DEISM is the truth-ARGUE WITH ME IF YOU CAN

[Duxwing]

Oh, so that's how it is...

Spoiler

You just pissed off a GOD!

Good thing I'm an atheist with nothing to lose. *leans backward and blows a horn to summon the armies of the earth* *stands upon a podium overlooking the assembled force* Terrans, tomorrow we face our greatest threat since the dawn of man: we have angered a being of immeasurable power-- a God-- tomorrow, it shall ride on the wings of fear and breathe infernal fire upon our flowered meadows and our rolling fields, our quiet towns and our shining cities, and our snow-capped mountains and our soaring sky. But we shall not go gentle into the night, for we are human kind: the legion that Hades forgot, cut from the same black cloth as the cosmic fiend that stalks our dreams, and possessed by a will so unrelenting that Gods tremble at our name-- we shall pay Evil unto Evil and put the latter into debt: So make ready your weapons, for at dawn we ride!



-Duxwing

 

[SpaceYeti]

By reason, I mean the use of reason and rationality to objectively explore my universe. It is the only tenet of Deism, and while it is common to may philosophies, to be a deist, your use of reason must lead you naturally to the belief in some kind of god, and this is done without doctrine or revealed truth.

I think you're confusing "Deism" with "Pantheism", because deists believe that there is such an entity that it could be called a god, a deity. You're talking about exploring the universe, which is specifically not a god. I mean, you could call it a god, but that adds nothing to the discussion except an ambiguous, loaded term.

But the reason leading to belief in god still has my interest, so I'm going to presume that you included the single, best argument for the existence of something the term "god" can apply to without any ambiguity below, as I haven't read it yet, and I hope you surprised me.

For my part, I observe a mathematically ordered universe, and can not conceive of a way in which perfect and unbreakable order does not imply some type of god. Though many say my philosophical god is unfulfilling and uninteresting, because he is also not interfering.

Please tell me this isn't it. I honestly had some hope you'd come at me with something at least somewhat convincing, too. I had some hope, and you dashed it. I'm not even going to put any serious effort into arguing against this, because I think that you know this is ambiguous at best, open to interpretation, and evidence of nothing at all. We describe the universe with math, just like we describe an apple with red. If the acceleration of gravity were faster, there would still be a formula to describe it, it would simply be slightly different. Don't you see? We can change the math to fit the situation. We could apply math to the universe regardless what the universe's variables are. Just like a cup the size of the moon can still be called a cup, an neutron with more mass would still be a neutron, but it'd have more mass. It'd change chemistry and much of the universe, but math would still apply.

Tell you what, I won't blow you off entirely for this. Just answer me this; Because we can describe how a thing works with math, how does that mean there must be some god?

So by reason, I mean the use of critical thought for the purpose of finding truth, no matter what the truth is.

The best introduction I could give you to classic deism would be Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason, though I differ with Paine on multiple issues.

As do I. Don't suggest a book, tell me a good reason. You used reason to come to your conclusion of god, you claim. Share one, the best one. If you ask me for the very best reason I have for any of my beliefs, I would tell you it.

*Fast forwards*

Well, on this I would say that order implies intent, and I see order. It is like observing the difference between a randomly arranged pile of rocks and a brick wall. It is only my opinion, he asked how I cam to the conclusion.

Order does not imply intent. Consider gemstones. Extraordinarily ordered, but we know they happen due to perfectly natural causes. Further, what do you suppose the intent of the universe might be, then? I mean, a brick wall is ordered in a way that we could deduce what it's there for, no? We should be able to do the same with the universe, yes?

I do not want your "opinion", I want your rational conclusion on an objective subject.

While it is true that mathematics do not exist physically (there aren't triangles floating in space), mathematical principle seems to govern all physical interaction. We conceived of math, because it makes itself fundamentally apparent in nature. Take the perfect interaction of particles in chemistry, perfect math. Or perhaps take an example from engineering, the many inventions mankind has produced based on mathematical principle generates products that work and adhere to these principles.

Again, we use math to describe the universe. You're basically praising our ability to describe the universe and use our descriptions to further improve our own lives. Besides, the math we use is imperfect, which is why astronauts need to manually adjust their trajectory, why atomic power plants need to adjust the heat in the reactor, etc. Principles do seem to govern how the universe functions... but those principles are not math, math is simply part of how we describe them so that we can use them to our advantage, the same way we developed language in order to better organize. If the math were fundamentally apparent in nature, why did man exist at least 10,000 years before getting this far in understanding it?

You can easily argue against one number system or another, but it is much more difficult to argue against the concept of predictable patterns in nature. This is the foundation of scientific study, it is formulaic. If you do one thing, its logical result will follow. This is logic, this is math. It is why we are, with what ever amount of limited perception we have, able to determine anything. The rational mind can only exist and process information if logic exists to make a determinable universe.

Are you claiming that if there were not a god, then the universe would be utter chaos, where the very identity of a thing would be indeterminable, where a meter stick could not be counted on to measure a meter, where all the laws of physics as we understand them would be turned on their head?! Why are the conditions of our current universe not a possible outcome of a universe with no god? How do you know this? Did you compare our universe to all the other universes and see what the universes with gods had in common, and what they had that were different from althe universes without gods?

Well, physics is constant, that is all that matters. A dice has six sides, so when I roll it, I know I wont get seven, hence order. How things move within in this order does not effect the argument, the important thing is there is a limited number of possibilities.

Are you claiming a universe without a god would be infinite in every way? Just some ways?

Also, on the point of intervention, a Deist, like myself, does not believe in a god that either would or could intervene. Simply put the perfection of god is such that IF he were to meddle with his creation, it would be an admission that his creation was imperfect, and thus he was imperfect. IF god was imperfect, he would not be god.

Define "perfect".

Hence my passive philosophical god

Hence a useless god who's irrelevant to life as we know it in every way. So, if you believe in a god that will not do anything for you at all, who has no qualities which are applicable to life within the universe, do you worship him? To what end?

 

[GodOfOrder]

@SpaceYeti

What is the purpose of order, and why does it imply intent? Consider the universe a game, consider what I call order as the rules of the game. The individual movements of the pieces are not the games purpose, rather the game is its own purpose. So while the rules of the game, and the game itself can exist by themselves, they have no meaning or purpose unless they are governing a game that is in motion. God is the game, order (the laws of nature) is the rules, the universe and all that reside within it is the game being played out.

When I say math and logic are the law of the universe, I do not mean mans symbolic representations and models, but rather the pervasive natural patterns themselves. Once again, the universe has a predictable and logical consequence for every action, thus patterns. It is utterly Newtonian. This proves that at least nature has rules. And I think, these rules exist to play out "the game".

You ask what a chaotic universe would be like. In a chaotic universe, no action would have an equal or opposite reaction. If, then statement would not be possible. Nothing would be knowable or predictable. Rationality would not exist. The would be no form, there would be no intent, there would not be anything. It would not be infinite, but instead be nothing at all. But in an ordered universe, laws govern, which means some things aren't possible, and thus thing are predictable.

The way the individual pieces move do not matter, only that they adhere to the rules, and in our universe, they have no choice. (Do not confuse this with an argument for fate or providence, I don't think the results of that game matter, only that the rules are obeyed). Remember my dice analogy, it does not matter if I roll a 1 or a six, only that it is only possible to roll a 1-6.

Alternatively consider your gemstone example, yes the gemstone is well ordered, and no we did not intend that, and god doesn't care either. BUT within the larger space of my argument, the universal order (laws of nature) exist for their own purpose, not for ours. The purpose it to actualize themselves. Thus all things adhere to the universal laws of nature, and so you see the perfectly ordered gemstone.

The rules, are perfect and eternal, as is their god, because they are unbreakable and unchanging. It is a matter of simply satisfying the definition. Concerning nature, these laws ARE unbreakable, omnipresent, and logically consistent, otherwise we would not call them laws. Were god to intervene, the laws would have been broken, thus nullifying eternity and logical consistency, and thus they would not exist. Also, if one was to consider god omniscient, he would be capable of conceiving of such a system, and if he wasn't, he wouldn't be omniscient.

Do I worship this god? No, I merely theorize that it exists. God exist for its own end, and we exist simply because in the playing out of this game we have been randomly brought into existence, as a byproduct. We have nothing to do with one another.

If you wish to ask me for solid proof, we both know that isn't possible. It would be fallacious to say that because you can not see something that it does not exist. But it is not however wrong to postulate the existence of a thing based on the evidence that seems to imply its existence. This is all I can do, and it is enough to convince myself.

When I say the use of reason is what defines Deism, it doesn't mean that it only defines Deism. Atheist use it too. The difference is that for a Deist, the use of reason leads one to the conclusion that there is a god, as it has for me, subjectively.

 

[SpaceYeti]

None of this actually answers the important questions. I asked how you know a universe without a God would be chaotic instead of predictable in the same way our universe is. Why is the basic assumed state of a non-god universe chaotic? It's a non-sequitor. A baseless assumption. If you can provide me with a good reason this would be so, you just made your case for a god, and could take this argument to win a nobel prize and be recognized the world throughout. Or do you not have a good reason to suppose this?

As far as I'm concerned, there is no purpose to order, it's simply how things work. There's no need to say "There's God, and that's just how it works" instead. Parsimony, yo.

 

[GodOfOrder]

None of this actually answers the important questions. I asked how you know a universe without a God would be chaotic instead of predictable in the same way our universe is. Why is the basic assumed state of a non-god universe chaotic? It's a non-sequitor. A baseless assumption. If you can provide me with a good reason this would be so, you just made your case for a god, and could take this argument to win a nobel prize and be recognized the world throughout. Or do you not have a good reason to suppose this?

As far as I'm concerned, there is no purpose to order, it's simply how things work. There's no need to say "There's God, and that's just how it works" instead. Parsimony, yo.

Consider HOW I have defined my god, and it all makes sense. My god, for all intents and purposes is that order. To me god is, as I have said, perfect, eternal, and omnipresent, and not interfering. Universal order satisfies this definition and so to me it is god. Take the order away, and you get chaos. It is very simple.

 

[Cognisant]

For all you know this is chaos, I mean multiply chaos by infinity and everything that can occur does occur, including countless possible "orderly" universes.

The hang up here is that you insist on calling it "god", why not just say you believe in order, I confess I myself can't let go of the idea of an infinitely mechanistic universe which would naturally be entirely comprised of orderly mechanisms, in other words I share your belief, that is if you believe what you say you do, because if you do I still don't understand why you insist on calling it god, of all the words out there why that horrid one?

Order is order, the word is sufficient, to paraphrase Tim Minchin, to perfume the rose, to guild the lilly, is just fucking silly, or something like that.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Consider HOW I have defined my god, and it all makes sense. My god, for all intents and purposes is that order. To me god is, as I have said, perfect, eternal, and omnipresent, and not interfering. Universal order satisfies this definition and so to me it is god. Take the order away, and you get chaos. It is very simple.

The order is an aspect of the universe. You're essentially saying you're a pantheist. Good work making things needlessly complicated for no better reason than to apply the word "god" to something we can discuss without the unnecessary title. You know what, electricity is my god. Yeah, physics class is like church to me.

*jerks off*

 

[Nezaros]

The order is an aspect of the universe. You're essentially saying you're a pantheist. Good work making things needlessly complicated for no better reason than to apply the word "god" to something we can discuss without the unnecessary title. You know what, electricity is my god. Yeah, physics class is like church to me.

*jerks off*

Heathen! There is but one true God, and it is the Weak Force. I will not tolerate the presence of a soulless electron-worshiping fool.

 

[GodOfOrder]

The order is an aspect of the universe. You're essentially saying you're a pantheist. Good work making things needlessly complicated for no better reason than to apply the word "god" to something we can discuss without the unnecessary title. You know what, electricity is my god. Yeah, physics class is like church to me.

*jerks off*

No, I am not a pantheist, though arguably you could call em a pandeist (it is a thing), for a very simple reason. There is a degree of separation between what I call god and the universe. The order can exist by itself, but it is not in and of itself, the universe. The universe exists within and is governed by the order, which is separate and free from change, whereas the universe is in a constant state of flux. A pantheist declares the entire thing god. For me, god is only the governing principle of order.

@Cognisant

The fact that there may well be many universes does not defeat the principle. I say in my analogy that the game seeks to actualize itself, so in keeping with that analogy, if there was a universe for every possible outcome that is possible within the rules of the game, it would not be in conflict. In our universe alone, it is not possible to get every possible outcome for a chain of events. If I roll my dice, and get a six, that does not mean that there isn't another universe where I rolled a one.

And yes, we do agree with each other, to a point. But I call this order god because, as I have said, a god should be perfect, eternal, constant, and ever present, this principle of order meets this criteria.

On another note, there have been plenty of inactive "gods" that have been postulated over the years, mine is no different. Consider Plato's "form of the good", the thing from which all others stem, which exists by itself in perfect order, but which does not do much other than simply exist and grant life to the universe. One may as well call that god, though Plato does not, it s implied.

 

[Duxwing]

No, I am not a pantheist, though arguably you could call em a pandeist (it is a thing), for a very simple reason. There is a degree of separation between what I call god and the universe. The order can exist by itself, but it is not in and of itself, the universe. The universe exists within and is governed by the order, which is separate and free from change, whereas the universe is in a constant state of flux. A pantheist declares the entire thing god. For me, god is only the governing principle of order.

@Cognisant

The fact that there may well be many universes does not defeat the principle. I say in my analogy that the game seeks to actualize itself, so in keeping with that analogy, if there was a universe for every possible outcome that is possible within the rules of the game, it would not be in conflict. In our universe alone, it is not possible to get every possible outcome for a chain of events. If I roll my dice, and get a six, that does not mean that there isn't another universe where I rolled a one.

And yes, we do agree with each other, to a point. But I call this order god because, as I have said, a god should be perfect, eternal, constant, and ever present, this principle of order meets this criteria.

On another note, there have been plenty of inactive "gods" that have been postulated over the years, mine is no different. Consider Plato's "form of the good", the thing from which all others stem, which exists by itself in perfect order, but which does not do much other than simply exist and grant life to the universe. One may as well call that god, though Plato does not, it s implied.

Your argument appears to be the following:

1.) The universe is orderly
2.) A God could create an orderly universe
3.) Therefore there is a God

The correct argument is as following

1.) The universe is orderly
2.) A God could create an orderly universe
3.) Therefore, a God could have created the universe

Your argument is good on steps 1 and 2, but it fails on step three because a godless universe could be orderly: orderly universes do not necessarily have a God. QED, while a God could exist, one does not necessarily exist.

And defining God as the order of the universe is, as Cognisant pointed out, a needless ruffling of feathers and thumbing of eyes. Many of us here are atheists, and, as such, we find the word "God" to be something absurd, illogical, and frustrating-- often due to hopeless discussions with members of our former religion. Instead of worshiping "God" we become fond of things like "Logic" and "Order," so when you call God Order (ah, now I see the pun!) we experience a bit of cognitive dissonance; not to mention the fact that most of us here have separate definitions for God and Order in the first place. In response, we attempt to further separate the concepts through the use of definitions and argument. So although you can call your variables whatever you want, know that the names of your variables can make others uncomfortable.

As an example that you might resonate with, imagine if I called "to hug" "to butt-bang" and wrote about my trip to a day-care center:

I went down to the daycare center and started butt-banging every baby, toddler, and child that I saw. I took my time and enjoyed every moment of those butt-bangs; they were sooooo enjoyable. By the end of the day, I was so tired from butt-banging those two-year-olds that I fell asleep on the carpet.

I bet that you experienced some mental images that were rather disturbing to your intuition even though you logically knew that the term "to butt-bang" meant something completely innocent. That's how we feel when you call God Order.

-Duxwing

 

[GodOfOrder]

I bet that you experienced some mental images that were rather disturbing to your intuition even though you logically knew that the term "to butt-bang" meant something completely innocent. That's how we feel when you call God Order.

-Duxwing

To this Duxwing, my good friend, all I can say is that I don't care.

Conversely consider the fact that I would consider god as order, and realize that by your logic, you would offend me greatly when you call my "god" something utterly meaningless.

Consider the things said against me, which I didn't react to at all. I have only addressed the arguments themselves, the rest I paid no mind to. Cognisant referred to my "god" as a doll, and proceeded to mock me, you joined in.

And yet, here I sit, completely unfazed, and slightly amused, by the fact that you admit to feeling threatened, by me, a person talking on the internets.

Essentially what your saying, is not that I have said something deliberately offensive, but that the existence of my opinion offends you. This is childish.

On topics of religion, the argument is always heated, but remember, if you discuss it be prepared to hear views that, to you, may seem controversial.

 

[SpaceYeti]

No, I am not a pantheist, though arguably you could call em a pandeist (it is a thing), for a very simple reason. There is a degree of separation between what I call god and the universe. The order can exist by itself, but it is not in and of itself, the universe. The universe exists within and is governed by the order, which is separate and free from change, whereas the universe is in a constant state of flux. A pantheist declares the entire thing god. For me, god is only the governing principle of order.

The fact remains you have no good reason to call order "God" instead of "order", so why do you? You're injecting a loaded word into something needlessly. Like with my example, I could say I consider electricity to be my god.

So what? It's still electricity. It's no different from what we understand it to be (insofar as we can tell), I'm just using a loaded word to discuss it. Nothing is gained from saying order is god. Your interest in calling something that already has a non-loaded title applied to it something which is loaded is less than innocent. You're not doing it because you think it's a proper title, as it's demonstrably not a good title. It's loaded with religious meaning, religion being a completely separate subject. Just liek calling electricity "God" does nothing but confuse people as to why I'm calling it "God" instead of "electricity". No, you're doing it to salvage a deteriorating belief in a supernatural entity which cannot be found with reason or science.

That is, you're being dishonest with yourself.

Anybody can call anything god. That doesn't mean anything. You're just tucking your god away in a nice little spot where nobody can argue against it existing. "Oh, your god is the very reason atoms remain atoms instead of the subatomic particles flying off in every which direction? Well, then your god must exist, as it's the strong nuclear force, derhiherrr!"

 

[Duxwing]

To this Duxwing, my good friend, all I can say is that I don't care.

Conversely consider the fact that I would consider god as order, and realize that by your logic, you would offend me greatly when you call my "god" something utterly meaningless.

Consider the things said against me, which I didn't react to at all. I have only addressed the arguments themselves, the rest I paid no mind to. Cognisant referred to my "god" as a doll, and proceeded to mock me, you joined in.

And yet, here I sit, completely unfazed, and slightly amused, by the fact that you admit to feeling threatened, by me, a person talking on the internets.

Essentially what your saying, is not that I have said something deliberately offensive, but that the existence of my opinion offends you. This is childish.

On topics of religion, the argument is always heated, but remember, if you discuss it be prepared to hear views that, to you, may seem controversial.

I don't feel like that at all, actually. Neither does Cognisant. We're just bugged by you, as SpaceYeti points out, using a loaded word for an unloaded subject. Moreover, I never intended to mock you by dancing; I just wanted to pretend dance on the internet. I extend my apologies nonetheless if I hurt your feelings-- doing was so not my intention.

-Duxwing

 

[GodOfOrder]

The fact remains you have no good reason to call order "God" instead of "order", so why do you? You're injecting a loaded word into something needlessly. Like with my example, I could say I consider electricity to be my god.

So what? It's still electricity. It's no different from what we understand it to be (insofar as we can tell), I'm just using a loaded word to discuss it. Nothing is gained from saying order is god. Your interest in calling something that already has a non-loaded title applied to it something which is loaded is less than innocent. You're not doing it because you think it's a proper title, as it's demonstrably not a good title. It's loaded with religious meaning, religion being a completely separate subject. Just like calling electricity "God" does nothing but confuse people as to why I'm calling it "God" instead of "electricity". No, you're doing it to salvage a deteriorating belief in a supernatural entity which cannot be found with reason or science.

That is, you're being dishonest with yourself.

Anybody can call anything god. That doesn't mean anything. You're just tucking your god away in a nice little spot where nobody can argue against it existing. "Oh, your god is the very reason atoms remain atoms instead of the subatomic particles flying off in every which direction? Well, then your god must exist, as it's the strong nuclear force, derhiherrr!"

I will concede on this point, that perhaps it is wrong to point to the order alone, but consider again my game analogy. God is the game, the rules are the order, but the game is defined by its rules. So god is defined by the order. So while it may be inappropriate to say directly that god is order, it is entirely appropriate to say the order is what makes up god.

So essentially you point out that I did not, in the subsequent conversation adhere to my example, I deviated. I am now returning.

I suppose god would more accurately be described as the purpose behind the order. The reason it exists, and the force of will that requires that actualization take place. But still without the order, this is nothing. Does this make my argument slightly better?

 

[GodOfOrder]

I don't feel like that at all, actually. Neither does Cognisant. We're just bugged by you, as SpaceYeti points out, using a loaded word for an unloaded subject. Moreover, I never intended to mock you by dancing; I just wanted to pretend dance on the internet. I extend my apologies nonetheless if I hurt your feelings-- doing was so not my intention.

-Duxwing

Do not worry, I am not offended, nor do I intend to offend.

I am not being intentionally derisive, it is just my nature I suppose. So here is a kitty to make up for it.

 

[Duxwing]

Do not worry, I am not offended, nor do I intend to offend.

In that case, all is well.

-Duxwing

 

[Matt3737]

Being pissed off about the inherent nature of arbitrariness and blaming others for their use is childish and immature.

@GodOfOrder

I applaud your effort at remaining civil.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I will concede on this point, that perhaps it is wrong to point to the order alone, but consider again my game analogy. God is the game, the rules are the order, but the game is defined by its rules. So god is defined by the order. So while it may be inappropriate to say directly that god is order, it is entirely appropriate to say the order is what makes up god.

So essentially you point out that I did not, in the subsequent conversation adhere to my example, I deviated. I am now returning.

I suppose god would more accurately be described as the purpose behind the order. The reason it exists, and the force of will that requires that actualization take place. But still without the order, this is nothing. Does this make my argument slightly better?

Maybe, but why would we presume that is, in fact, the case, instead of merely possible?

 

[GodOfOrder]

Maybe, but why would we presume that is, in fact, the case, instead of merely possible?

Well, there is obviously nothing I could produce to objectively say that this is the case. That is physically impossible. But back to what I said initially, it would seem that something so well designed must be designed. It is a brick wall as compared to a pile of rubble.

This is not to say that the thing within the order are that way, but rather the order itself. To me something so well designed implies a purpose. This purpose would be god its self. It merely manifests itself in our universe, but not because the actions with in the universe matter at all.

If god is defined to by this order, and he too is bound by it, then because both are eternal and unchanging they are obviously intertwined and part of the same thing.

Many would define god as the ultimate thing in the universe, it would stand that this order is a component of god. But god is the thing that drives, or drove, this order into actuality, because this is obviously superior.

But god, because he is defined and bound the the perfection and eternity of the order, must be the sum of both of these parts. He is the order combined with the will to actualize, which is the superior component.

The order and physical law can exist forever, but without actuality, they merely exist, and for what, they govern nothing.

So there was a need for something to trigger existence and thus give the order something to govern. The principle of first cause. The manifested will to actualize.

This will would have to be above, yet still consonant with the order, because again if they weren't the order would be severed, an thus nullified.

So even if this order exists, which I think most of us do, it has no meaning without actualization. A set of principles alone can not actualize itself, they are static thing. So unless the universe was eternal, which we know it isn't, because it is expanding, something needed to cause the motion to take place.

And the reason what I call god no longer seems to do anything is because our universe is already actualized, it is in motion. Thus the will to actualize is no longer needed, now order simply governs.

This is as much as I can come to this late at night.

 

[SpaceYeti]

If there's no objective reason to suppose the things you said, then you admit it's a subjective impression you get, not reasoning.

 

[GodOfOrder]

If there's no objective reason to suppose the things you said, then you admit it's a subjective impression you get, not reasoning.

Am I to argue epistemology now? Surely you take some theory to heart, though you have no reason to believe in it yourself objectively, as you were not there to verify it.

After a certain point reasoning must become rather subjective, because the most one can do at a certain level is theorize.

When speaking of a topic like the existence of god, this is all one is capable of doing. The most I can say is why the universe seems to be the way it is, and state the evidence as best I can, but it is all inferring and implication. As Thomas Paine said, "in Deism reason and faith are happily united" because one forms the other.

So I say the universe is ordered, but order can not actualize itself, so something needs to give it a jumpstart, this implies something greater than the order itself.

We know the universe is expanding, and if you subscribe to the big bang theory, you don't believe in an eternal universe, but one which started from an infinitely small point. So this requires a first cause.

Perfect order and first cause are the best I can do. I think this theory I have proposed is at least, in it refined state, logically consistent.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Am I to argue epistemology now? Surely you take some theory to heart, though you have no reason to believe in it yourself objectively, as you were not there to verify it.

Firstly, I try not to use "theory" in the colloquial sense, due to the potential for problems. However, I can't really force others to do the same. Just don't confuse this use of "theory" with the scientific one.

Also, though, no. Everything I believe, I either believe for a reason, or it's a residual belief from my childhood I simply don't realize I haven't critically questioned yet, and then only because I'm unaware it exists. However, I'm okay with other people having less than perfectly rational beliefs, so long as they admit it.

After a certain point reasoning must become rather subjective, because the most one can do at a certain level is theorize.

In the cases where I don't have enough information to come to a rational conclusion, I don't come to a conclusion at all.

When speaking of a topic like the existence of god, this is all one is capable of doing. The most I can say is why the universe seems to be the way it is, and state the evidence as best I can, but it is all inferring and implication. As Thomas Paine said, "in Deism reason and faith are happily united" because one forms the other.

I don't care what some guy said about something, I care about that thing's veracity. I agree, all one can do on the topic of god is guess, as there's no evidence of any manner in any way on the topic.

So I say the universe is ordered, but order can not actualize itself, so something needs to give it a jumpstart, this implies something greater than the order itself.

Why call that thing "God"?

We know the universe is expanding, and if you subscribe to the big bang theory, you don't believe in an eternal universe, but one which started from an infinitely small point. So this requires a first cause.

Yes it does. That first cause would necessarily be the very first moment of time.

Perfect order and first cause are the best I can do. I think this theory I have proposed is at least, in it refined state, logically consistent.

It's internally consistent, yes, but it's based on assumptions that serve no purpose. For example, the god assumption. Entirely useless and unnecessary. Unless, of course, we're calling whatever it is that caused the universe "god" regardless what the thing actually is. It's patently obvious that it's not a conclusion you draw from observation, so much as a conclusion you attempt to justify with observations.

 

[GodOfOrder]

Firstly, I try not to use "theory" in the colloquial sense, due to the potential for problems. However, I can't really force others to do the same. Just don't confuse this use of "theory" with the scientific one.

Also, though, no. Everything I believe, I either believe for a reason, or it's a residual belief from my childhood I simply don't realize I haven't critically questioned yet, and then only because I'm unaware it exists. However, I'm okay with other people having less than perfectly rational beliefs, so long as they admit it.



In the cases where I don't have enough information to come to a rational conclusion, I don't come to a conclusion at all.



I don't care what some guy said about something, I care about that thing's veracity. I agree, all one can do on the topic of god is guess, as there's no evidence of any manner in any way on the topic.



Why call that thing "God"?



Yes it does. That first cause would necessarily be the very first moment of time.



It's internally consistent, yes, but it's based on assumptions that serve no purpose. For example, the god assumption. Entirely useless and unnecessary. Unless, of course, we're calling whatever it is that caused the universe "god" regardless what the thing actually is. It's patently obvious that it's not a conclusion you draw from observation, so much as a conclusion you attempt to justify with observations.

@SpaceYeti

Yes, the first cause would technically be the first moment in time, but the first moment in time is not, nor could it be, a cause in and of itself, it requires a means to actualize. This means would be the thing worth finding.

Why do I call this thing god? Well what exactly defines god? If one may call god the thing that seems to govern, and is the cause of the universe (and is thus its de facto creator), and if it seems to be perfect omnipresent and eternal, then what is the problem, it is utterly supreme after all. What else would a god be considered?

I think we all agree that it is not a little man in the sky that grants wishes, that would be insane. God must be some governing, incorporeal force. Such a thing is what I have described.

But like a seemingly overly complicated math problem that turns out to have a very simple answer, the end result may seem rather disappointing to you. As such my god is simple and boring, but it still satisfies the definition of a god, and better than anything else one could observe in the universe.

A wise man, who I do not remember the name of, once said magic is just science we don't understand yet. So if god was once seen as something utterly other worldly, and then was seen to be a perfectly logical governing force an will, perhaps it looses its allure, but its nature did not change, you just lost you wonder for the thing.