How To Deal With This Old Canard

[tonyrey]

Yet, the ‘false dichotomy’ that the OP references hurts your case. An “instituter of creation” does not have “[nothing] to do with human creation” – he has instituted it! Precisely by the act of instituting it, a deistic god has entangled himself with creation, and therefore, by the (flawed) logic of the OP’s interlocutor, is now ‘in’ the physical realm!

The deists’ proposition that there are no longer any physical interactions with God doesn’t mean that there cannot be evidence of God-creation interaction, but only that it is likely very difficult to find…

(My own response to the OP’s interlocutor? I would assert that, as empther points out, there should be evidence of the effects of God’s interaction in space-time. A person who wants to demonstrate that a null result implies the lack of existence of God would necessarily be required to develop a hypothesis that can reasonably be expected to detect such interactions. Without such a hypothesis, the null result that is obtained does not prove the case. )

An indifferent God is the apotheosis of apathy.

 

[mattdantuono]

I would ask the Old Canard what he means by each of those terms. Sometimes I find that people say “personal” when they actually mean “corporeal.” Start with definition of terms so you now exactly what he is talking about. In a strict philosophical sense, what he is saying doesn’t add up, as others have commented.

 

[sadiebelle]

I think I started a thread about this a while ago. I’m still no closer to understanding why we cannot measure this god who interferes in our lives. If god does things that affect the material world, we should be able to observe that in a tangible way.

 

[tonyrey]

So, in other words, there is a God but he goes around creating meaningless universes?

How is that working for you?

What do you think of a father who institutes pregnancy in a woman then walks away?

Makes a lot of sense to you?

:sad_yes: It reduces fatherhood to callous, nefarious and promiscuous procreation… :hey_bud:

 

[oldcelt]

1. For many years astronomers wondered whether the universe’s expansion would slow down and make it collapse back to a point from its own gravity,
   or continue expanding forever.
   The belief is now that it will continue expanding, but it was a close call. There’s a very fine line between an expanding and collapsing universe. You have to have just the right amount of matter to have an expanding universe that isn’t so thinly dispersed we never get stars and planets. We beat the odds.
2. Actually, the amount of visible matter in the universe is too little, if that’s all there is. It would have been too thinly dispersed to form galaxies and stars. But there is also dark matter, again just enough to gather together the hydrogen gas into galaxies and stars. Too much dark matter and gravity would have collapsed the galaxies. We beat the odds again.
3. So you have an unknown number of subatomic particles, at least a few hundred of them, which makes protons, electrons and neutrons, and atoms, ninety-two of them, and of these about a dozen are needed for life, including carbon which forms endless chains for keeping everything together,
   not to forget you need a planetary environment with the right proportions and right amounts of these critical elements, which is very rare as the other planets in our own solar demonstrate,

**and all this happened by chance? ** :bigyikes: :extrahappy:

By chance over 14 billion years…probably. I can’t give a definitive answer because nobody knows, yet.

 

[oldcelt]

Yet, the ‘false dichotomy’ that the OP references hurts your case. An “instituter of creation” does not have “[nothing] to do with human creation” – he has instituted it! Precisely by the act of instituting it, a deistic god has entangled himself with creation, and therefore, by the (flawed) logic of the OP’s interlocutor, is now ‘in’ the physical realm!

The deists’ proposition that there are no longer any physical interactions with God doesn’t mean that there cannot be evidence of God-creation interaction, but only that it is likely very difficult to find…

(My own response to the OP’s interlocutor? I would assert that, as empther points out, there should be evidence of the effects of God’s interaction in space-time. A person who wants to demonstrate that a null result implies the lack of existence of God would necessarily be required to develop a hypothesis that can reasonably be expected to detect such interactions. Without such a hypothesis, the null result that is obtained does not prove the case. )

There is a huge gap between the start of the universe and the first human…approximately 14 billion years. That is why many Deists say that God had nothing to do with the creation of man, or earth (roughly 4 billion years ago, and so on. Naturally, if God began the process, you can say that He was involved in the creation of man.

So, let me re-phrase…it was my fault to begin with…Many Deists believe that God had nothing DIRECTLY to do with the creation of man. That same God also has no control over the day-to-day events of humankind or any individual…we’re on our own.

This view of existence is reached by observation, nothing more or less.

 

[empther]

**and all this happened by chance? **

:bigyikes::extrahappy:

By chance over 14 billion years…probably. I can’t give a definitive answer because nobody knows, yet.

It doesn’t matter how long the universe has been around.
You get one chance for everything to work the way you want, and then you’re stuck with whatever you get forever.

 

[oldcelt]

It doesn’t matter how long the universe has been around.
You get one chance for everything to work the way you want, and then you’re stuck with whatever you get forever.

I’d really enjoy seeing anything that backs that contention.

 

[tdgesq]

You are giving God human sensibilities that He (for lack of an easier term) may or may not have. This is your belief based on your observations…mine is different, based on my observations.

A universe, a planet, a life, does not need attention and control of a deity to have meaning and purpose in my view. So, it is working out just fine for me. So far as a human father who impregnates a woman and walks away, they are among the lowest IMHO.

Does the God of deism have any attributes, other than the awesome ability to create the universe and time?

 

[oldcelt]

Does the God of deism have any attributes, other than the awesome ability to create the universe and time?

Not really…but that is what the discussion is about. Deists are simply using a different approach to understanding God. To the best of my knowledge, there is no dogma, leadership, etc… just people who share a few common beliefs…that there is likely a god and that that god likely initiated creation being chief among the beliefs.

 

[Frankenfurter]

“Okay, fine, maybe science/physical observation can’t observe God. But I insist that that commits you to deism, and that if you want to talk about a God who cares about what we do and/or interferes with our affairs, then you must be talking about something that is a part of the physical universe, and can be observed.”

All we have is Jesus who was observed directly during his life and can be experience directly today. Deism is not an option then.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Many Deists believe that God had nothing DIRECTLY to do with the creation of man. That same God also has no control over the day-to-day events of humankind or any individual…we’re on our own.

And what proof do you offer that we’re on our own?

If God DIRECTLY had something to do with the universe, he also would have had something DIRECTLY to do with our creation. What is the logical nexus that allows you to say God had something DIRECTLY to do with Creation, but nothing DIRECTLY to do with creating us?

Are we not part of the whole universe God DIRECTLY created? Why do you separate us from the universe as if we were purely an accident of Creation and never intended and as if God wants nothing to do with us because all he wanted to do was create a universe and then ignore what he had created? It seems you are privy to some great secret that nobody else but deists is allowed to know … that God is like a father who impregnates women (mother nature) then abandons them because he can’t be bothered.

This is a strange and unnatural philosophy.

 

[oldcelt]

And what proof do you offer that we’re on our own?

If God DIRECTLY had something to do with the universe, he also would have had something DIRECTLY to do with our creation. What is the logical nexus that allows you to say God had something DIRECTLY to do with Creation, but nothing DIRECTLY to do with creating us?

Are we not part of the whole universe God DIRECTLY created? Why do you separate us from the universe as if we were purely an accident of Creation and never intended and as if God wants nothing to do with us because all he wanted to do was create a universe and then ignore what he had created? It seems you are privy to some great secret that nobody else but deists is allowed to know … that God is like a father who impregnates women (mother nature) then abandons them because he can’t be bothered.

This is a strange and unnatural philosophy.

All answered in recent posts with the exact same amount of proof as any other poster here.

 

[tonyrey]

There is a huge gap between the start of the universe and the first human…approximately 14 billion years. That is why many Deists say that God had nothing to do with the creation of man, or earth (roughly 4 billion years ago, and so on. Naturally, if God began the process, you can say that He was involved in the creation of man.

So, let me re-phrase…it was my fault to begin with…Many Deists believe that God had nothing DIRECTLY to do with the creation of man. That same God also has no control over the day-to-day events of humankind or any individual…we’re on our own.

This view of existence is reached by observation, nothing more or less.

Time and space are unrelated to value and significance. There is far more in life than observation of physical events…

 

[empther]

oldcelt’s post 27

Originally Posted by empther
It doesn’t matter how long the universe has been around.
You get one chance for everything to work the way you want, and then you’re stuck with whatever you get forever.

I’d really enjoy seeing anything that backs that contention.

First,
let’s see anything that backs up your contention of a deist God.

It’s so easy to criticize believers in a providential God and demand “proof”, “evidence”, “back up”, or whatever. Anybody can do that about anybody’s position.

We get tired of this.

At least we believers have tons of logical arguments to support our position.
You want to see them? Here they are"
newadvent.org/summa/

Put your money where your mouth is. Where’s your logical arguments? You have none because a deist God makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[surritter]

I’d really enjoy seeing anything that backs that contention.

Actually, your own view backs such a contention! (The contention was that “you get one chance for everything to work the way you want, and then you’re stuck with whatever you get forever.”)

Since you maintain that God cannot and does not meddle with the universe once he created it, then it’s kinda obvious that he’s stuck with it forever after the moment of creation.

 

[fnr]

Right, so, after (perhaps ill-advisedly) browsing the “Religion” pages on Quora, I see at least one person saying “Okay, fine, maybe science/physical observation can’t observe God. But I insist that that commits you to deism, and that if you want to talk about a God who cares about what we do and/or interferes with our affairs, then you must be talking about something that is a part of the physical universe, and can be observed.”

My first instinct is that this sets up a false dichotomy between Deism and Theistic Personalism, but what do you guys think?

I would agree.

Fundamentally, teleology establishes a common link between creation and the personal God.

 

[fnr]

There is a huge gap between the start of the universe and the first human…approximately 14 billion years. That is why many Deists say that God had nothing to do with the creation of man, or earth (roughly 4 billion years ago, and so on.

OK, as a scientist and a theist, let me try a different tack.

The greater prevalence of matter over antimatter is a result of random quantum fluctuations in the earliest universe. Slightly more matter than antimatter is hypothesized to have come into existence, which means that more matter than antimatter survived the annihilation that ensured. Totally contingent physical systems consistent with teleology.

Later on in universal history…

If you look at the random fluctuation in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, it implies a lumpiness and heterogeneity in the early universe. Galaxies would not form BUT FOR this lumpiness in the early universe. Totally contingent physical systems consistent with teleology.

Later on in universal history…

According to modern geology, the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. Here’s a graph of the ages of the earth…

During the formation of the solar system, the solar system was filled with debris, which slammed into all the planets, including earth over the first 0.8 billion or so years. As a result of all this energy, the surface of the earth was molten rock. We have evidence of the emergence of the first solid rocks during the “late bombardment.” The oldest fossils include records of sulfur-metabolizing bacteria at 3.5 billion years ago. There are fossils of blue-green algae dating to 3.3 billion years ago, and evidence from oxygen isotopes that photosynthesis was occurring before then. But wait… oxidative phosphorylation, as found in the sulfur-metabolizers, and DNA-processing “hardware” like ribosomes are actually fairly complicated biological pathways. Photosynthesis even more so. Given standard rates of mutation in bacteria, it appears that there was life “as we know it” on this planet as soon as there was a solid rock, even likely in the “late bombardment.” To me, this suggests a “fecundity” of the planet that is consistent with teleology.

Theistic teleology, not deism, is the counter-hypothesis to the atheist’s “many worlds” hypothesis (Ockham’s razor helps with that one… what’s more parsimonious, a multiverse of infinite unconstrained information that randomly led to our universe or an omniscient being that created it?).

 

[oldcelt]

oldcelt’s post 27

First,
let’s see anything that backs up your contention of a deist God.

It’s so easy to criticize believers in a providential God and demand “proof”, “evidence”, “back up”, or whatever. Anybody can do that about anybody’s position.

We get tired of this.

At least we believers have tons of logical arguments to support our position.
You want to see them? Here they are"
newadvent.org/summa/

Put your money where your mouth is. Where’s your logical arguments? You have none because a deist God makes no sense whatsoever.

A bit testy aren’t we? At no point have I said that I have any data or proof of the Deist vision of God. In fact, I have gone out of my way to point out that I have the same evidence as everyone here…none.
Deists can also make logical arguments regarding why the Christian version of God does not exist but tend not to because it turns confrontational and, frankly, the issue is not that important to us.

I only reentered this fray when someone made an obviously false statement about Deists.

But, I’ll search out my arguments here and get you the links. Warning, there are a bunch.

 

[empther]

A bit testy aren’t we? At no point have I said that I have any data or proof of the Deist vision of God. In fact, I have gone out of my way to point out that I have the same evidence as everyone here…none.
** Deists can also make logical arguments regarding why the Christian version of God does not exist :bigyikes: ** but tend not to because it turns confrontational and, frankly, the issue is not that important to us.

I only reentered this fray when someone made an obviously false statement about Deists.

But, I’ll search out my arguments here and get you the links. Warning, there are a bunch.

:coffeeread: