Prove God Exists" thread has affected Curt's thinking and he is now confused.

 

[Omega Point]

I searched a bit through a few books and found this paragraph which sortof sums up the theory:

"The basic idea is that the anthropic, or life-friendly, qualities that our universe exhibits are logical and predictable consequences of a cosmic reproduction cycle in which a cosmologically extended biosphere, developed and evolved over billions of years to unimaginable levels of sophistication, serves as the device by which our cosmos duplicates itself and propagates one or more "baby universes". This hypothesis portrays the cosmos as "selfish" in the same metaphorical sense that Richard Dawkins proposed that genes are "selfish". Under the Selfish Biocosm theory, the cosmos is "selfishly" focused upon the overarching objective of assuring its own replication. As economists would put it, self-reproduction is the hypothesized "utility function" of the universe"

Source: The book referred to in this website http://www.biocosm.org


What this means is that, unlike what many here have articulated as the downfall of deism--the notion that life is special in some way--is brought down. Life is special in that it plays the role of a controller and a duplicating machine, with the thing being duplicated being the universe.

The universe is strikingly well-tuned for life to exist. The above theory is just another way of speculating how that could be, beyond the idea that we exist as the product of unimaginably small odds.

 

[Omega Point]

Does nobody have further opinion on the matter? There are so many atheists here, and I'm really curious to hear their thoughts and/or questions regarding the biocosm hypothesis and how they deem it impossible.