Fire & Brimstone Deism

[Repox]

What the Dickens are you talking about? "Lack of consistency", "irreversibly", "self-destructive paths"??

That's not what the second law says at all. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system always increases over time, or remains constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state or undergoing a reversible process.

That means that 'systems' like galaxies, stars and people have a finite life span - this is because they are non-isolated, unstable, high energy, non-equilibrium systems that are destined by nature to follow a path of increasing entropy (lower energy, more stable) until they reach steady states or equilibrium conditions (aka, for living systems, death). For the universe (as far as we know) this means that eventually the universe will have approached thermodynamic equilibrium and, although all the energy of the universe will still be there (none of it will have "self-destructed"), it will no longer have 'free energy' to sustain non-equilibrium systems like stars and life. But since we've got 10^100 years before that happens I don't think we need to worry unduly on this score just yet.
Probably not

You admitted in your summary that I am correct when you stated, "it will no longer have 'free energy' to sustain non-equilibrium systems like stars and life. But since we've got 10^100 years before that happens I don't think we need to worry unduly on this score just yet." It will, as I stated, eventually self-destruct. The universe is proceeding along a path of increasing entropy changing matter and energy into new forms, the result of which is unpredictable formulations of galaxies. In other words, the universe isn't eternal, it is limited by processes of self-destruction according to the laws of entropy.

As for your statement, "probably not," regarding my explanation for the origin of the universe. You can refute God's holiness, or what the Bible has told us about God, but you must have another explanation for the origin of the universe. Because science cannot explain how the universe came from nothing, God is the only possible explanation. God doesn't use physical laws and a scientific laboratory to create, He uses his holy will.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

This has to qualify for a medal in the world "silliest line of reasoning" championships. There is, analogously, no evidence for or against the existence of a giant silver teapot orbiting the planet Neptune - are we take it that this indicates that it is, in fact, a supremely intelligent teapot that has painstakingly and quite deliberately erased all evidence of its existence? It is disappointing and, frankly, embarrassing to see this kind of stuff in the Deism section.

We're looking for an answer to something (the cause of the universe), as to whether it was an intelligent cause or not. We have no result which we could attribute to the a teapot, intelligent or otherwise. Therefore, there is no evidence for or against a non-existent proposition. If you wish to say the the teapot might have created Neptune, I can provide ample evidence to the contrary. We have lots of evidence showing the formation of stars and solar system. but we haven't the first thread for what caused the Big Bang. And further, that the absence of evidence can't be used as evidence is a standalone assertion. Your arrogance pushes you to jump to a conclusion before you've thought it through, how silly of me.

 

[Repox]

We're looking for an answer to something (the cause of the universe), as to whether it was an intelligent cause or not. We have no result which we could attribute to the a teapot, intelligent or otherwise. Therefore, there is no evidence for or against a non-existent proposition. If you wish to say the the teapot might have created Neptune, I can provide ample evidence to the contrary. We have lots of evidence showing the formation of stars and solar system. but we haven't the first thread for what caused the Big Bang. And further, that the absence of evidence can't be used as evidence is a standalone assertion. Your arrogance pushes you to jump to a conclusion before you've thought it through, how silly of me.

Your example of the teapot cause is not relevant. The topic is the origin of the universe, not the origin of a planet. This has been going on for a very long time. If atheist can prove a scientific explanation, then, apparent, there is no reason for God. The more atheist propose their argument, the sillier it looks. No scientist can explain the origin of the universe. Until there is a scientific explanation, the most logical explanation is God did it. It is not arrogance to assert the obvious. I don't like being called arrogant. Shouldn't believers call atheist arrogant? It dependents on your beliefs. So far, atheist have no explanation for the origin of the universe.

I like the virtual particle explanation for universe. Apparently, there were virtual particles floating around in space. Then, they collided to form matter and energy, etc. The problem, of course, is where did the VP field come from? There has never been, and never will be, a scientific explanation for the universe. There are some fundamental points of logic which atheist don't understand. Based on physical laws, there is no means by which you can created something from nothing.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Your example of the teapot cause is not relevant. The topic is the origin of the universe, not the origin of a planet.

That was my point. The teapot was Siti's argument.

 

[Repox]

That was my point. The teapot was Siti's argument.

A strong argument can be made for God's absence from governance of the universe based on its purpose. If you assume God made the universe for humans, why has He not cared for His human creation? Wow, a strong case could be made for God neglecting his prized creation. However, if you assume God made the universe to imprison His rebellious angel Satan, you find a logical argument to support God's absence from the universe. After all, if the universe is a maximum security prison, why would God tinker with its function? What is left is troubling for those who live in God's universe. However, if you assume humans are collateral damage from the fall of paradise, you might understand God's priorities.

How about God's priorities? Do they interfere with human happiness? It appears as if they might. However, there is another issue to consider, it is the criterion by which God judges freewill creatures, which in the context of God's creation would include humans inasmuch as they have freewill choices. For any consideration for the destiny of freewill creatures, one must acknowledge the basic criteria by which God judges humans, or any creature, including angels. The criterion is obedience to God's Commandments. The means by which humans have attempted to establish a relationship with God based on this criteria has been as varied as there are religious ideologies and religions.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

A strong argument can be made for God's absence from governance of the universe based on its purpose. If you assume God made the universe for humans, why has He not cared for His human creation? Wow, a strong case could be made for God neglecting his prized creation.

This universe is made to test our exercise of free will. That's an exercise of the soul, not the body. God interfering to save the bodies, negates the exercise, or neither God nor we can otherwise learn what our moral choices would be. I've said this as many different ways as I can. Perhaps you won't ignore it this time, but the odds are you will.

 

[Repox]

This universe is made to test our exercise of free will. That's an exercise of the soul, not the body. God interfering to save the bodies, negates the exercise, or neither God nor we can otherwise learn what our moral choices would be. I've said this as many different ways as I can. Perhaps you won't ignore it this time, but the odds are you will.

I disagree. It is arrogant to presume God created the universe for humans. According to what I know, God created the universe as a prison for Satan. Then, God created paradise without humans, it was during the dinosaur era. I had a vision about paradise. I saw the "whole world" aglow with God's holy light. Contrary to popular opinion, God doesn't have much regard for humans. God was disappointed when humans became the dominant species on earth, it disrupted and contaminated natural processes. Subsequently, God attempted to establish a holy order on earth (Bible). I had a dream about God's disappointment. I was digging garbage in a filthy hole. As I dug, I saw underground all over the world dinosaur bones. A voice said, "Humans have desecrated my holy grave." Evidently, God preferred dinosaurs and other creatures in paradise to humans in civilized societies. History is not a good record of human goodness or holiness. Based on the evidence of many destructive wars, genocide, human conflicts, crime rates, and general exploitation of natural resources, there is not much good to say about the human activity on earth. In short, an excellent argument can be made for why God is absent from our world.

As for freewill choices, it is the basis for a relationship with God. The problem is clerics and religions don't seem to understand, God doesn't have a high degree of tolerance for disobedience.

 

[siti]

If you wish to say the the teapot might have created Neptune, I can provide ample evidence to the contrary. We have lots of evidence showing the formation of stars and solar system. but we haven't the first thread for what caused the Big Bang.

Now who's jumping to conclusions? I never said the teapot created Neptune - at least not directly - what I am suggesting is that it is perfectly obvious from the complete lack of evidence to the contrary that the teapot was the cause of the Big Bang itself.

As for the arguments based on freewill and disobedient angels - please cite one single thread of scientific evidence for the existence of either. One could make a reasonable logical/philosophical argument for the existence of freewill, but we don't have either logical proof or scientific evidence - but in any case, what possible logical argument can link this conclusively to the existence of God?

God doesn't have a high degree of tolerance for disobedience.

...but, apparently, boundless tolerance for stupidity. Unfortunately, deism does not share this divine attribute and none of either of your arguments stands up to reason - which is the whole point of deism.

So what can we say? First, that it is reasonable to believe in the possibility of an intelligent creator, and second...well, there is no second come to think of it...that's it - deism boils down to the statement: it is reasonable to believe in the existence of an intelligent creator. The challenge we have now is to defend that against the dwindling level of scientific evidence that favours the idea, because since the 18th century we have discovered so much that explains things by perfectly natural causes that we once thought attributable only to God - the evolution of species, the existence of other galaxies, atomic theory, quantum mechanics...etc. etc. None of this was known to the tick-tock Newtonian mechanical clockwork universe of the 18th century deists. The "gaps" are becoming smaller and smaller for God to fit into. If you follow the evidence and reason, the best deism has to offer at present are arguments that start something like "if God exists then it must be...[insert the logically reasoned statement about what your logical reasoning based on the available evidence suggests]..."

 

[Repox]

Now who's jumping to conclusions? I never said the teapot created Neptune - at least not directly - what I am suggesting is that it is perfectly obvious from the complete lack of evidence to the contrary that the teapot was the cause of the Big Bang itself.

As for the arguments based on freewill and disobedient angels - please cite one single thread of scientific evidence for the existence of either. One could make a reasonable logical/philosophical argument for the existence of freewill, but we don't have either logical proof or scientific evidence - but in any case, what possible logical argument can link this conclusively to the existence of God?
...but, apparently, boundless tolerance for stupidity. Unfortunately, deism does not share this divine attribute and none of either of your arguments stands up to reason - which is the whole point of deism.

So what can we say? First, that it is reasonable to believe in the possibility of an intelligent creator, and second...well, there is no second come to think of it...that's it - deism boils down to the statement: it is reasonable to believe in the existence of an intelligent creator. The challenge we have now is to defend that against the dwindling level of scientific evidence that favours the idea, because since the 18th century we have discovered so much that explains things by perfectly natural causes that we once thought attributable only to God - the evolution of species, the existence of other galaxies, atomic theory, quantum mechanics...etc. etc. None of this was known to the tick-tock Newtonian mechanical clockwork universe of the 18th century deists. The "gaps" are becoming smaller and smaller for God to fit into. If you follow the evidence and reason, the best deism has to offer at present are arguments that start something like "if God exists then it must be...[insert the logically reasoned statement about what your logical reasoning based on the available evidence suggests]..."

Traditionally, freewill has been a philosophical topic, it has, however, become central to the field of theology. As for obedience, it derives from the Bible, there are numerous stories about prophets concern with God's chosen people obeying the Lord. If there is no God, we should disregard the idea of obedience because it has to do with moral issues related to God and his heavenly kingdom.

I have a theory about the universe which may partly explain the absence of God. Assuming God got it right when He began time and the universe, there would be no reason for him to tinker with the process. In other words, God's design for the universe was a perfect plan, it set forth stages of development, or evolutionary steps, explaining every mountain, rock, flower, etc. to come on earth; and for the entire universe, everything that has occurred in the dark vastness of space. God did it in order to maintain a maximum security prison for Satan. It is interesting to consider the characteristics of heaven in comparison to the universe. Whereas, heaven is eternal with warmth, brightness, and holy light, the universe is temporary (subject to laws of entropy) dark, cold and dangerous. Unfortunately, humans are stuck in Satan's prison. In heaven, Satan lived in a safe and secure environment with God. In the universe, he (it) is trapped in a dark hostile environment as exploding galaxies maneuver to exist. In other words, it is not necessary for God to fill in the gaps, or for us to propose, when confronted with a strange anomaly of nature, that God did it, because, from the beginning of time, it was part of God's divine plan for the universe.

 

[siti]

@Repox - clearly one of us is confused - I don't think it's me...but just for the sake of further futile argument:

1. If God's "design" was perfect down to the intricate details of the smallest flower etc. (as you say) where is the space for 'freewill' or 'obedience'?

2. What possible justification could there be for God entrapping his (perhaps only, but we don't really know) intelligent creation in a prison designed for a spirit creature we could not possibly have had knowledge of beyond special revelation to certain 'chosen' individuals? If that is true, then God's actions are far more reprehensible than anything Satan could possibly have done.

 

[Repox]

@Repox - clearly one of us is confused - I don't think it's me...but just for the sake of further futile argument:

1. If God's "design" was perfect down to the intricate details of the smallest flower etc. (as you say) where is the space for 'freewill' or 'obedience'?

2. What possible justification could there be for God entrapping his (perhaps only, but we don't really know) intelligent creation in a prison designed for a spirit creature we could not possibly have had knowledge of beyond special revelation to certain 'chosen' individuals? If that is true, then God's actions are far more reprehensible than anything Satan could possibly have done.

Primarily, God designed the universe to imprison Satan. Due to circumstances from the fall of paradise, humans evolved into a dominant species. God was not pleased, but He attempted to deal with humans. I had a dream about OT times. A voice said, "They didn't obey my commandments, not one single commandment." No one but God knows the degree of obedience for humans. Based on what I know, I don't believe humans are an obedient species. I know you can propose all kinds of arguments for God not being very tolerant.

Coincidently, I had a dream last night about God's commandments. It was about white sheets of paper with writing on them with God's moral codes, nearby where dark sheets of paper with human moral codes written on them. The theme of the dream was God's commandments are not acceptable to humans, they rewrite them for their own purpose. Evidently, God will not negotiate His decrees or commandments. In the context of human culture and morality, you might conclude God is a moral dictator, he doesn't negotiate His holy commandments. The dream fits with what I have previous learned from dreams about God, he will never negotiate his moral authority. If you accept God as being perfect, it would follow that his decrees or commandments are not subject to negotiation.

In your second question you seem to have taken a popular position for many believers. If God doesn't do this or that, or because God has not come to the rescue of suffering, distressed or bereaved humans, he is like Satan. Taking this position is a slippery slope, you may never return. Humans are just sophisticated animals. Unlike God, Satan, and the other angels, they are mortal creatures. Without language skills for developing adversary arguments, humans might be more acceptable, or, if you will, humble, about their place in a fallen world. One reason why I get along with God is because I don't question or criticize Him. God is perfect and holy, we are neither. Humans are particularly vulnerable, they are mortal creatures. I have been discussion with people on the internet about God, etc. for several years. Nothing seems to change. It seems the more brilliant or well educated the person, the more critical they are of God. No matter what the reason, God doesn't tolerate disobedience. In the end, God and His angels will be in heaven, humans will be in their graves, and Satan will still be zooming around the universe seeking a way to escape.

 

[siti]

Taking this position is a slippery slope, you may never return.

Oh Dear! That doesn't sound too good!

 

[Repox]

Oh Dear! That doesn't sound too good!

Sorry for the apparent reprimand, it was an observation more than a judgement. Who knows!

I have been wondering about dark matter. Could it be the antitheses of heaven's bright white substance? Assuming Satan was losing his brilliant white luster, what color would he (it) become. I had a dream about Satan in heaven. Compared to me, he was about fifteen feet tall; he had a snake shaped body with bright white and intensely dark spiraling strips going around his body. While I looked, he turned to reveal a beautiful face. In a previous dream, I saw Satan in the middle of a circle of angels biting their fluffy white feet. In this dream, all the angels resembled fluffy white cotton balls. An angel went to God and said, "He is hurting us." In another dream, Satan resembled a green parrot's beak, it was going around heaven attacking and hurting the other angels. Then, God captured Satan with his two hands (universe). Inside, Satan attacked furiously to escape. There was a lot of commotion inside the hands. Then, God opened the hands revealing pieces of black metal on both hands. It is interesting, scientist have found dark ugly scares on the boundary of the universe. I have listed pertinent dreams for proposing an idea about the composition for the universe in the context of Satan's nature and predicament with God. I assume Satan's black strips turned into an intensely black body color. The white strips disappeared because of Satan's rebellious actions. Now, considering dark matter and its significance for the universe, one may propose the universe to be a good fit for Satan, its design to imprison Satan may be understood as the primary reason for its existence.

 

[siti]

Red.

 

[Tony L Smith]

I don't want to live forever anyway. I'm bloody tired.

There is a way to give up while you are still in the body and experience eternity with its benefits. Its just a willing submission to something, someone greater than our reasoning mind. Eternity is already embedded in our nature, we are eternal beings. We walk in too much mind emotional clutter. Learning the art of forgiveness and removing the accuser from our mental and emotional realm is a key.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

There is a way to give up while you are still in the body and experience eternity with its benefits. Its just a willing submission to something, someone greater than our reasoning mind. Eternity is already embedded in our nature, we are eternal beings. We walk in too much mind emotional clutter. Learning the art of forgiveness and removing the accuser from our mental and emotional realm is a key.

No matter how the universe got created, or whether there's a reason we're here, giving up on Truth or to surrender because it's easier, is nothing but a spiritual vacancy or an inability to conceive of our self-worth.
“At our noblest, we announce to the darkness that we will not be diminished by the brevity of our lives.”—The Counselor
"...or", one could add, "our inability to contemplate eternity".

 

[Tony L Smith]

No matter how the universe got created, or whether there's a reason we're here, giving up on Truth or to surrender because it's easier, is nothing but a spiritual vacancy or an inability to conceive of our self-worth.
“At our noblest, we announce to the darkness that we will not be diminished by the brevity of our lives.”—The Counselor
"...or", one could add, "our inability to contemplate eternity".

Not sure you understood what I meant, the surrender I speak of is the means by which truth arises inside of you. Its a flow that is always flowing but many times can't be heard because we are trying to create what is already there. Maybe most understand the one that needs to surrender is the Ego or the carnal man. Flesh is enmity to the spirit of life.
Surrender doesn't have to mean to stop believing, a farmer surrenders seed to the ground but remains believing fruit will come.