Officially Converted into a Deist

[Kane]

I am officially converted into a Deist recently. Before I was a hard-bound agnostic, still searching for the answers and a small remainder of me still remains agnostic. However for the most part I am now Deist. If you don’t know what Deism is, I’ll explain it below.

Deism by definition is belief in a God or first cause based on reason, rather than on faith or revelation. In other words I believe in a God or some higher power, but don’t believe there is enough evidence to prove that some Yahweh religion is the correct way God wants us to live. Furthermore there is not enough proof which religion would be the correct doctrine from God.
I doubt I will go any further than religion (by that I mean that I’ll eventually convert into a Jew, Muslim, or Christian) because there is not hard proof on none of the religions in the world. So far I think Christianity, Islam, or Judaism are the true doctrines of God, but again there is not enough proof for me to go either way.

Now you might ask, why and how did I turn from an agnostic who believes there is no way to proves that there is or there isn’t a God to a believing Deist? Well, if you study the laws of physics more deeply as I have, you will find hard proof that there is a God. For example: 15 billion years ago at the birth of the universe there was a big explosion called the big bang. Some scientists are puzzled on what happened before these 15 billion years. Did the universe come out of nothingness? I laughed when I read this, silly little atheistic scientists (no offense), it is so obvious what happened before the beginning of the universe. A Supreme Deity which lives outside the laws of time and space, that lives outside the laws of physics created the universe. Whether or not this God is what the Dessert Monotheistic religions speak of or not, there was some sort of God that created all this. I think that the few atheistic physicists in the field are stubborn IMO to admit the fact that there is a supreme Deity. Furthermore if you look at the laws of time, it shows that some sort of being already planned out our timeline and where it is heading.

Another hard proof on why I think there is a God in terms of science is that there is no way a bunch of living things can all of a sudden become a complex living organism. A bunch of nonliving macromolecules cannot just gain awareness and create a complex DNA structure, it would defy logic. I think in this sense Atheists use very weak arguments on how life began.

There is only one other alternative to the creationism explanation of the universe. There is the famed cyclical universe. According to the theory, the universe will continue loose energy and contract into the big squeeze, and in time the big bang will occur again. This will happen for eternity and the cycle will continue from Big Bang to Big Crunch forever. It is a good argument, but I still see a lot more flaws in this theory than the creation theory. For example in order from the universe to continue like this forever there has to be an absence of the 4th dimensional are many refer too as time. More evidence points toward a finite timeline meaning a cyclical universe would not point toward logic. I am not going to completely dismiss the theory or anything, but I see the creation theory to make more sense.

Sorry if the post seems a little rushed, I haven’t got much sleep in a few days and am to tired to do a good proofread. Anyway what I want to know from you is do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please state why you disagree on a higher power. I’m curious on what other people think about all this.

 

[michaeledward]

I have never thought, for one minute, based on what I recall from your earlier posts that you were an agnostic. Far from it, indeed.

There are many incorrect statements in your short disertation concerning science. You are drawing conclusions where none are present.

Well, if you study the laws of physics more deeply as I have, you will find hard proof that there is a God.

Which law of physics, exactly, provides 'hard proof'?

For example: 15 billion years ago at the birth of the universe there was a big explosion called the big bang. Some scientists are puzzled on what happened before these 15 billion years. Did the universe come out of nothingness?

Scientists are indeed uncertain of the events in the micro-seconds after the 'Big Bang'. They continue to attempt to study the physical sciences involved to gain a better understanding. You will recall there was recently construction on a Supercollider in Texas, which was to be used to address some of the questions surrounding this small time period after the Big Bang. The funding was killed in Congress. Anyone wanna buy a big hole in the ground?

I laughed when I read this, silly little atheistic scientists (no offense), it is so obvious what happened before the beginning of the universe. A Supreme Deity which lives outside the laws of time and space, that lives outside the laws of physics created the universe.

There is nothing 'obvious' about this conclusion. There is further nothing rational about this conclusion. The tone, and arguments used to support this conclusion seem to be drawn from human uncertainties of 'what happens next', rather than any laws of physics. Scientists are completely comfortable with the statement 'I don't know'.

I think you would find most scientists state 'I don't know what happened at the instant of the Big Bang, or prior to it, or the immediate fractions of a second after it. Isn't that wonderful and interesting? Let's see if we can figure it out'.

Another hard proof on why I think there is a God in terms of science is that there is no way a bunch of living things can all of a sudden become a complex living organism. A bunch of nonliving macromolecules cannot just gain awareness and create a complex DNA structure, it would defy logic.

Please explain the 'hard proof' that there is 'no way' about anything. There is no way that you can conceive of molecules froming proteins and life evolving. You argument tells us that you do not have a clear grasp of random mutation and natural selection. I think the laws of 'logic' do not apply to evolution any more than the laws of physics provide 'hard proof' of a supreme being.

There is only one other alternative to the creationism explanation of the universe.

Here again, you are probably quite far off the mark. Using your example, I will explain two of the explanations of the universe.

A) The Big Crunch - Gravity is one of the four known forces in the universe. There is enough matter in the universe to create sufficient gravity to begin to collapse the Universe. All matter drawing together, at the end of time until gravity compresses the universe into an infinitely small three dimensional point, which then creates another 'Big Bang'. - This is what you discribe

B) The Big Dissipation - The big bang created an expanding universe. We know this because we can measure the speed with which stars and galaxies are moving away from each other (See 'Red Shift - Blue Shift'). The Stars and Galaxies are moving away from each other at a greater force than can be overcome by gravity. As the universe expands, matter will become further and further apart, like spreading butter over too much bread (in the words of Bilbo Baggins). Eventually, the universe will dissipate into nothingness.

Are there other explanations about the beginning and end of the universe? Probably, but, there certainly are more than 'only one alternative' that you claim.

I recommend 'The Demon Haunted World' by Carl Sagan.

 

[ginshun]

While I personally believe that there is a God (or Gods actaully) that had influence on the begining of the universe as we know it, and on the begining of life as we know it, I don't think that there is any hard proof of either of those things. I also think that your logic is seriously flawed.

But hey, as long as you have yourself convinced that is really all that matters. Congrats on your new belief system, I hope it goes well for you.

 

[Ray]

B) The Big Dissipation...

Heck, that's I call my status 4 hours after over-indulging in spicy food.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Did the universe come out of nothingness? I laughed when I read this, silly little atheistic scientists (no offense), it is so obvious what happened before the beginning of the universe. A Supreme Deity which lives outside the laws of time and space, that lives outside the laws of physics created the universe. Whether or not this God is what the Dessert Monotheistic religions speak of or not, there was some sort of God that created all this. I think that the few atheistic physicists in the field are stubborn IMO to admit the fact that there is a supreme Deity. Furthermore if you look at the laws of time, it shows that some sort of being already planned out our timeline and where it is heading.

Another hard proof on why I think there is a God in terms of science is that there is no way a bunch of living things can all of a sudden become a complex living organism. A bunch of nonliving macromolecules cannot just gain awareness and create a complex DNA structure, it would defy logic. I think in this sense Atheists use very weak arguments on how life began.

There is only one other alternative to the creationism explanation of the universe. There is the famed cyclical universe. According to the theory, the universe will continue loose energy and contract into the big squeeze, and in time the big bang will occur again. This will happen for eternity and the cycle will continue from Big Bang to Big Crunch forever. It is a good argument, but I still see a lot more flaws in this theory than the creation theory. For example in order from the universe to continue like this forever there has to be an absence of the 4th dimensional are many refer too as time. More evidence points toward a finite timeline meaning a cyclical universe would not point toward logic. I am not going to completely dismiss the theory or anything, but I see the creation theory to make more sense.

No offense, but from what I understand of deism, this ain't it.

My first question - what is a belief system if not at least partly based on faith?

"Silly little atheistic scientists"? Hmmm, I do take offense, apparently you don't understand that science must be based on certain guidelines and methodologies, rather than an "oh it's so obvious!" statement of belief. Many people have worked hard over many generations to get us to what we know today, imperfect though it might be. Show a little respect at least for the people who brought us the knowledge you claim to be studying, rather than dismissing the religious beliefs you suppose they have or had.

As to the evolution of life, things didn't just all of a sudden happen. It wasn't like some minerals in a water bath were put into a kid's EZ Bake Oven for 5 minutes. The process took millions of years. The existence of single-celled organisms was a tremendous happening. Eukaryotic cells - even more so! Waving your hands and saying that all these things "just happened" again is overlooking the work that has been put in by many, many people. You don't have to agree with every hypothesis or every methodology (it would hardly be Science is everyone agreed on everything), but this is too dismissive of a huge body of work.

If you have certain spiritual beliefs, great, more power to you. You might be surprised how many "silly little atheistic scientists" are actually spiritual people. But your post does not address whether or not there is a "higher power", but dismisses fields of scientific study without addressing them specifically.

 

[Melissa426]

I believe in the meter reader who comes to my house once a month to check my gas/electricity meters. I never see him, though. So how do I know he exists? I get a utility bill each month. How does my belief in this person I never see affect me? Besides my pocket book, not at all.

I don't believe it can be the same way with God. You believe in his existence because you can see the results of his creation, but you don't think you'll be involved in developing your spiritual selfl? Well, then, why even consider your beliefs, if it doesn't make a difference in your life? If I am taking your remarks out of context, please forgive me.

If you believe God has the power the direct a bunch of non-living macro-molecules into the complex living organism that is yourself in this time and this place, there ought to be some meaning in that. I hope you find it as you continue to learn.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[Ray]

I believe in the meter reader who comes to my house once a month to check my gas/electricity meters. I never see him, though. So how do I know he exists?

Yes, there is evidence of the meter reader.

But you can apply the scientific method to "prove" it. Based on the evidence you have, you hypothesize (or suppose) that someone must be reading the meter. You design an experiment to confirm it, maybe you set-up a video camera or keep watch. Others can read your reports and they too can repeat your experiment. Now you can publish a theory that says the meter reader comes to read your meter. It will be widely accepted, though a few may disbelieve, until a better explanation comes along (or a better one never does).

You see evidence of God. But you are unable to design a repeatable scientific experiment to prove it.

I also believe in God. I'm no scientist, but I know that some scientists have religious faith. Science is a logically structured method of discovering truth, the rules prohibit accepting things as fact that cannot be proven using the scientific method; therefore the supernatural is not accepted as fact by science.

Remember the story of the discovery of gravity? Before that, everyone just thought that things naturally fell to the earth. Science challenges these assumptions and it discovers how the universe works. Ancients, who applied only the power of reasoning, reasoned that heavy objects fell faster than light objects--it took someone to question the assumption to discover the truth.

 

[Tgace]

"If you have certain spiritual beliefs, great, more power to you."

You hear that a lot around here, however that doesn't seem to stop anybody from trying to prove how wrong you are. A kind of "Theres nothing wrong with being religious, but heres 3 pages stuff to prove how what you believe couldnt possibly be true and you are sort of silly." type of thing.

(nothing against you FM just a quote for example )

 

[Blindside]

As a agnostic leaning heavily towards atheism I am very interested in whatever "hard proof" you have available to you. A Campus Crusade for Christ once asked me: "what would it take for you to believe in God?" I answered: "thats easy, part Lake Washington so I can walk home." I look forward to whatever evidence you can put forth to settle my mind on the proof of Gods existence.

Lamont

 

[Cryozombie]

Scientists are indeed uncertain of the events in the micro-seconds after the 'Big Bang'. They continue to attempt to study the physical sciences involved to gain a better understanding. You will recall there was recently construction on a Supercollider in Texas, which was to be used to address some of the questions surrounding this small time period after the Big Bang. The funding was killed in Congress. Anyone wanna buy a big hole in the ground?

Just a Side note here... his statement you quoted was

For example: 15 billion years ago at the birth of the universe there was a big explosion called the big bang. Some scientists are puzzled on what happened before these 15 billion years. Did the universe come out of nothingness?

It was a question of what happened PRIOR to the big bang, not after it...

 

[Cryozombie]

I remember a joke I once heard that I think fits here...

A scientist walks into church and prays to God.

"God" he says, "I have just Created Life, from the dirt of the earth. You are obsolete, we no longer need you"

God appears to the scientist, and says "I see. Please show me how it is done, create life."

The scientist leans down, scoops up a handfull of dirt and says "Well, first I take this dirt..."

God interupts him and says "No, no no. Use your own dirt"

I'll consider the Scientific Proof that there is no God, when they can accomplish this feat.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

"If you have certain spiritual beliefs, great, more power to you."

You hear that a lot around here, however that doesn't seem to stop anybody from trying to prove how wrong you are. A kind of "Theres nothing wrong with being religious, but heres 3 pages stuff to prove how what you believe couldnt possibly be true and you are sort of silly." type of thing.

(nothing against you FM just a quote for example )

I'm not trying to "disprove" Kane's spiritual beliefs per se - perhaps my comment sounded a little flip, but I am sick and tired of people I meet assuming that if one is a scientist, one must have no spiritual, or, dare I say, religious belief system. I'm very tired of it. (Weariness in my voice is somehow piped in online.)

Kane is forwarding that he his beliefs are based on certain evidence - or rebuttal of (scientific) evidence. As to his beliefs, they are beliefs - and I respect that. Very casually (or so it seems online) tossing aside solid scientific work is another thing, and that is the issue I am taking with the post.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I'll consider the Scientific Proof that there is no God, when they can accomplish this feat.

I like the joke.

But, for your last bit, what rational scientist has ever 1) tried to prove a negative successfully, and 2) tried to "disprove" God?

I think most of us would be happy to leave that to those who have a good grasp on religious studies, philosophy, and their own personal experiences.

 

[Phoenix44]

Spirituality is faith-based.
Science is proof-based.

I don't think it makes sense to try to validate or invalidate one with the other. I also don't think they're mutually incompatible.

Albert Einstein believed in a Supreme Being. Carl Sagan did not. A couple of interesting books:

Carl Sagan "The Demon Haunted World"
Gerald Schroeder "The Science of God"

 

[Tgace]

As to tossing aside scientific "proof", I guess we are all free to believe what we want there too. If some person wants to believe the world is flat or has a population of people living in the earths core, heck who cares? As long as hes not a mapmaker.

Of course the original poster asked for debate, so hes fair game.

 

[michaeledward]

Just a Side note here... his statement you quoted was

It was a question of what happened PRIOR to the big bang, not after it...

You are correct ... and it is a reasonable question which begs examination.

Looking at time as linear, science uses geology, astronomy, and physics to look back down the time line. Currently science has established with a high degree of certainty that the big bang did occur. We do know the universe is expanding. But at present, we can follow that time line only as far as a fraction of a second after the event in space-time that is the theorized 'Big Bang'.

I know of no scientific claims about what might have occur further back this linear time-line to prior to the event of the 'Big Bang'. Kane claimed that scientists are 'puzzled' about what might have happened before that instant. I am not certain that 'scientists' have even addressed the idea in any format.

I do know that some scientists have speculated that the 'Big Crunch' leads to a 'Big Bang', leads to a 'Big Crunch', but I don't know that these ideas would qualify as 'science'. These ideas are guesses, I think, at this time. Certainly not science.

I did not do, perhaps, a very good job at explaining the linear aspect of time, and that science only goes back to 'x plus .001'. I think science makes no statements (puzzled or otherwise) as to what might have happened prior to 'x'.

At present, I believe what occurred before 'x' is in the realm of philosphy.

If there are any who have a greater scientific understanding of what the current thought is about space-time prior to the big bang, I look forward to the contribution.

 

[Cryozombie]

I like the joke.

But, for your last bit, what rational scientist has ever 1) tried to prove a negative successfully, and 2) tried to "disprove" God?

I think most of us would be happy to leave that to those who have a good grasp on religious studies, philosophy, and their own personal experiences.

Scientists? I have no clue... maybe none. But I have seen plenty of people who claim to be rational try and use science as an excuse why there is no god... or at best as to why THEY dont believe there is.

To each his own, I say. Makes no nevermind to me if people choose to believe or not. I look at it like this... It doesnt hurt me or the world that I do, and if I am wrong, well, when i am gone, it makes no difference... maybe I was a better person than I should have been to some people. Then again, If I am right, well, suffice to say I will feel bad for a lot of people. :idunno:

 

[Flatlander]

If there are any who have a greater scientific understanding of what the current thought is about space-time prior to the big bang, I look forward to the contribution.

According to Professor Hawking, "the moment of" the Big Bang is a mathmatical singularity, and therefore, it is nonsensical to attempt any type of hypothesis at this point.

 

[Cryozombie]

Can someone, for simplicity's sake, clarify the big bang theory for me...

Was it

"There was this big empty nothing, and then the nothing went BANG, and tossed stuff into the universe"

or

"There was a boatload of stuff hanging out in one place surrounded by a bunch of nothing and the stuff went BANG and tossed all the stuff apart into the universe"

or

"We dunno, but something went BANG and now there is a Universe"

Thanks

Oh, also... How much of what we know about it is hard scientific facts, and how much a theory?

 

[CMack11]

Spirituality is faith-based.
Science is proof-based.

I don't think it makes sense to try to validate or invalidate one with the other. I also don't think they're mutually incompatible.

These are great words. I never understood why peopel got into a whole 'science vs. religion' debate. The two don't really have much to do with each other. You can have both, or have neither.