Deism

Birdjaguar said:
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.
The Big Bang is more likely the beginning of the Universe as we know it. What if the former universe collapsed into the lump of matter that then went Bang and made us?
Yes, I know there had to be something before that universe as well, but in all likelihood, we will never know, as nothing is likely to have survived that collapse and then rapid re-expansion and reformation.
 
Blasphemous said:
The Big Bang is more likely the beginning of the Universe as we know it. What if the former universe collapsed into the lump of matter that then went Bang and made us?
Yes, I know there had to be something before that universe as well, but in all likelihood, we will never know, as nothing is likely to have survived that collapse and then rapid re-expansion and reformation.

The "occillating universe" was discredited some years ago. It has been replaced at the theoretical level by branes and M theory. Even the Big Bang is being looked at from a new perspective. This link presents a very readable update on current thinking.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010922/bob9.asp

Even as science moves relentlessly forward, the questions of the nature of the "first cause" or eternal "mindless mega nature" (Curt's phrase) remain open and subject to a variety of intrepretations.

@curt: We haven't heard from here in a while. I guess posts 35 & 37 did trap you, even though I thought you had enough wiggle room to escape with only a gnawed off limb.;)
 
Some pointed out as a refutation of deism that the creator had to have a creator who had to have a creator, etc... where does the first creator happen?

The selfish bicosm (what I referred to earlier in this thread), has this enterpretation of the concept of "first cause" without resorting to the infinite regress that atheists commonly use

"beginning with the recognition that 'a remarkable property of [Einstein's theory of] general relativity is that it allows solutions to have closed timelike curves (CTCs)'--hypothetical configurations of space and time where gravity is sufficiently strong to bend the space-time continuum into looping configurations that allows future events to influence the past--the two scientists pointed out that the "Universe can be its own mother" "the Universe neither tunneled from nothing, nor arose from a singularity; it created itself."

"In our scenario, suppose that first universe simply turned out to be one of the infinite ones formed later by intelligent civilizations. Then the Universe would be multiply connected, and would have a region of CTCs; all of the individual universes would owe their birth to some intelligent civilization in particular in this picture"

Source: www.biocosm.org (the book referred to on this site)

I do not know anything about physics and cosmology so perhaps someone else could comment as to whether the above quote is true?


also, some have said that deism can't be a scientific theory. I think it can, because it (the selfish biocosm enterpretation at least) can generate falsifiable predictions, which are the hallmark of a scientific and not metaphysical or theological theory.


I would be interested to hear the atheists perspective on first cause?
 
Omega point said:
I do not know anything about physics and cosmology so perhaps someone else could comment as to whether the above quote is true?

Truth is elusive at best. I would not venture to reinterpret Einstein, and I don’t know the credentials of the author. But the following is from the Biocosm site you posted: It appears to me to be warmed over new age liberalism, feel good about being a human, combined with creation science. I’m sure that there are very few people qualified to write “True Ethical Imperatives”, and I doubt the author of this book would meet my qualifications.

Science should not divorce itself from the ethical, legal, and social implications of new theories. BIOCOSM identifies three key ethical imperatives and insights that derive from the new cosmological theory articulated in the book:

• First, that humankind is ethically obliged to safeguard the welfare of future generations.

We never have in the past. Why should we start now? Has something changed about the universe in the past 100,000 years? This reads like a personal agenda to feed the starving peoples of the world and make sure we preserve the rights of Jews and Palestinians (and every other such two sided conflict) to kill each other indiscriminately. Or maybe to step in and use force to stop such wars and end nasty dictatorships. I'm not sure which.

• Second, that a spirit of species-neutral altruism should inform our interactions with other living creatures and with the environment we share.

It might be nice, but nature certainly has never had that attitude.

• Third, that we and other living creatures throughout the cosmos are part of a vast, still undiscovered transterrestrial community of lives and intelligences spread across billions of galaxies and countless parsecs who are collectively engaged in a portentous mission of truly cosmic importance. Under the BIOCOSM vision, we share a common fate with that community—to help shape the future of the universe and transform it from a collection of lifeless atoms into a vast, transcendent mind.

New age clap trap. This one sounds nice, but makes no sense within any meaningful time scale.

• The inescapable implication of the Selfish Biocosm hypothesis is that the immense saga of biological evolution on Earth is one tiny chapter in an ageless tale of the struggle of the creative force of life against the disintegrative acid of entropy, of emergent order against encroaching chaos, and ultimately of the heroic power of mind against the brute intransigence of lifeless matter. Through the quality and character of our contribution to the progress of life and intelligence in this epic struggle, we shape not only our own lives and those of our immediate progeny but the lives and minds of every generation of living creatures down to the end of time. We thereby help to shape the ultimate fate of the cosmos itself.

This one adds the good versus evil component, lets work as a team, and the value of the individual effort in a heroic setting. All sounds very Calvinistic to me. Like most religions, this one presupposes a universal truth that is dependent on human action to fulfill its destiny. I would think that such an entity/truth would be beyond any good and evil duality or dependence on creation.
 
One of the chief issues they address in the biocosm book is ways in which biocosm is NOT anthropocentric. It states that it need not be humans who play the roll of architect. It could be any intelligent lifeform, so truly it doesn't require human action to fufill its destiny.

Also, biocosm has falsifiable predictions (religion does not, science does).
In fact, biocosm is in some ways more scientific then "random atheism"--the notion that we are a chance organism in an infinite cosmos--because the atheists' view generates no real falsifiable predictions (except maybe proof of gods existence, but that by definition couldn't happen so it is discounted). Looks in a way that a total atheist view is more metaphysics then biocosm is.
 
Omega Point said:
"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.

i know you had a special definition for "life friendly" but it's really "life permitting, very grudgingly"

also there is absolutely no evidence that all the universe wants to do is to replicate itself. it's just naively projecting human needs to reproduce onto something not understood. the universe could just be trying to get as big as possible, or watch as tv as possible, or have no purpose whatsoever wasting away like a slob. we don't have have the slightest idea what purpose the universe has, if any

i wouldn't call the universe "striking well-tuned for life to exist", observed fact says otherwise. with deism you easily run into logical problems like major religions, and unlike major religions you don't have holy text or "leap of faith" to fall on so i don't see how deism can find foudations other than pure speculation
 
Still looking for Curt to revisit where he left off a few days ago.;)
 
romelus said:
i know you had a special definition for "life friendly" but it's really "life permitting, very grudgingly"

also there is absolutely no evidence that all the universe wants to do is to replicate itself. it's just naively projecting human needs to reproduce onto something not understood. the universe could just be trying to get as big as possible, or watch as tv as possible, or have no purpose whatsoever wasting away like a slob. we don't have have the slightest idea what purpose the universe has, if any

i wouldn't call the universe "striking well-tuned for life to exist", observed fact says otherwise. with deism you easily run into logical problems like major religions, and unlike major religions you don't have holy text or "leap of faith" to fall on so i don't see how deism can find foudations other than pure speculation

How is it life permitting, very grudgingly?

From what I have read, the universe is about exactly how it should be for life to exist in the quickest manner. We see the need for self-replication not only in humans, but in every living thing. That is not to say the universe is living, but once it is in omega point, the universe indeed would be alive. The Universe is a vessel for intelligent life to exist in. This is NOT anthropocentric. Intelligent life could mean any form of intelligent life, be it humans or otherwise. In fact, the very essence of the biocosm theory argues that humans are not and cannot be the only intelligent life in the universe. If we never discover alien life, biocosm is disproven. You might say "well, then isn't biocosm disproven until we discover other sources of intelligent life". The answer is yes and no. As of right now biocosm is an unproven scientific hypothesis.

@birdjaguar: I too wish he would revisit. As chief proponent of the "prove god exists" thread, I would have thought he would be here to dismantle deism and biocosm. I'm also interested to see if atheists resort to infinite regress.
 
Omega Point said:
Also, biocosm has falsifiable predictions (religion does not, science does).
In fact, biocosm is in some ways more scientific then "random atheism"--the notion that we are a chance organism in an infinite cosmos--because the atheists' view generates no real falsifiable predictions (except maybe proof of gods existence, but that by definition couldn't happen so it is discounted). Looks in a way that a total atheist view is more metaphysics then biocosm is.
That is incorrect, athiesm is scientific as it fits with the scientific ideal of presuming not something until evidence shows that there is something. Omega Point based ideas are not scientific, or at least poor science as it makes a postive claim on no evidence. We have no evidence to show that humans can create a custom universe, we have no evidence that life is inherently special.

Omega Point said:
This is NOT anthropocentric. Intelligent life could mean any form of intelligent life, be it humans or otherwise.
True it's stuff-like-humanity-centric, which is pretty much the same thing

Omega Point said:
In fact, the very essence of the biocosm theory argues that humans are not and cannot be the only intelligent life in the universe. If we never discover alien life, biocosm is disproven. You might say "well, then isn't biocosm disproven until we discover other sources of intelligent life". The answer is yes and no. As of right now biocosm is an unproven scientific hypothesis.
However since there is no evidence of alien life, alien life doesn't provide any evidence over that of current cosmological thinking there is little suppport for your hypthesis. That gives the theory very little credability.
 
newfangle said:
My only question is, why? Why bother believing in a God who abandons this realm and never returns. There obviously will never be any sort of evidence to support it and there are no benefits from persuing it. It all seems pretty arbitrary to me.
I have to agree with this. There is no benefit to be had from following deism. You won't even have an afterlife to be smug in and say 'I knew it all along.'
 
Sorry, Perf, I really don't have much more to say. Deism seems pretty darn silly, based on the definition I saw posted early on in the thread.

God made all of this, and then just left? How does that makes sense? Are we to believe that space-time and matter-energy are just graffitti on the walls of probability? That the Universe is God's 'blaze' and He beat His Holy Feet before the Pigs showed up to bust Him?

If all this is just graffitti as Deism seems to say, then how much longer do we have before Someone comes along and scrubs us off or paints over us? Will it be God, busted and ordered to clean His Mess up as the first part of His community service?

Sorry, it's just too funny.
 
@FL@: Your graffiti analogy is a great one, but only useful if the universe doesn't have a purpose. If there is a purpose (defined by its creator), then perhaps god is not needed for it to fulfill this purpose and he has rightly left it alone.
 
You guys are using god in the sense of religion's view of god. The selfish biocosm theory states that god is merely intelligent life that has reached omega point.

Also some have stated that it is anthropocentric to say that the universe exists solely for life. That is not the case. Life exists solely for the universe (namely it's reproduction).
 
Omega Point said:
Also some have stated that it is anthropocentric to say that the universe exists solely for life. That is not the case. Life exists solely for the universe (namely it's reproduction).
Pitting a whole theory of how universes come about based on the idea of intelligent life being the causation of universes is very anthropocentric.

Also, what evidence is there to support your "Theory" I see very little!
 
I don't see how it is anthopocentric. It doesn't mean human-kind has any central role in the universe.

The evidence lies within the fact that the universe seems fine-tuned for life. Biocosm attempts to answer the notion that "the apparent fine tuning of the laws and constants of inanimate nature that render them oddly friendly to carbon based life cries out for a plausible naturalistic explanation--for a hypothesis with genuine explanatory power that is also falsifiable.".

Atheism asserts nothing but either infinite regress or lack of knowledge. It says either the universe (or multiverse) is infinite and life is a random quirk of random physical laws, or that the universe is finite but its origins are a complete mystery (note that Curtsibling never provided a atheistic explanation of first cause).

Biocosm is a scientific version of the strong anthropic principle. It is a scientific hypothesis because it generates falsifiable predictions. The evidence lies in the life-friendly quality of the universe.
 
Omega Point said:
I don't see how it is anthopocentric. It doesn't mean human-kind has any central role in the universe.
No, but it states that intelligent life does, which is about an inch away from anthopocentrism.

Omega Point said:
The evidence lies within the fact that the universe seems fine-tuned for life. Biocosm attempts to answer the notion that "the apparent fine tuning of the laws and constants of inanimate nature that render them oddly friendly to carbon based life cries out for a plausible naturalistic explanation--for a hypothesis with genuine explanatory power that is also falsifiable.".
Two things:
1. Carbon based life is not the only theoretically possible life, the fact that the universe may be suited for it instead of say electronic life, or gravity based life or nuetrino based life or whatever gives little evidence that universe must have been created by an intelligent being.
2. How is it falsifiable?

Omega Point said:
Atheism asserts nothing but either infinite regress or lack of knowledge. It says either the universe (or multiverse) is infinite and life is a random quirk of random physical laws, or that the universe is finite but its origins are a complete mystery (note that Curtsibling never provided a atheistic explanation of first cause).
Atheism doesn't explain how the universe came into being. That's the role of cosmology. Atheism is tangent to cosmology.

Omega Point said:
Biocosm is a scientific version of the strong anthropic principle. It is a scientific hypothesis because it generates falsifiable predictions. The evidence lies in the life-friendly quality of the universe.
Where's the falsifiable predictions?
 
Omega Point, this theory is all nice and good, but let's face it: it doesn't stand a chance against Occam's Razor. The simple - and thus most logical - answer is that life is just a fluke in a universe that's either tremendously large or actually infinite. The whole idea that there are multiple universes, and that they were all created by intelligent life forms reaching this "Omega Point" is so far flung that I really don't think it deserves much credit... And anyway... It may explain how our universe was created, but there's still the problem of the first universe where the first intelligent life in the multiverse reached the first Omega Point and created the second universe. this theory, rather than explaining an already complex mystery, just puts in another pile of complications and leaves you with the same mystery, only that with this one there is little or no hope of ever being able to answer it.
 
And I repeat myself once again (Link):

This here is where you have inspired me to translate a small text from a friend, that I like to bring up every time someone mentions the anthropomorphic principle:

Gabriel DCF said:


The Larryphomorphic Principle:

One Larry Atkinson, the owner of the barber shop in my neighborhood, is a rather special man. Just looking at the odds of him being here is prove of that. See, Larry was a single, particular sperm among no less than 30 millions sperms that his father – the late Mr. Atkinson – shot at Miss Atkinson in the night of their romantic honey moon. Now, Mr. Atkinson, a well known alcoholic, had his doubts about getting married, drunk a lot, and entered on a bus to run away from his commitment, having by pure chance met an old friend in the same vehicle, that convinced him to give up that foolish act.

He got married, all right; but when drunk, Mr. Atkinson’s usually were unable to, well, perform. It was by chance, again, that Miss Atkinson’s sister – a doctor specialized in fertilization – had gotten a Viagra sample inside her purse, and having noticed by Mr. Atkinson’s behavior (she was aware of his fame), and fearing for the happiness of her loving sister, she managed to, very quietly, administer him the medicine.

Anyway, the medicine worked, and Mr. Atkinson had a very remarkable performance – but oh dear. So passionate were his moves, that eventually the condom he was wearing during the actual intercourse busted, being my good friend Larry the special very existence, living proof of the poor quality of that specific brand.

You have to agree with me that one have to be special to beat such odds; I mean, it was one against 30 millions to begin with; not to mention that, should Mr. Atkinson have bought the condom that were two inches to the left of the one he got, we can’t tell for sure if it would also have busted, and perhaps Larry, still a sperm, would have ended up in the trash can, the sorry fate of all sperms that flew in the 50 intercourses the couple have had in the last 2 and a half months. Now, should ANY of the 50 condoms used in any of these also had busted during her fertile period – she would have been a pregnant bride, hence her honey moon would not have been fertile, and my friend, Larry the Special, would not have come to be.

Not to mention that the wedding almost didn’t happen – I mean, what if Mr. Atkinson hadn’t found his good friend in the bus? He would have walked, and I quite doubt that the couple would have had proceeded with the plans that night should something like this happened. But Larry is too Special, and apparently, fate has conspired to his birth altogether. Because, really, on top of that, a wedding maid that happened to have a Viagra pill to spare? The only explanation for this astounding set of coincidences is that Larry, being the special man that he is, is favored by a higher power. I mean, look at the odds, it’s like one in a billion that the senior Atkinsons have had met and married, and have beaten all this odds, and have engaged intercourse in the exact precise day and the exact precise instant that the exact precise sperm met the exact precise egg so that my good friend Larry managed to get born. Odds here dance in the house of one to one billion. Now, have I mentioned that, for all that, I consider undeniable that my friend that owns the barber shop is rather special?

Oh, but so far it’s very superficial, I mean, when we look down at that, things go much, much further.

I mean, let’s spare the long run of tales and histories of the proud Atkinson family, that would bring chances twice as smaller for each of his fore relatives, which would also have to go through a marathon of being born and meeting their better halves in the exact precise time to bring to the world the exact new Atkinson that would pivot a new generation of the family through the centuries of centuries, again and again, and culminating with the birth of my very Special friend Larry, the owner of the barber shop – and let’s look at the numbers:

- 1/30.000.000 is the chance of the exact sperm that turned into good Larry meeting the egg due to a particular intercourse;

- Considering the average of 50 intercourses per birth (what is a rather conceding number from my part), we get that odds of Larry being born in the sexual behavior of that family to be 1/30.000.000 X 50, that means 1/1.500.000.000

- Well, if we extrapolate the same pattern to the last 1000 generations of the Atkinson family, we than get that odds of Larry (the special) being born after millennia of family relations is about 1/1.500.000.000.000. This means, one in a trillion and half. Bad odds, huh? But it’s just more prove that there is something very SPECIAL about Larry.

Things get even trickier when we remember that only each specific couple would create the necessary people to create the necessary sperms and eggs that would meet generation after generation until we reach the birth of good Larry – so, considering that we have an average of 50% of each sex in each generation of humanity, we have to multiply the odds, at each generation, by half the population of the world, as each of the partners could have chosen someone else to have children with. This here puts the chances of Larry being born in the house of one to trillions of trillions, likely far worse than that.

Still, Larry is in the barber shop every day, proving that something was in for his help… after all, there is no way he could have beaten those odds if he were not Special.

And all this, after something has designed the entire universe, so the stars were in the correct place, so Earth could exist and be what it is, so there could have come been life, and life could generate the human species and this, spawn the lovely Atkinson family, which purpose culminated in the birth of Larry, being Larry, than, of such astounding specialty in beating all the odds of entire existence, irrevocable proof that everything exists with a magnificent purpose that is, bringing up the conditions necessary to give birth to that adorable barber shop owner, Larry Atkinson, a very special man, as I proved above.

And that, my friends, is The Larryphomorphic Principle in a nutshell.


Now, what I hope to have accomplished with this translation (adaptation, in fact, I played a little with the text, not simply translated it) is to demonstrate that when we get a granted fact – be it “Larry was Born” or “There is Life in the Universe” – and we start playing with numbers to account the millions of ways in which things could have gone wrong, we are simply indulging to an exorcize of futility.

Yes, chance generated life. It may make your sense of absurd buzz of, but it does not diminish the viability of the statement. Life did not necessarily had to be what it is, that is the point. I mean, once there was a universe, some development of it would be inevitable, and the development we live in is just as good as any.

So, don’t come here and preach, like many do, that the “perfection in existence” – anthropomorphic or Larryphomorphic – is an indication that the configuration of existence is beyond the doings of pure chance. The argument of the watch is old and outdated, the watchmaker is blind, and this principle is the one that hold the fallacy, not the other way around. It is the one that underestimate the interaction of elements, and makes assumptions on silliness of purpose and goals, where nothing allows such conclusions.

There is a consideration that I like a lot, there is, the power of the infinites. It can be explained like this: “If infinite monkeys typed randomly in infinite word processors for an infinite amount of times, an infinite number of them would produce the entire works of Shakespeare”.

It’s true, they would. And no matter how many times they missed, they would still have infinite chances for the right letters to be randomly chosen. And when chances of something are infinite, it’s bound to happen, sooner or later.

Now, universe is not infinite, but in practical purposes, it is like if it were, for the amount of resources in it is insurmountable. So, you tell me that you don’t believe that mere chance could have created life? Well, I tell you its wishful thinking, for the number of possible interactions in the universe is so immense, that by chance life was BOUND to happen.

And this, my friend, is the better answer I can give to your worries. Hope I have helped you to easy your mind in such troubling issue. I doubt you’ll have full peace on the matter, like I too don’t – nonetheless, this is a much more reasonable line of thinking than imagining a super white-bearded giant screaming shazam and setting life in motion, just because we have a hard time swallowing down the mechanisms of the existence.


Regards :).
 
Back
Top Bottom