Atheism and Deism

[ttreg]

Hello. For the past one and a half years I've been an atheist. (went almost immediately to it after my deconversion) I've thought it out in my mind and all that but today I began thinking of it more, and I am not sure I'm an atheist anylonger. I think I may be a deist now.

Well, we all know all the arguements for and against god and everything blah blah blah but the single one that seems to get me is the first cause. Now, many atheists will say that the universe is caused by the big bang which is caused by something else which is caused by something else etc. Where did the first thing come from?

Now, I know we may ask "Where did God come from?", which I think is a valid thing to ask. But it seems necessary to me that there must be something that has always existed, has no cause. No matter how long the chan is of "caused by something else which is caused by something else" etc there must be a thing that caused everything else. I would say that it may be an intelligent being because the second created thing in the history of everything would have to have some purpose for it being "created."

If the first thing in existence isnt intelligent, then why/how could it create a second thing?

 

[Bellicus]

If there is a God, then I can't see the problem with everything started by Him, and that He has just always been without having "started" at some point, since He already have several other things that make him something beyond logic and the laws of nature that everything else we know about is connected to.

 

[Rauffenburg]

If the first thing in existence isnt intelligent, then why/how could it create a second thing?

If God exists in the same sense as other things exists (i.e. he is the first thing in a temporal order), then it seems more appropriate to say the world developed out of God than to say, he created it. God being the first cause means there is some sort of causality or lawful development. But this also means that God is subjects to these causal laws and not their creator.

I would say that it may be an intelligent being because the second created thing in the history of everything would have to have some purpose for it being "created."

Causality does not require a purpose. It just requires some sort of regularity. The question that Leibniz famously raised - Why is there anything rather than nothing - is not a question of causality.

 

[The Nihilist]

My understanding is that the popular hypothesis is that our universe is the result of a collision between two fifth dimensional universes. I find this utterly mindboggling and cannot begin to understand it in a way that is likely to be anything but a barely related metaphor. But, supposing that something along these lines is true, why couldn't a collection of fifth dimensional universes, or some similar source, be what has always existed?
More than that, though, I feel like deism is absolutely improper. We have taken the physical evidence as far as we can to get the best solution we can, and so far, we have found no need for God. We have found that the universe is ridiculously older and ridiculously larger than we thought, and we have still found no need for God. We understand how our universe formed, how life came to be, why the stars remain in the sky, and still we have found no need for God. In the 5500 years of recorded history and 500 years productive science, we have made so much progress. We have come out of the dark into understanding and knowledge, and because that knowledge is not absolute, you would crawl back into the caves of your ancestors, invoke their primitive, simplistic understanding, and regress to a level not significantly more refined than that of a pagan witch doctor? That is cowardly and stupid.
That mysteries remain is not evidence that a god exists any more than it is evidence of fairies, demons, or any product of the primitive mind grasping at answers. Our intellectual history should teach you patience, if nothing else. Sit tight, and when someone finds a first cause, someone will let you know.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But it seems necessary to me that there must be something that has always existed, has no cause.

I agree. And, IMV, that thing is physical reality, not a God.

I don't see why causes must extend infinitely far into the past in a natural universe. Why not a start to such a universe (a start to change/Time, really) that is the source of all first causes?

If the first thing in existence isnt intelligent, then why/how could it create a second thing?

If you have a creation view, it seems to me that it doesn't matter whether or not the first thing is intelligent. The "how" could be adequately explained by natural processes extending from the first thing. Whatever "magic of creation" the first thing has would exist regardless of whether or not it was intelligent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[solarwave]

To be honest I find it more understandable to say, anything that has a begining has a cause. And since 'before' the big bang there was no space or time, how could anything physical cause it. And since God did not begin, He has no cause.

 

[Eudaimonist]

To be honest I find it more understandable to say, anything that has a begining has a cause.

What do you mean by "beginning"? What makes something a beginning?

And since 'before' the big bang there was no space or time, how could anything physical cause it.

Keep in mind here that there isn't necessarily a 'before' the Big Bang, even with the scare quotes intact.

IMV, the universe did not 'pop' into existence. It has no "beginning" in this sense. What may have happened is that only change/Time has a start, and in the ultimate past (following change back to that start) is that first thing.

And since God did not begin, He has no cause.

Since, IMV, the universe did not begin, it has no cause.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[solarwave]

What do you mean by "beginning"? What makes something a beginning?

Keep in mind here that there isn't necessarily a 'before' the Big Bang, even with the scare quotes intact.

IMV, the universe did not 'pop' into existence. It has no "beginning" in this sense. What may have happened is that only change/Time has a start, and in the ultimate past (following change back to that start) is that first thing.


Since, IMV, the universe did not begin, it has no cause.

By that I ment before a certain time however many billions os years ago, there was no matter or energy in the universe. So there was a point where all of that came into existance, which is the big bang. If you want to expand on what you said, because Im not sure how what you said proves there no begining?

 

[Nathan45]

IMV, the universe did not 'pop' into existence. It has no "beginning" in this sense. What may have happened is that only change/Time has a start, and in the ultimate past (following change back to that start) is that first thing.

Since, IMV, the universe did not begin, it has no cause.

The fundamental question is "why does the universe exist at all?" and if you define the universe as "everything that exists" (including any kind of God, deistic or otherwise, branes, other "universes" in a "Multiverse"), you end up with the answer "It just does" with no explanation. The question is simply impossible to answer.

Even if you learn more about the universe someday (say, learning about string theory brane collisions, or whatever), or found God, you stilll have the basic problem "Why are there branes" or "Why is there string theory?" "From where comes God?" You hit an infinite regress no matter what happens.

I used to argue in favor of deism, but it seems kindof pointless now -- arguing something where you have no way of determining whether you are correct or not.

 

[SiderealExalt]

By that I ment before a certain time however many billions os years ago, there was no matter or energy in the universe.

The law of conservation of mass/energy would imply strongly that the state you are describing has never existed. Though this speaks to nothing about the current universe as we know it always being in existence.

So there was a point where all of that came into existance, which is the big bang. If you want to expand on what you said, because Im not sure how what you said proves there no begining?

Indications seem to be that space/time did not exist pre big bang. So beginning would literally be an inapplicable term.

 

[Nathan45]

Indications seem to be that space/time did not exist pre big bang. So beginning would literally be an inapplicable term.

let's not argue semantics here. If time did not exist pre-big bang then the big bang was the "beginning" by any reasonable definition of beginning.

 

[SiderealExalt]

let's not argue semantics here. If time did not exist pre-big bang then the big bang was the "beginning" by any reasonable definition of beginning.

Oh, not trying to argue semantics. Just nail down what context beginning would have to avoid some confusion over loose use of terms. Which you've done admirably

 

[Nathan45]

eitherway, the basic argument is,

"There was nothing, then there was something"

saying "Time did not exist when there was nothing, either" is besides the point and doesn't suddenly fix the philosophical problem.

the question is "Why does anything exist at all?" and it's totally unanswerable. I don't care if you ever discover the existence of Branes or Gods, you still have the problem "where come the branes?" or "Where come the Gods?" and it goes into an infinite regress. "Why does anything exist at all?" is a question that is fundamentally impossible to answer.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think the problem here amount to an equivocation on the term "beginning". This is why I ask what people mean by the term.

There is a vast difference between a beginning that occurs with both a past and a future, and one that occurs with only a future.

In the first case, something either "pops" into existence or changes form from something else.

In the second case, nothing "pops" into existence or changes from from something else. It is not the beginning of existence, but the beginning of change.

As I said, there is a vast difference here that you have to get clear in your mind.

Now, I'm not suggesting that I can prove that the second case is the case, although some physicists, such as Steven Hawking, have proposed such a concept.

Rather, I'm presenting a sound philosophical alternative to the usual insistence (and misunderstanding) that there was "nothingness" before the Big Bang. Big Bang theorists do not generally insist on a prior "nothingness", and usually insist that it is impossible to speak of a time before Time began, since this would be undefined.

(And great posts, Nathan45!)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Rauffenburg]

the question is "Why does anything exist at all?" and it's totally unanswerable. I don't care if you ever discover the existence of Branes or Gods, you still have the problem "where come the branes?" or "Where come the Gods?" and it goes into an infinite regress. "Why does anything exist at all?" is a question that is fundamentally impossible to answer.

You once more confound the question of origin with the question of reason. Why is there anything rather than nothing does not ask for the origin of any specific thing, not even God.

 

[Nathan45]

You once more confound the question of origin with the question of reason. Why is there anything rather than nothing does not ask for the origin of any specific thing, not even God.

I don't see your point. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about origins or reasons, Nobody can't answer the question "Why does something exist rather than nothing?" in a way that does not result in further questions, even if you're fully permitted to make up nonsense when answering the question.

 

[Im_A]

Hello. For the past one and a half years I've been an atheist. (went almost immediately to it after my deconversion) I've thought it out in my mind and all that but today I began thinking of it more, and I am not sure I'm an atheist anylonger. I think I may be a deist now.

Well, we all know all the arguements for and against god and everything blah blah blah but the single one that seems to get me is the first cause. Now, many atheists will say that the universe is caused by the big bang which is caused by something else which is caused by something else etc. Where did the first thing come from?

Now, I know we may ask "Where did God come from?", which I think is a valid thing to ask. But it seems necessary to me that there must be something that has always existed, has no cause. No matter how long the chan is of "caused by something else which is caused by something else" etc there must be a thing that caused everything else. I would say that it may be an intelligent being because the second created thing in the history of everything would have to have some purpose for it being "created."

If the first thing in existence isnt intelligent, then why/how could it create a second thing?

your assuming we were created first. that's the problematic point in my opinion.

at least for me, to even find that argument even plausible, you prove how we are "created" first.

 

[gawosany]

From a Christian standpoint, I believe that God has always been in existence. This, of course, is something the human being couldn't fathom because we always tend to think that something had to come from something that had to come from something.

 

[gawosany]

My understanding is that the popular hypothesis is that our universe is the result of a collision between two fifth dimensional universes. I find this utterly mindboggling and cannot begin to understand it in a way that is likely to be anything but a barely related metaphor. But, supposing that something along these lines is true, why couldn't a collection of fifth dimensional universes, or some similar source, be what has always existed?

Does that really seem right, though? That fifth dimensional universes have always existed and didn't have a start? And to believe in that is similar to believing in a God because you are not sure at all?

More than that, though, I feel like deism is absolutely improper. We have taken the physical evidence as far as we can to get the best solution we can, and so far, we have found no need for God. We have found that the universe is ridiculously older and ridiculously larger than we thought, and we have still found no need for God. We understand how our universe formed, how life came to be, why the stars remain in the sky, and still we have found no need for God. In the 5500 years of recorded history and 500 years productive science, we have made so much progress. We have come out of the dark into understanding and knowledge, and because that knowledge is not absolute, you would crawl back into the caves of your ancestors, invoke their primitive, simplistic understanding, and regress to a level not significantly more refined than that of a pagan witch doctor? That is cowardly and stupid.

No one is crawling back into the cave. If a person believes in God, there must be a reason they do. They must believe that God has a place in their lives and is doing something for them. I believe in God because I think He is actually doing something for me in my life. I believe He is the only reason I can go on living. For you, there is no need for a God .... but for others there is. For others, there needs to be a God for a start, for a cause of the creation of the universe. For others, there needs to be a God who designed life and the laws of the universe. Even as Einstein and Newton searched for knowledge through science they both still believed in a Creator, a God.

To believe in a God is not to be cowardly and stupid. It is to be given hope and reason to live another day. Science alone does not inspire me to live this life.

 

[Eudaimonist]

From a Christian standpoint, I believe that God has always been in existence.

That's fine. From a metaphysical naturalist standpoint, I believe that physical reality has always been in existence in some form.

This, of course, is something the human being couldn't fathom because we always tend to think that something had to come from something that had to come from something.

I can fathom it just fine. It just takes a little stretching of those mental muscles.

To believe in a God is not to be cowardly and stupid. It is to be given hope and reason to live another day. Science alone does not inspire me to live this life.

Personally, I'll bet you are selling yourself short. You could manage to live as an atheist, though you would need to re-understand meaning in life in that context. But I'll admit that I don't know this for certain.

I share your view in one thing -- science does not inspire me to have hope or live another day. But there is much more possible to an atheistic worldview than science.

eudaimonia,

Mark