Deism: Believing in God Because of the Evidence

[Captain Chaos]

My arguments in favor deism will probably annoy a few folks, because it requires twisting your mind a bit to think about some odd concepts.

To start with:

Do you believe in acausality? Acausality means getting something from nothing. Many physicists believe in acausality. Specifically, they believe that reality has a time where T=0. This is a starting point where time began. To them, there is nothing before this moment. Thus, they believe that reality, at its starting point, just came into existence without a cause.


I find the idea of acausality to be fundamentally counterintuitive. I feel that it is just a belief in magic. "It just is" is never a good answer. Better to say "I don't know" and leave it at that, than to lower oneself to magic-like thinking.


If you reject acausality, it changes everything. Causality cannot occur without some sort of time. Time, as we experience it, is a component of space-time. Space-time is the medium in which our reality is defined. That is, particles and waves are defined by patterns of resonance within space-time. Well, that is a bastardized version of what many physicists believe, anyway.

So, the fundamental problem here is that time is necessary for causality. And yet time, as we experience it, began with the big bang. This does not mean there was not time before the big bang, this just means that our time, as a component of space-time, did not exist before the big bang. Thus, there had to be some other sort of time. This leads to the concept of multiple dimensions of time.

This is not too difficult to comprehend. Think of an excel spreadsheet, with 12 columns, where each column represents a month. In this example, the formulas for the cells are set up so that you enter information into the first column, and all of the data for the subsequent columns is filled in automatically - calculated be formulas.

The data in this spreadsheet can be thought of as a miniature reality. The spreadsheet is the fabric of space-time. Time began at the first month. For any given month, you can ask, "what caused things to be this way" and the answer will be "the way things were in the previous month." This is fine for all months except the first month. For the first month there is no previous month to cite as a cause. Instead, the cause lies outside of the space-time of that reality.

In this setup, you have two dimensions of space-time. The inner dimension would be the months that are a component of the spreadsheet. The outer dimension of time would be the flow of events that you experience, which included creating the spreadsheet and entering data into column 1.

If you reject acausality, and believe that time in our reality had a starting point, then you have to conclude that the cause of our reality lies outside of our reality. This would imply the existence of a greater reality, of which our reality is a subset.

There are other arguments in favor of this type of "multiverse" idea. So called "spooky action at a distance" - which is a phenomenon found in physics - seems to indicate faster-than-light causality. It does not permit the transmission of a signal, and thus cannot be used for faster-than-light communication, but it does indicate some mechanism of action that lies outside of our light-speed-limited space-time.

If our reality is part of a multiverse, this changes everything.

For this purpose, I define a god as a being that has the power to design and implement a reality, such as the one we live in.

If the outermost dimension of time goes back forever, and the probability of a god evolving into existence is greater than zero, then, given forever, such a being would eventually evolve into existence.

In other words, if it is at all possible for such a being to exist, then given enough time, such a being would come into existence one way or another.


This means the probability of at least one god existing is very high - in fact, the probability approaches 100% (but this is only true if it is possible for such a being to exist).


So, is it possible for a god to exist? Given that the outermost reality has given birth to an entire universe (ours) and one would imagine other universes as well - the evolution of a superbeing of great power does not seem unlikely.

This leads to a rather difficult concept - when did god(s) evolve into existence? No matter where you are in the outermost dimension of time, the amount of time that precedes you is infinite. Thus, the moment at which god(s) came into existence would always lie in the past. Is this the same as having always existed? I don't know, but it is close.


The fining-tuning argument is based on the idea that the constants of nature look an awful lot like they were designed for emergence - that is, designed for life to be possible. If we believe that a designer(s) exists, then that lends considerable weight to the idea that our reality was designed, rather than happened by accident.

I have much more to say on this concept, but this should be a good start for now.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

We are so caught up in a beginning and an end because our lives consist of those two confinements. Generally, acausality is just as annoying as a creator or the big bang. Something out of nothing is just absurd and there's no reason for such a thing to happen. The only way to think of the universe, then, is to think of it as an infinite structure, without beginning and end, without creation, only existence. Throw in the concept of time and variable universes and you now have created infinite structure upon which the concept of choice and probability force through a web of universes and existences, too vast and unmeaningful for our emotional minds to swallow.

[Captain Chaos]

The only way to think of the universe, then, is to think of it as an infinite structure, without beginning and end, without creation, only existence.

Yes...

And what is the chance that a superbeing, capable of creating a reality as apparently fine-tuned as ours, would evolve into existence in that infinite structure?

[Captain Chaos]

Just a note...

The word "universe" is tricky. To some it means all of existence. To others, it means our 3D reality.

[Zhavric]

An excellent set of assertions with a one very big flaw:

So, is it possible for a god to exist? Given that the outermost reality has given birth to an entire universe (ours) and one would imagine other universes as well - the evolution of a superbeing of great power does not seem unlikely.

This is still "god of gaps" reasoning. You haven't evidenced god. Pointing to an unknown Y and declaring X may true within the confines of Y is not evidence.

At best, it's a musing.

This line of "reasoning" can be applied anywhere to anything we do not have concrete understanding of (ex. God exists in sub-atomic particles) or super-imposed over anything we do have understanding of (Zeus is the cause of the movement of clouds / static electricity / etc that causes lightning & storms).

Without direct evidence that supports such a claim, musings are false until proven true.

So, what direct evidence do you have that god does exist within the universe of discourse you have presented to us? Also, please answer the following question: at some point beyond our big bang (before it) could chocolate sundays existed? What about the city of Chicago?

[Captain Chaos]

Without direct evidence that supports such a claim, musings are false until proven true.

Nope. Musings are unknown until proven true or false. No assuming the null hypothesis - bad Zhavric, shame, shame, shame.

So, what direct evidence do you have that god does exist within the universe of discourse you have presented to us?

First off - there is no rule that says that evidence must be direct.

Yes, my argument contains speculation. But what flaws do you see within the details of the argument?

I mean, given forever, if it is possible for god(s) to exist, then god will exist.

If you guys are familiar with mathematics, this discussion should lead into issues of bayesian probabilities. Which, I believe, will work in my favor.


Let's put aside the issue of chicago have existed before (for a few more posts anyway), if you don't mind. I know what you are getting at, and I have thought this through in many different ways. I just don't want to distract everyone from the main point.

[Captain Chaos]

This line of "reasoning" can be applied anywhere to anything we do not have concrete understanding of (ex. God exists in sub-atomic particles) or super-imposed over anything we do have understanding of (Zeus is the cause of the movement of clouds / static electricity / etc that causes lightning & storms).

I disagree. I do not see any God of the Gaps arguments here.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Yes...

And what is the chance that a superbeing, capable of creating a reality as apparently fine-tuned as ours, would evolve into existence in that infinite structure?

Great point. I suppose the answer should be a 100% percent chance, although when you really think about such a scenario it seems highly unlikely even in an infinite amount of years something like that would happen. How can one harness the laws of physics to meet his own specifications? And he wouldn't be a creator, just a modifier of his own universe, so long as we can assume supernatural capabilities don't play a role.

[Captain Chaos]

Great point. I suppose the answer should be a 100% percent chance, although when you really think about such a scenario it seems highly unlikely even in an infinite amount of years something like that would happen. How can one harness the laws of physics to meet his own specifications? And he wouldn't be a creator, just a modifier of his own universe, so long as we can assume supernatural capabilities don't play a role.

Exactly.

The idea of 'supernatural' is one of perspective. If you define natural to relate to the laws of our reality, and there is a greater reality within which our laws are defined, then something that is supernatural would be something that can "cheat" - that is, something that can work around our natural laws. It would, however, still be subject to the natural laws of the reality in which it exists.

If you define natural to relate to all laws of nature, including the laws of the outermost reality, then, by definition, nothing can be supernatural.

[Captain Chaos]

And he wouldn't be a creator, just a modifier of his own universe, so long as we can assume supernatural capabilities don't play a role.

Well... here is the thing.

What is the limit to power? If an entity can grow to the point that it is supreme, and fully integrated into reality, then, yes, it is a modifier of its own reality. But that power would include creating sub-realities such as our own. Thus, while we cannot call it the creator of all of reality, we can call it the creator, because it created our reality.

This leads to another important point. Probability theory at first deals with independent trials. This means each event does not alter the probability of a subsequent event.

However, this would not be the case for a supreme being. Once it has become supreme and fully integrated into reality, it will prevent other entities from usurping its spot.

I mean, it might not. But, given forever, eventually a supreme being will come along that does wish to maintain its supremacy. When that happens, we are no longer talking about independent trials. At that point, there is one supreme being, and it is going to hold the top spot for the foreseeable future.

[Zhavric]

Nope. Musings are unknown until proven true or false. No assuming the null hypothesis - bad Zhavric, shame, shame, shame.

Our time away from ODN has left us both soft.

I should clarify what I stated above. Not all musings are false until proven true. It depends on the unstated claims.

For example, if I muse "invisible flying monkeys (IFM) are around us all the time" what have I stated? By making this assertion I have also stated "What we know about light, primates, aerodynamics and how we understand the study of these three phenomenon is flawed." The support IFM's, I have to prove the existing knowledge to be false. Because of that, claiming IFM's are true defaults to "false until proven true".

Also, in a closed world model of the universe, unproven is no different from false / not real / etc.

Now, what are you implying with your deist assertions? You're implying that a lot of what we already know about gods and the observed universe is wrong. We know that gods are fictional entities created by human beings and we don't know what happened before the big bang (or even if there was a "before").

So you claim defaults to "false until proven true".

First off - there is no rule that says that evidence must be direct.

Really? In that case flying dragons are real because my friend Brad has a sister who's dating a guy who lives in New Zealand who blogs with a woman in Serbia who's dating a waiter at a restaurant frequented by an archeologist who's father once said he saw a flying dragon while under the influence of LSD.

Evidence must directly correspond to the claim.

I mean, given forever, if it is possible for god(s) to exist, then god will exist.

*blinks* How do you figure that one, hoss? Why not substitute any noun for god?

Let's put aside the issue of chicago have existed before (for a few more posts anyway), if you don't mind. I know what you are getting at, and I have thought this through in many different ways. I just don't want to distract everyone from the main point.

The point is that musings of this nature are useless as truth claims. If god can exist in another universe / universe before ours / etc then so could another humanity that made chocolate milk shakes.

Your argument is little different than the ontological argument... the only difference I can spot is instead of god as a primary mover, you've added him "somewhere in the mix".

What you really need to do is rule out natural causes for the universe. So far, you haven't... nor have you addressed the fact that humans have been inventing gods for thousands of years and none of them have turned out to be true.

[rez]

Great point. I suppose the answer should be a 100% percent chance, although when you really think about such a scenario it seems highly unlikely even in an infinite amount of years something like that would happen. How can one harness the laws of physics to meet his own specifications? And he wouldn't be a creator, just a modifier of his own universe, so long as we can assume supernatural capabilities don't play a role.

exactly, whoever can harness the laws of physics and create their own reality does not really show proof of causality. I mean, if humans do not end up killing themselves or have a comet hit earth, then the chances of us becoming powerful enough to create another universe is possible.