Found out about deism lately, and I really dig it. I'm a man that isn't huge on faith, and is more of a fan of the scientific theory, ie shit you can basically prove. One can't say with any certainty that there is or is not a god. It is logical to think that some being had to put the cosmos together, like the big bang for example was caused by a higher being along with everything from physics to evolution. Enlightenment philosophers and Einstein were onto something.
>>856854
>It is logical to think that some being had to put the cosmos together
no it isnt
>>856854
>It is logical to think that some being had to put the cosmos together,
Yeah if you accept babby-tier Aristotelian teleology.
>>858454
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAwxe0j41BY
>>858454
Yes it is
>>858463
>leleleleleelele back to plebbit fagget XDDDD
got any actualy arguments? i mean you literally said that its logical to believe that some wizard shaped our existence and your counter argument is 'reddit'? fuciking seriously?
>>858482
if theres no proof then its not logical to believe it based on literally nothing
>>858488
>empirical proof for what presupposes empiricism in the first place
Reality is the proof you autist.
>>858634
>Reality is the proof you autist.
ok i created existence itself. oh you dont believe me? reality is proof you fucking idiot.
try again dipshit
>>858649
You want me to shake it for you too dumbass? The basic intelligibility of the universe speaks to a consonance between the rational mind and the nature of reality.
Also you're seriously asking for empirical, inter-systemic proof for an extra-systemic First Cause. Top Lel m8
>>858693
>The basic intelligibility of the universe speaks to a consonance between the rational mind and the nature of reality.
no it doesnt, just because youre using the universe as a whole doesnt mean you sound any smarter than the 'how can you look a a sunset and say theres no god' retards
>Also you're seriously asking for empirical, inter-systemic proof for an extra-systemic First Cause
then fucking stop trying to imply that you actaully have any idea of what it could be
>>858727
I never made a single assertion as to the nature of this cause
Oh OK dude the bedrock of reality is frothing chaos I guess the laws of gravity don't describe anything at all its all just a coincidence.
>>858750
>I never made a single assertion as to the nature of this cause
no ofcourse you didnt, that magical thing that shaped the universe isnt that at all
>the bedrock of reality is frothing chaos
it is
> guess the laws of gravity don't describe anything at all its all just a coincidence.
yeah bigger objects attract smaller ones in space, the fuck does that have to do with anything?
>>858766
lol so I guess only you're allowed to make absolutist statements about reality.
I'm gonna walk you through my argument one more time because you're having a really tough time grasping this:
Reality exhibits causally consistent and replicable behavior we can understand both empirically and intuitively, ergo the universe is not random irrational chaos, ergo it is not improbable to suggest the existence of a rational, determinative principle that is the source of this reality
Notice I'm talking probability, not certainty. "Nuh-uh" isn't an argument you mong
>>858922
If the universe wasn't irrational chaos we wouldn't be here to observe it.
>>858928
*If it was
>>858928
Okay, so? Thanks for supporting the argument. I didn't exclude any answers that might explain how consciousness evolves in a universe where it has no metaphysical significance, I'm saying its not that ridiculous to go the other direction. But I forgot, it's current year and believing in something divine in life isn't cool
>>856854
Einstein wasn't a deist.
However deism does seem pretty reasonable if you really can't be an agnostic and you must insist on believing things without evidence.
>>858460
Funny that you say that when Aristotle thought that the cosmos were eternal and uncreated.
>>858963
really? what was he then?
>>858454
well either way something came from nothing, if the big bang theory is true
> big bang for example was caused by a higher being along with everything
This isn't very logical because higher being also need to be caused by something. In the end you got three options. If there was first cause then it is more assume that big bang wasn't caused at all instead of inventing higher powerful beings as God. Basically same results, less assumptions. Logically deism should be reduced to pantheism.
>>858693
Isn't it more likely that the universe is intelligible because your conscious was shaped and formed within it?
>>858922
ok lets take gravity as an example again,
>objects with mass interact with eachother
>WE CAN OBSERVE IT SO ITS NOT CHAOS
notice the logic leap here?
btw, guessing about rondom thing without any reason to believe them in the first place is called 'guessing' not probability
>>858949
>believing in something divine in life isn't cool
i guess its cooler to pretend you know about existence than everyone else
>>858922
There is no a priori probability, bro
Read Hume
Pantheism f a m
>He doesn't believe in Nature
>>862682
Hume totally destroys the teleological argument (which is basically what you're arguing), and it's never since been taken seriously
There is no
a priori
probability
>>860170
He wasn't sure himself, but he basically worshipped the Universe. He described himself as a Spinoza Pantheist at one point but then backtracked on that later.
He explicitly said he didn't believe in a personal God, i.e. a God with a personality and agency on many occasions.
>>856854
>It is logical to think that some being had to put the cosmos together,
No it isn't. If you mean intentionally, with will and/or agency. That makes no sense at all.
