Why do deists feel there must be some kind of higher power? Isn't where did God come from as problematic as where did universe come from?

The human mind has an agent-seeking module, so it's much easier to conceive of someONE starting a process like the universe, at least for a lot of people.

I've tried asking RoundGuy this question but he didn't answer. (maybe he didn't see it)

I would think they would openly admit their beliefs are based on their personal experience and their personal view on the world, rather than any kind of evidence.

Most of the theistic arguments also work to show a deistic god. The cosmological argument, for instance, in its simplest form, only proves a transcendent cause of the universe - I think first formulated by Aristotle, whose god wasn't even aware of the existence of the universe as the First Mover. It really boils down to the question of what is ultimate, person or impersonal. The alternative is to believe the universe exists for no reason and from no cause. It's intuitively obvious that the universe had a cause, in addition to the arguments.

The only two alternatives are an infinite regress of causes or an ultimate cause. We can't absolutely prove either but most think an ultimate cause is not only more plausible but has much greater explanatory scope and power. What ever is ultimate cannot itself be explained, otherwise it wouldn't be ultimate. Unless you believe something popped up from absolute nothing for no reason, which has zero explanatory power.

The question where did God come from is not problematic for a believer. God is infinite. He is not inside this universe. He does not have a beginning. This is all a part of who God is.

Although not "problematic" from a logical argumentative standpoint, it sure can be difficult for a finite mind to grasp the infinite.

Theists only have deistic arguments. I've never seen a theist argument for theism.

It SEEMS not problematic to YOU because you simply don't look at the problems. And one of the major problems in the above specifically is that the words you used "not inside this universe", "does not have a beginning", etc, are completely undefined.

Same reason atheists think there must be gravity and atmosphere.

Nope. Part of what everyone has to accept sooner or later is limitation. What I know is that my brain limits my understanding, and very much limits my ability to express even what I can understand (which ain't much). What I am pretty sure of is "where did God come from" is a nonsense question. I think that question is a function of being in Time, like the physical universe is and so we pursue the origin question. God isn't in Time, so there's no "origin." There's just is.

"Personal experience" isn't evidence? You don't believe in the things you have experienced, yourself? Do you wait for SCIENCE to validate your life, then? I mean, are you sure that chair (couch/bed/stool/whatever) you are sitting on is really there?

The part I bolded? That's what everyone does.

LordTiberius and Prax,

Who told you guys about God's nature? that he is infinite and that he just is etc..how did you get all this information?

hahahaha, both you and Splenda are on a roll today

There isn't much difference between my beliefs and those of a deist, it's a mountain of difference between my beliefs and that of a believer in revealed religion.

Deism is more of an intellectual position where you might make a few assumptions, but in practice you don't derive anything from them and you admit your position to be belief only, without evidence.

There is no real similarity to revealed religion.

So there are deists that have sat in the lap of the creator of the universe?

It is not obvious to me. Also, think carefully about precisely what you mean when you modify 'obvious' with 'intuitively.' Does your intuition carry some weight with you in deciding the nature of reality? I won't trot out a clever list of physical observations that contradict popular intuition, but I'm sure you can imagine...

Says who?

A deistic ultimate cause offers no explanation. If you can make the bridge between a force that started the universe and whatever your particular flavor of Christianity is, for example, then certainly you have some explanatory power.


I don't see how you can be satisfied with this. "The universe is, but we don't know why" is so dissatisfying to you and goes so squarely against your intuition, but "God is, and it is a category error to ask where he came from or what was before him or what designed him, etc., because of the definition of god" appeals to you? I don't mean to put words into your mouth; I'm obviously not making an argument in this paragraph, just chit-chatting.

Where was this proven? Or is this just taken from the Bible? Or is it just some fact that the human mind has created to make their deist argument more logical? These kinds of statements are the ones that anger me for they have no basis.

He heard it on Sirius radio.

If that is the case then I subscribe to the Gospel of Howard Stern!

I agree with this point, but kind of want to add to it. While the answer "knowing the origin is beyond our limitations" seems like a cop out for a deist, the response still is much more logical than people tend to assume. The universe's most basic properties include matter, movement, and time. In order to remove God (or some type of outside force for that matter), one would have to assume that the universe as always been moving. However, if there was a "spark" that triggered these events (such as in the Big Bang Theory), it only makes sense to assume that there was an outside influence (something beyond our realm of measurement) that triggered these events.


If the matter had always existed, in what way was motion introduced? If motion had always existed, at what point did matter come about to be moved?


Considering what we can know, intelligent design on a grand level makes much more sense than just believing "it just is because it is."

how does believing "God just is because He is" make any more sense than "universe just is because it is"

Suppose there was an explanation for God. What then? You would need an explanation for the explanation. What then? You would need an .......

See? There is an ultimate final cause or there is an infinite regress. If there is an ultimate final cause it CAN'T have an explanation. If the UFC is a Person, that has explanatory power for everything else. An infinite regress explains nothing.

I understand, but so what?

Consider the following:

I'm just repeating myself, but as far as being counter-intuitive or intellectually unsatisfying, I don't see any difference in your version or my "fyp" version; I also don't see any difference in the alternative (X just is, where X can be the universe, or god).

For that matter, this is all philosophy. I don't always expect philosophy to lead the way in physics. It would not surprise me if what you and/or I consider intuitive turns out not to resemble reality as much as we think it does.

An infinite regress explains nothing. - I think this is irrelevant, as I am not proposing that it does have explanatory power. I am merely saying I do not know that anything can be said to have caused the universe, but that if you want to suppose that gods did it, then it is reasonable to speculate about their nature and origin as well. And I admit, that lacks explanatory power. The reason that the phrase "explanatory power" gets brought up is because it is sometimes the case that the deist/theist argument is that god does explain and justify the existence of the universe.

Anyway, as far as infinite regress goes, if all that we can possibly discover and learn about is one more layer after another, then I accept that. No matter what I might wish, or what I might suppose, how can I reasonably expect to know what is outside my grasp? Whether or not it is satisfactory to my curiosity (or whether or not it provides a source for morality!), I don't claim the right to demand that the world conform to my wishes and have a UFC.

It's really very simple. You have effect X. You have 2 and only 2 possible causes. Cause A doesn't explain X very well. Cause B explains X very well. Which is more likely?

But no matter what I have to accept that something has always existed, or at least is without cause. It is either the universe (or whatever it was before the big bang) or something else that created the universe.

In this case: what is more likely to have always existed: the universe: which we can see and have direct evidence of, or some deity which is invisible and we have no direct evidence of.

Well, when a mommy deity and a daddy deity love each other very much...

But seriously...

Because "God has always existed" implies a creator of matter as well as a motivating force that causes the matter to "become something." The "universe just is" implies that either matter or motion has always existed and the other was just randomly introduced.

A cup sits on my desk. The cups falls off of the desk. Without any new forces introduced, how is this possible?

I do somewhat agree with this, but also want to point out that we are limited to judging by our limited standards of time. So while it seems like a ridiculous claim to say that something exists out of time, it simply means that something exists out of our realm of measurement in our universe.

The distinction between arguing for the universe always existing and God always existing is that we know the basic principles on which the univserse opperates. However, we cannot begin to understand the principles of a world that exists beyond our own three dimensional universe.

owned


and LOL at "Cause B explains X very well"....yeah, a dude we have no evidence of blinked us all into existence. pretty loose definition of "explains it well" iyam