Deism might be perfectly compatible with objectivism

[rebelconservative]

He's saying God was revealed to everyone? So I'm secretly Deist?

Yes, and no. I believe he is trying to make a reason based case for the existence of God, rather than relying on "spiritual revelation" or some other such hocum. I don't think he is suggesting that God is 'revealed' to a precious few in a religious, Moses/Mohammed kind of way, rather he is proposing that order in the universe is somehow empirical evidence of God. No-one is secretly a deist if they reject the logic of his argument and question the applicability of his evidence.

[moot]

Science has some base requirements about what is to be considered a "theory". Looking at the universe and then jumping to say it was created by God is something closer to an "arbitrary claim".

Why don't we deduce that the complex order of the universe "points toward" the "theory" that our universe actually exists in a petrie dish experiment being conducted by an alien being named Artie? I suspect you know that reason doesn't allow for such leaps of faith. In #1 you're asking for a leap of faith.

ok, ill give you that, however lets also say that the evidence points to everything just going *bam* existance

now don't get me wrong I am not a deist but their arguments seem fairly reasonable

[brian0918]

ok, ill give you that, however lets also say that the evidence points to everything just going *bam* existance

Not really. If there was no existence yet, in what did this "bam" occur?

The fact that the big bang theory points to a big explosion in the past does not imply that there was no universe before the explosion.

Edited March 24, 2010 by brian0918

[moot]

Rebelconservative, you are correct in your understanding, I am not proposing that "god" has any specific nature just simply that evidence suggests its existence and once said existence is assumed then certain characteristics would be much more likely than others. Of course all of this reasoning smells very strongly of Descartes.

Deism as the founders saw it, was the pure religion (although their definition of religion was not the same as ours, Deism is a sort of anti-religion). God created a great machine (the universe) with a specific end result in mind, much like an alien scientist with a petri dish. Deists like Objectivists, denounced "priestcraft" as they called it; understanding that faith is antithetical to reason. From my understanding, A Cartesian Deist was for all intents and purposes an Objectivist (although the term had not come into use by that time), the only difference is they felt that there must be a purpose for life, and so attributed it to a rational being (the only kind that they could understand).

[moot]

Not really. If there was no existence yet, in what did this "bam" occur?

The fact that the big bang theory points to a big explosion in the past does not imply that there was no universe before the explosion.

didnt say I believed in said *bam*, but just trying to show that an atheist has just as little knowledge of creation as anyone else and therefore their theories are just as unlikely

[TheEgoist]

What is reasonable about asserting consciousness sans reality, or existence from non-existence?

The Deists are asserting one of these two things.

1) Something existed before existence; before time, before anything at all.

2) Something already existed, and created everything else.

The first is an obvious contradiction in terms. Something was, before anything ever was.

2 is more likely. However, if it is the case that something existed eternally, why must we say that thing was the creator? Why can't we just say the universe always existed? (I am roughly paraphrasing the great Carl Sagan in this last point.)

To me, in my experience with Deism, the deists are usually formerly religious or from religious backgrounds who are trying to clutch onto any semblance of their past. That Deists reify the virtues of reason does not mean that they actually apply those virtues to their thinking about god. While it isn't necessarily the case t hat deists are just rationalizing their belief in a higher power, it is a high probability. Deism is an ugly thing to see on an otherwise reasonable and intelligent individual.

[moot]

Actually, i know a few former atheist Deists. and furthermore the idea that something existed before everything is not necessarily the only interpretation, one is that energy (God) existed and then created matter, others range all the way to the absurd like, God was created at the end of time and then he created the beginning of time. I think Deism is essential atheism with rather then the existential assumption that there is no god, there is an assumption there is one

[moot]

Sorry about the poor grammar, I am a History, not English major

[brian0918]

one is that energy (God) existed and then created matter

What units do you measure God in - Joules? Ergs? Calories?

God was created at the end of time and then he created the beginning of time.

Acting outside of time is a contradiction. Contradictions do not exist.

[moot]

What units do you measure God in - Joules? Ergs? Calories?

Acting outside of time is a contradiction. Contradictions do not exist.

Tachyons go back in time, at least according to modern science

you measure God in... Ohms, you know like the Buddhists say.

bad joke

[moot]

also I said that the time travel was absurd

[brian0918]

Tachyons go back in time, at least according to modern science

Nothing prevents a person from asserting a contradiction. But that doesn't make the contradiction real.

[moot]

is it really a contradiction? What if time is not linear, or is simply another dimension that can be traversed. I have done quite a bit of research in quantum mechanics and into string theory. It seems that many of the basic assumptions about reality that we have made may be incorrect.

It is only a contradiction if we make the assumption that matter passing backwards through time is impossible. we do not know this as a concrete fact.

this is a bit off topic so can we drop this line of inquiry, as I do agree the time travel theory is absurd and I do not believe it to be correct, however I fell a certain obligation to defend it because it seems to have been set up as a strawman to be attacked, while avoiding the larger issue

[brian0918]

It is only a contradiction if we make the assumption that matter passing backwards through time is impossible.

Time is an abstract concept of method - a measurement of motion. To say that something "moves" in "reverse time" is incoherent. Try to measure the motion of such an object - at one moment, you will measure it at one position. At another moment, you will measure it at another position. Nowhere in your measurement can the conclusion arise that the "motion" occurred in "negative time". If someone tells you that a baseball "moved" from left to right in "negative time", they would not be able to demonstrate it to you. But you could certainly show that what really happened is the baseball *moved* from right to left.

it seems to have been set up as a strawman to be attacked, while avoiding the larger issue

The point is that no matter how you define God, it will always involve a contradiction or arbitrary assertion. You offered a few different definitions, each of which has been shown to be contradictory or arbitrary.

Edited March 24, 2010 by brian0918

[moot]

Time is an abstract concept of method - a measurement of motion. To say that something "moves" in "reverse time" is incoherent. Try to measure the motion of such an object - at one moment, you will measure it at one position. At another moment, you will measure it at another position. Nowhere in your measurement can the conclusion arise that the "motion" occurred in "negative time". If someone tells you that a baseball "moved" from left to right in "negative time", they would not be able to demonstrate it to you. But you could certainly show that what really happened is the baseball *moved* from right to left.

The point is that no matter how you define God, it will always involve a contradiction or arbitrary assertion. You offered a few different definitions, each of which has been shown to be contradictory or arbitrary.

That is simply not true, you have only attacked one of the ways in which a non interventionist God could exists. There are innumerable explanations, all of which are irrelevant. the issue is not how a God exists, but if it does

Also that is your understanding of time. it would only be negative time from the perspective of moving "forward" just as moving left is "negative right"

[Jake_Ellison]

Rebelconservative, you are correct in your understanding, I am not proposing that "god" has any specific nature

No you're not. So can we close this thread now that that's all cleared up?

[RationalBiker]

That is simply not true, you have only attacked one of the ways in which a non interventionist God could exists. There are innumerable explanations, all of which are irrelevant. the issue is not how a God exists, but if it does

As a point of moderation, you are only going to be allowed to engage in arbitrary conjecture so many times on this board. Since you rightfully acknowledge that the important question is IF a deity exists, stick to offering some forms of evidence or proof and avoid engaging in arbitrary claims of what "could" exist.

[moot]

No you're not. So can we close this thread now that that's all cleared up?

you completely missed my point, I am only trying to determine whether or not deism is anti-life, whether one can be moral and believe in a god, and whether or not a deist could be an Objecivist if they follow all of the tenents of objectivism (i.e. not living for another man)

[moot]

As a point of moderation, you are only going to be allowed to engage in arbitrary conjecture so many times on this board. Since you rightfully acknowledge that the important question is IF a deity exists, stick to offering some forms of evidence or proof and avoid engaging in arbitrary claims of what "could" exist.

cool, I was only trying to illustrate my point by offering the conjectures of those who do subscribe to deist thought.

I am also not necessarily trying to prove a deity's existence, though this thread is a place where it could be discussed. the entire point is to determine whether or not a deist can be an objectivist.

also of note, it may have been discussed before but has anyone heard of these "christian objectivists" apparently they think Ayn Rand was the second Jesus or something along those lines. I havent read too much of their literature

Edited March 24, 2010 by moot

[brian0918]

That is simply not true, you have only attacked one of the ways in which a non interventionist God could exists. There are innumerable explanations, all of which are irrelevant. the issue is not how a God exists, but if it does

"God" is a word - but what does the word mean? I cannot disprove a word that has no definition. If you assert that "God" has no specific identity or description - that contradicts the law of identity.

If "God" does have a specific description - then please describe it.

Edited March 24, 2010 by brian0918

[moot]

my best definition would be a sentient being of any composition that influenced or shaped the universe for either as specific end or as a means to a specific end, which is not known to myself

Edited March 24, 2010 by moot

[softwareNerd]

I am only trying to determine whether or not deism is anti-life, whether one can be moral and believe in a god, and whether or not a deist could be an Objecivist if they follow all of the tenents of objectivism (i.e. not living for another man)

Deism has been discussed before, including this question. Search might bring up some threads.

One could say "God exists, but has no relevance to my life", or one could make some assumption about what God must have intended for you. You can like Chocolate or Vanilla, and either way you can be a commie or an Objectivist. If you hold a view of God that is as irrelevant to your moral decision-making as your choice of ice-cream flavor, then you can hold various other views: pro-altruist, pro-selfish etc. This type of deism is analogous to atheism: it is not a positive philosophy at all. While it asserts the presence of God, it also claims that this demands absolutely no specific action on the part of man. So, like Atheism, it gives zero guidance on how to live one's life. (Aside: Benjamin Franklin mentions this in his biography somewhere.)

Still, if atheism is one part of Goodaism, you cannot -- strictly speaking, say you are a Goodaist, even though you agree with everything else that Gooda said, but reject his atheism. Perhaps you can adopt 95% of the good stuff from Goodaism and end up leading a happy life. There will always be a chink in your armor, and its possible that it is never exploited -- but, why leave it there?

[moot]

so, you are saying that in order to be a objectivist one must necessarily blindly accept the fact that there is no god even though there may be gray area and it is just as likely that there is a God who created the current form of the universe, set up the laws of nature and does not violate them

does the fact that Ayn Rand did not feel such a being exist preclude the fact those who also live free of anti-life principals (objecitists) must be atheists as well

Edited March 24, 2010 by moot

[softwareNerd]

so, you are saying that in order to be a objectivist one must necessarily blindly accept the fact that there is no god even though there may be gray area and it is just as likely that there is a God who created the current form of the universe, set up the laws of nature and does not violate them

does the fact that Ayn Rand did not feel such a being exist preclude the fact those who also live free of anti-life principals (objecitists) must be atheists as well

Identify the straw-man in your response.

[moot]

dang I did not catch that one I feel kind of bad now..

but still, does objectivism necessitate atheism, or does it only require a lack of faith (assuming that Deism lacks faith and Atheism does not require it)