Modern Deism and Intelligent Design

[tumbleweed41]

Recently posted in another thread.

Tumbleweed, i have a quick question for you before i make my other thread. It shows you are a diest on your icon. Why then are you arguing against design? I don't understand?

Science and nature, indeed our entire universe and the laws that govern it, to me, came from the Prime Mover, an unknowable intelligence, before the Big Bang ever occurred.

I can not prove this, nor do I worship this distant being. This is based purely on personal faith.

Nor will I ignore the very physical laws that came forth as the universe expanded in order to accept some ridiculous notion of Intelligent Design that defies natural law.

Accepting a Prime Mover does not equate to an Intelligent Design that defies natural law.
While the Deists of 200+ years ago accepted the idea that God had a hand in our design, I do not accept this, for such would be contrary to natural law.

It may be possible that this Deity was able to somehow spark abiogenesis, but again, there is no proof or evidence of this. Beyond abiogenesis, natural law took it's course. And it is perfectly reasonable to think that this course was unguided.

 

[Beyondo]

Ok but how would Deism interpret chaos?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Ok but how would Deism interpret chaos?

Mathematical, physics or philosophy?

 

[Beyondo]

Mathematical, physics or philosophy?

In nature.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I think some confuse Classical Deism with Modern Deism

 

[tumbleweed41]

In nature.

Chaos has been observed in nature. I see no conflict. Perhaps you could expand on what it is you see as a need for Deistic interpretation.

 

[Beyondo]

Chaos has been observed in nature. I see no conflict. Perhaps you could expand on what it is you see as a need for Deistic interpretation.

I thought you'd never ask!

Ok...Chaos is a subtle state of affairs. The very essence of reality is gloved by mathematics. Chaotic systems can do something that removes the need for a creator and that is converge to a system of order. What's required at a fundamental level is an element whose attributes cause its behavior. Such a set of elements do not need to be created nor explain the element's abilities since there is no more need to resolve components to explain the element. Such an element by itself only represents its states at any given moment and is therefore coherent information. But a set of these kinds of elements do not necessarily represent coherent information collectively, in other words they form a chaotic system. Such dis-order will find order by virtue of the fact that individual elements have a rule or coherent information. It is indifferent that such a rule has no intent or ultimate design for any purpose it will converge to some state of a collective order or coherence. Such a state of coherence could then continue recursively to formalize layers of abstraction that create complex systems with precise order.

Chaos can explain first cause of what creates a universe without the need for an intelligent designer and does so with the glove of mathematics. From chaos the meta-physical essence of reality, its conformance to mathematics, is natural.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Classical Deists may have a problem with it. I do not. I see no necessity for a first cause.
Along with what you mentioned, there is the lack of known physical laws beyond our universe, and the apparent randomness in nature at a quantum level.

 

[Beyondo]

I see no necessity for a first cause.

For the universe?

 

[tumbleweed41]

For the universe?

For the Singularity and Big Bang.

 

[Beyondo]

For the Singularity and Big Bang.

Something from nothing?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Something from nothing?

As I said, both the lack of known physical laws beyond the Singularity/Universe and the apparent random nature of quantum mechanics make it possible.

 

[Beyondo]

As I said, both the lack of known physical laws beyond the Singularity/Universe and the apparent random nature of quantum mechanics make it possible.

How does the randomness of QM make it possible?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Something from nothing?

As I said, both the lack of known physical laws beyond the Singularity/Universe and the apparent random nature of quantum mechanics make it possible.

How does the randomness of QM make it possible?

In relation to the Big Bang.
Cause and effect are physical laws that are dependent upon time/space.
We can see this in quantum mechanics. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual rules of cause/effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason.
A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences.
So that even when looking at the physical laws within our own space/time observances, cause/effect on a subatomic level is not necessary. It is only when we reach a level of interaction with time/space that the cause/effect law is demonstrable.

As for the existence of the Singularity. Look at it this way, at one time the Singularity was an infinitely dense speck of potential space, time, energy and matter.
Where did/does it exist?
Space and time came about only a few plank times after the initial expansion. And only within the Singularity. All the known laws that govern space, time, energy and matter exist within the Singularity.
Asking where the Singularity originated from, or if it originated at all is irrelevant as we cannot apply reasoning based on natural laws beyond the Singularity/Universe.
We cannot say any cause is necessary for the existence of the Singularity because the necessity for existence is only a product of natural laws within the Singularity/Universe.

 

[Beyondo]

In relation to the Big Bang.
Cause and effect are physical laws that are dependent upon time/space.
We can see this in quantum mechanics. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual rules of cause/effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason.
A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences.
So that even when looking at the physical laws within our own space/time observances, cause/effect on a subatomic level is not necessary. It is only when we reach a level of interaction with time/space that the cause/effect law is demonstrable.

The spontaneity of QM doesn't necessarily imply there is no cause for it, it just proves that our ability to perceive processes underlying QM phenomena isn't possible yet. I'll give you an example, I was developing a binary WebCGM viewer and testing it out using test files from the CGM official site. The test files had some drawings where the creation of an elliptical arc could take on a clockwise direction or counter clockwise direction with no apparent reason, it was just random! I would decode the binary file and see no pre-direction or directive. I looked and looked and there was nothing that would give me the heads up as to when to create the arc with clockwise iteration or counter clockwise. I was completely lost until I found the XML configuration file for the WebCGm files, which would indicate when to move clockwise and when to move counter clockwise.

As for the existence of the Singularity. Look at it this way, at one time the Singularity was an infinitely dense speck of potential space, time, energy and matter.
Where did/does it exist?
Space and time came about only a few plank times after the initial expansion. And only within the Singularity. All the known laws that govern space, time, energy and matter exist within the Singularity.
Asking where the Singularity originated from, or if it originated at all is irrelevant as we cannot apply reasoning based on natural laws beyond the Singularity/Universe.
We cannot say any cause is necessary for the existence of the Singularity because the necessity for existence is only a product of natural laws within the Singularity/Universe.

Where does the singularity exist? Where does the universe today exist? The real question is how can we perceive beyond our limited view of mass and energy. We are in effect trying to understand reality by sensing the patterns created from emergent behaviors of processes we currently can not detect.

 

[Beyondo]

My next question is: Would what I describe in this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...37-can-universe-virtual-without-designer.html

Qualify as god for Diests?

 

[tumbleweed41]

The spontaneity of QM doesn't necessarily imply there is no cause for it, it just proves that our ability to perceive processes underlying QM phenomena isn't possible yet.

All I am saying is that a cause has not been shown be necessary. Not that there is no cause.

Where does the singularity exist? Where does the universe today exist? The real question is how can we perceive beyond our limited view of mass and energy. We are in effect trying to understand reality by sensing the patterns created from emergent behaviors of processes we currently can not detect.

Assuming there is emergent behavior we currently cannot detect. As of now, we cannot say with any certainty that a cause for the existence of the universe is, or is not, necessary.

 

[tumbleweed41]

My next question is: Would what I describe in this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...37-can-universe-virtual-without-designer.html

Qualify as god for Diests?

A Modern Deist uses reason and empirical evidence to reach conclusions about the nature of the Universe. Only "God" is based on faith. It is useless to speculate on the nature of God. It is more reasonable to study the actual workings of our universe. And if and when we can completely understand that, then we may see into the nature of God.

 

[Beyondo]

A Modern Deist uses reason and empirical evidence to reach conclusions about the nature of the Universe. Only "God" is based on faith. It is useless to speculate on the nature of God. It is more reasonable to study the actual workings of our universe. And if and when we can completely understand that, then we may see into the nature of God.

Well I guess what I'm really asking is; does faith in god mean that said god is a conscious intelligence?

 

[Beyondo]

Assuming there is emergent behavior we currently cannot detect. As of now, we cannot say with any certainty that a cause for the existence of the universe is, or is not, necessary.

The complexity of the behavior of particles and forces works with a certain degree of interpretation, e.g. the absorption of a photo, the particle can tell the difference between an electromagnetic photon, a force carrier photon and if it is a electric field photon it can interpret the polarity and act accordingly. Also mechanisms such as the transformation of matter into energy can't be explained by physicists but the relationship of the phenomena e= mc^2 can be described. The list of behaviors mentioned is all just accepted with no explanation. I see too much intelligence in matter to simply accept those behaviors without explanation. Trying to create a new sense of non-causality is no different than claiming leprechauns control sub-atomic physics!