What is the "default" belief?

[Calminian]

Note that the conclusion Antony Flew came to is not theism at all, but rather some form of weak deism....

Which is a form of theism!! Even he admits this. And he's not a pan-deist.

 

[Calminian]

No, "I don´t know" is the honest answer. I see how every explanation available gets us into logical problems.

IOW, since your worldview is obviously contradictory, they all must be. This is very typical of folks that believe in illogical things.

Simply repeating this mantra doesn´t help supporting it.

Luckily you're supporting it for me. You've already admitted your view is illogical.

 

[Calminian]

Yes, calling something atemporal and eternal is the ultimate cop-out. Aka The god of the gaps.

I gather from this you don't really understand what the "god of the gaps" concept is all about. You also are obviously not familiar with the Bible. The doctrine of God's atemporality comes directly from scripture.

Besides, I would like to see explained how something eternal is caused. What caused your god´s existence?

Yikes. And I guess you don't understand what the concept of eternity is either. Eternal things don't require causes (in fact they necessarily don't have them). This is basic logic.

 

[PacificPandeist]

Which is a form of theism!! Even he admits this. And he's not a pan-deist.

Deism is not a form of Theism at all!! Theism supposes that an active God continues to supervise and intervene in the Universe, and reveals itself through revelation, rewards prayer, etc.... Deism denies all of that, accepting only that God created the Universe but then abandoned it, does not intervene in it, no revelations, no answers to prayers.... Flew is quite explicit about only needing God to explain the origin (I'll grant he's never said he's a PanDeist, but where else does God go when God abandons the Universe? Into being the Universe itself, it's the only logical route!!)

 

[Calminian]

Deism is not a form of Theism at all!!

Oh boy, here we go.

Theism supposes that an active God continues to supervise and intervene in the Universe, and reveals itself through revelation, rewards prayer, etc.... Deism denies all of that, accepting only that God created the Universe but then abandoned it, does not intervene in it, no revelations, no answers to prayers.... Flew is quite explicit about only needing God to explain the origin (I'll grant he's never said he's a PanDeist, but where else does God go when God abandons the Universe? Into being the Universe itself, it's the only logical route!!)

Deism is a subcategory of theism. No one denies this. I'm not sure why you are. It's actually pan-deism that makes no sense at all. Technically it is the belief that God created himself. Unless of course you believe the universe is eternal (which science denies). Very strange belief.

Just out of curiosity, are you a hard deist or soft one? Do you believe God cannot intervene in His creation or that He simply chooses not to? Of course you’re a pan-deist so this may not apply.

 

[PacificPandeist]

Oh boy, here we go.



Deism is a subcategory of theism. No one denies this. I'm not sure why you are. It's actually pan-deism that makes no sense at all. Technically it is the belief that God created himself. Unless of course you believe the universe is eternal (which science denies). Very strange belief.

Just out of curiosity, are you a hard deist or soft one? Do you believe God cannot intervene in His creation or that He simply chooses not to? Of course you’re a pan-deist so this may not apply.

A PanDeist is a kind of Deist -- and, like any Deist, a PanDeist believes that God does not intervene in the Universe.... PanDeism is not the belief that God created itself (don't know where you got that notion) it is the idea that God created the Universe out of itself, and that after becoming the Universe, nothing was left of God that was not part of the Universe.... so, yes, PanDeism is a hard Deism, for God cannot intervene in the Universe.... indeed, having the ability to intervene would spoil the only logical purpose of God existing as the Universe, which is to experience existence as a Universe operating without continuing guidance!!

 

[quatona]

IOW, since your worldview is obviously contradictory, they all must be. This is very typical of folks that believe in illogical things.

I don´t appreciate such misrepresentations. I said something completely different.

Luckily you're supporting it for me. You've already admitted your view is illogical.

No, this is exactly the opposite of what I said. I said I don´t hold a view, because all views I am familiar with and can think or are illogical or simply giving "I don´t know" another name.

Should you be willing to adress that which I say we can have a discussion. If, however, you insist on misrepresenting that which I clearly say, I´m out.

 

[quatona]

I gather from this you don't really understand what the "god of the gaps" concept is all about. You also are obviously not familiar with the Bible. The doctrine of God's atemporality comes directly from scripture.

I don´t care where it comes from. As far as I know the "god of the gaps" concept is about replacing "I don´t know" by "goddidit". If it is about something else, feel free to fill me in.

Yikes. And I guess you don't understand what the concept of eternity is either. Eternal things don't require causes (in fact they necessarily don't have them). This is basic logic.

Which makes them acausal - exactly that which you claimed they weren´t.
Now, claiming something to be eternal in order to evade the problem of causality is the easiest thing to do. E.g. we could call the universe eternal, and the problem would be "solved", too.

 

[PacificPandeist]

I don´t care where it comes from. As far as I know the "god of the gaps" concept is about replacing "I don´t know" by "goddidit". If it is about something else, feel free to fill me in.




Which makes them acausal - exactly that which you claimed they weren´t.
Now, claiming something to be eternal in order to evade the problem of causality is the easiest thing to do. E.g. we could call the universe eternal, and the problem would be "solved", too.

Or God could be self-causing via time travel....

 

[JGL53]

Well, I'm a atheist (in the weak sense) but mostly I am a pragmatist.

So let's say there is a deistic god. Or, let's say all is god, i.e., pantheism is true. As I see it, in either case, no harm, no foul.

The only "god" theory that makes no sense to me - or about as much sense as animism –is theism, the god that interferes.

Is there any real evidence for a theistic god? I see none whatsoever. Is belief in a theistic god just a matter of "faith"? That's seems to be all there is here. Then I have no use for a theistic god.

 

[quatona]

Or God could be self-causing via time travel....

Yes, or time itself is god. Time is eternal, after all.

 

[Calminian]

Now, claiming something to be eternal in order to evade the problem of causality is the easiest thing to do. E.g. we could call the universe eternal, and the problem would be "solved", too.

Wrong again. A temporal eternal universe suffers from the problem of infinite regression. The only thing that makes any logic sense is an atemporal eternal God. Hey just like the one the Bible describes. Interesting, huh?

 

[Calminian]

Yes, or time itself is god. Time is eternal, after all.

The eternality of time is precluded by both logic and science, interestingly. According to science, the Big Bang was the beginning of space matter and time. That's what scientists say. This also corresponds with the logical notion that an infinite number of moments cannot be transversed. If time is eternal, this moment in time should never have arrived.

 

[quatona]

Wrong again. A temporal eternal universe suffers from the problem of infinite regression.

I didn´t say "temporal eternal".

The only thing that makes any logic sense is an atemporal eternal God.

No, it doesn´t make any more sense than anything else that we simply claim to be atemporal eternal.

 

[quatona]

The eternality of time is precluded by both logic and science, interestingly

And time having a beginning is precluded by logic as well, interestingly.
That´s the sort of dilemma you get if you think of concepts as really existing things. Interesting, huh?

 

[Calminian]

And time having a beginning is precluded by logic as well, interestingly.

Really? This ought to be interesting. Please make your logical case for the necessity of time being eternal. I've never heard any such logical argument. Can't wait.

 

[quatona]

Really? This ought to be interesting. Please make your logical case for the necessity of time being eternal.

Again, that´s not what I said. I wonder what the reason is why you put words in my mouth in almost every single response.
I pointed out that both notions (time is eternal and time has a beginning) lead to logical problems.
It´s pretty simple, actually: "Before time" is a logical impossibility. It is a statement of temporal sequence about something that - according to the claim - cannot be subject to such a consideration. Something that cannot be measured by time cannot precede something else.

 

[Calminian]

Again, that´s not what I said. I wonder what the reason is why you put words in my mouth in almost every single response.
I pointed out that both notions (time is eternal and time has a beginning) lead to logical problems.

That's what I thought you said. Where did I put words in your mouth?

It´s pretty simple, actually: "Before time" is a logical impossibility.

You're right. There is no temporal "before time." But there can be things logically prior to other things where time is not involved at all.

It is a statement of temporal sequence about something that - according to the claim - cannot be subject to such a consideration. Something that cannot be measured by time cannot precede something else.

Not true at all. In fact causes cannot be temporally separated from their effects. Only logic can determine which is prior (or causal). The two actually happen simultaneously. In fact you could have a debate over which was the cause and which was the effect. Technically, only a free self-determining agent could be a true cause. This would kind of tie into my other thread on freewill. But causes don't require, indeed never have, a time gap between them and their effect. The two occur at the exact same moment. So God would not need to temporally precede the universe. He would merely need to logically precede it.

 

[quatona]

That's what I thought you said.

Good. Unfortunately you said something else.

Where did I put words in your mouth?

Here:
Please make your logical case for the necessity of time being eternal.
In response to my statement, that, like the assumptiom "time is eternal", the statement "time has a beginning" comes with logical problems, too.

You're right. There is no temporal "before time." But there can be things logically prior to other things where time is not involved at all.

Is a completely different thing than what I said and what you wanted me to support, but interesting.
I´m not sure I understand, then, why I see you going to great length about eternity, atemporality, temporality and stuff, whilst in fact your point is one of "logical priority".

Not true at all. In fact causes cannot be temporally separated from their effects.

As far as I can see I haven´t even mentioned cause and effect in the statement you quoted. How the heck does changing the topic make my statement untrue?

Only logic can determine which is prior (or causal).

Undisputed, as long as you use "prior" as in "logically prior" and not as in "temporally prior", which is a completely different meaning. Please make sure you don´t equivocate.

The two actually happen simultaneously.

Not necessarily. In order for constituting a "logical prior" nothing needs to happen at all, to begin with.

In fact you could have a debate over which was the cause and which was the effect.

Now, you are jumping to and fro between three different, distinct topics: "temporal sequence" (which was what I made a statement about), logical priority and "cause and effect". This sounds confuse, at least it is confusing me.

Technically, only a free self-determining agent could be a true cause.

This is a very special definition. Although you are free to work from this definition, make sure you don´t equivocate it with what common use of "cause and effect" signify. It has, e.g., nothing at all to do with what science calls "cause and effect".
If following your definition, we don´t observe cause and effect at all. None of the causes we observe and constitute (practically and logically) are "free self determining agents".
I can´t help the impression that you, at some point, replace the common meaning of "cause" by "cause(fsda)", and would me believe that what is stated to require a "cause", must therefore require a "cause(fsda)".
E.g. something can be logically prior to something else without being a "cause(fsda)".

This would kind of tie into my other thread on freewill.

I try to avoid "freewill" discussions, though not always successfully. I have yet to see a consistent concept attached to this term. In fact "freewill" is already a contradiction in terms, and it is a logical impossibility. But that´s a completely nother topic.

But causes don't require, indeed never have, a time gap between them and their effect.

Agreed. Has not been my claim, though.

The two occur at the exact same moment.

"Cause and effect" in the way you use them are logical conjunctions, concepts. They don´t "occur" at all.
Whilst "occurances" require there to be time.

So God would not need to temporally precede the universe. He would merely need to logically precede it.

True, if you talk about god as an abstract logical concept, an idea.
The fact that the idea "god" exists, is obvious and undisputed.
What I am missing in the first place, though, is an argument why I would have to expect there a cause(fsda) for the universe.

 

[cantata]

Wrong again. A temporal eternal universe suffers from the problem of infinite regression. The only thing that makes any logic sense is an atemporal eternal God. Hey just like the one the Bible describes. Interesting, huh?

Just like the one in the Bible? What about the one in the Koran, the one(s) in Hindu sacred texts, the Olympian pantheon, the one I've just made up who's called Kevin and has an Eternal Hat of Mystic Creation made of melon rinds..?