The Deist concept of God and Creation

WOW!!! What a marvelous thread!!! WOW wow... wow...

BoyntonStu:

Religion comes from translated/interpreted words whose origins came from unknown sources. The 'believers' accept the words as Gospel without challenge or proof. They 'feel' it to be true. Well, so do the sheep's HEAD believers.

WELL said!

Wouldn't it be nice if the believers named their book, "The Theory of Jesus"?

Scientists are strong enough to call it "The Theory of Evolution".

WELL said again!

gldskr wrote: (bold emphasis mine)

Since I don't wish to discuss easter bunnies or tooth fairies I'll leave the theists POV for others to haggle with. The point is, that regardless of the reasonableness of the deist methodology, the conclusion is the same. Because we (the scientists) cannot explain our existence, therefore something must have caused it. It is this belief in something rather than the something itself that disturbs me. Why is it necessary to believe, rather than the evidence to show itself or be discovered? Why can we not admit to ourselves that we do not know and simply endeavor to find out? Are we so weak intellectually that we must have closure to be whole, or maybe it is our arrogance of our "knowledge", that results in the pitting of faction against faction, each having ulterior motives. I would suggest that it is a combination of these.

EXACTLY!!!

And David Merrill posted this link:
http://kjmaclean.com/
Where I found the following:

What if consciousness is non–physical in origin, undetectable by the instruments of science?

What if the universe, instead of being indifferent and probabilistic, has been designed to respond to our preferences and our thoughts?

What if incarnation is a conscious choice?

And finally, what if death is an illusion? What if death is simply a transition from a physical state to a non-physical state of broader awareness?

YES! Just as gldskr said in his eloquent treatise above, why plug in answers to fill in the blanks? Why not just continue to seek information with an open mind?

Religion habitually attempts to close the minds of its followers. If you consider reincarnation, or the survival of consciousness after death, or believe there might be a spiritual realm (the Universal Mind... the aggregate of all of our eternal consciousnesses) that is just as much a part of nature as everything else that our 5 limited senses can perceive, religion teaches that you must be a doomed non-believer (infidel) or under the influence of "Satan". Balderdash!!!

I've had psychic experiences. I've had an out of body experience during which I saw and heard things that were subsequently proven true. At first I thought I had only been dreaming... but then I found out that the events actually happened. I cannot prove this... but it made me open-minded to books written by doctors who studied near-death experiences, and psychologists who've performed hypnosis and heard their patients describe a spiritual realm after life and between lives. I've been "told" things and have received guidance regarding matters that I could never have known otherwise. I cannot prove any of this to anyone (although my husband has witnessed two such occurances), but because of these things, I will always believe that my consciousness is eternal. I do not fear physiological death, and I do not believe that I must adhere to some religious faith in order to be "saved". I believe this life is a learning experience - one of many.

I am now going to enjoy further perusing that website that David Merrill posted! Thanks David!

*

[gldskr]

Heidi

From my cursory examination of the site that David posted - it is quite extensive and posits some interesting concepts - a common theme emerges. That of a human centric attitude of the workings of the universe. His theories are diminished, in my view, by his assumptions, which, when he attempts to provide evidence, leads to the conclusion he seeks.

For example consciousness. Consciousness is generally defined as self awareness and two theories emerge as to its existence; the spiritual and the physical. Here he assumes the spiritual to the exclusion of the physical. Since spirituality is an abstract concept, any logic or evidence provided will tend to be circular and his conclusions will be valueless. In any scientific endeavor, assumptions must be minimized not only in quantity but also in complexity. The basis of his argument has no standard of measurability. In fact neither theory can be measured.

I would question the definition itself. Science assumes that most animals are not self aware, that they act instinctively. And that plants are merely reacting to their environment. Given the definition chosen it shouldn't be surprising that they paint themselves into a corner.

A more accurate definition of consciousness would be; The ability to conduct electricity (energy) and the ability to react to external forces independent of the composition of the organism (as a system).

Energy is to life as the system is to a program. Each species has a predetermined program that instructs it when acted upon by external forces. When it gets cold outside we put on a coat. For a dog its fur thickens. For a plant its sap recedes and it goes dormant. Whatever the external force, each species will react according to its programming. Self awareness is merely a function of intellect. Being able to ask the question doesn't diminish the consciousness of other organisms, its just that our programming allows us to do so.

Do animals not also feel pain, hunger, loneliness, sadness, joy, etc.? While it may not be evident to us, is it not also possible that plants can feel these same things? Uproot a plant and it wilts. Deprive it of nutrients and it yellows. Are these not attributes of consciousness?

A child doesn't have the capacity of self awareness, so does the child not possess consciousness?

I read a tidbit the other day concerning beheadings during the French revolution, whereas the victims were instructed to blink their eyes so it could be determined how long it took before they lost consciousness. The blinking stopped between 20 and 30 seconds. So where does one's consciousness go once the ultimate short circuit occurs? That is one question we will all eventually know for certain.

gldskr

Originally Posted by gldskr

Why is it necessary to believe, rather than the evidence to show itself or be discovered? Why can we not admit to ourselves that we do not know and simply endeavor to find out? Are we so weak intellectually that we must have closure to be whole, or maybe it is our arrogance of our "knowledge", that results in the pitting of faction against faction, each having ulterior motives. I would suggest that it is a combination of these.

Excellent post. I had not seen you post before so welcome to the forum.
I'm glad there's other people out that are comfortable not knowing the whole story. I also agree that there's no need to believe in supernatural things.

All religions operate backwards in my opinion. They formulate an answer first and then try to find any evidence for it. Of course if no evidence is found it's all part of God's plan. This has always been their sales pitch and after thousands of years of endoctrination, the masses are still swallowing that same old tripe.

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Maybe that concept is pre-school for conspirologists who have decided to go for remedies to government imposed communism?

What concept?I don't know what you mean by this.

BTW, Do you agree that some (if not most) of the founding fathers were freemasons and/or deists?

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

I do not fear physiological death, and I do not believe that I must adhere to some religious faith in order to be "saved". I believe this life is a learning experience - one of many.


*

Heidi, there appears to be a contradiction here. It seems you believe in reincarnation or some sort of multiple lives. Isn't that a part of the Hindu religion?

[ntellect]

PTJ04, Heidi and gldskr, these are all great posts. I really enjoy reading and researching a lot of the info that is posted here.

It is so easy to go with the flow of what everyone else thinks or "believes." It seems to me that when it comes to most religions, most people "believe what they know" but don't "know what they believe." I think there's a huge difference.

PTJ04, I believe you summed it up best when you basically said that whenever there's a doubt, confusion, contradictions or no answers, some religious people will tell you it's "God's plan."

As far as Heidi's post regarding not fearing a "physiological death" and relating that to some type of reincarnation, I don't think she is to far off. The Hindu culture is not the only nor is it the first culture to believe in some "type" of reincarnation.

I think we are all in the same ball park with some of our thoughts. Going back to science or nature. What is the only thing that can never be destroyed? From a "science" perspective it's energy. From a "religious" perspective it's the soul. Both just change or transform into something that isn't measurable or tangible. According to "science" and "religion" they both exist forever in some state.

So in my opinion, I believe reincarnation is a possibility because it's just a transformation. Doesn't necessarily mean you come back in a physical form but it doesn't mean that you can't as well.

The question that I'm constantly thinking about is, if the soul or energy can never be destroyed and always exists and fire can't destroy a soul or burn it because it's just energy. Does that mean we have always existed in some form or fashion because the soul or that energy had to originate somewhere at some point in time or existence itself.

Does that make sense? Sometimes I confuse my own self. LOL

[BoyntonStu]

Originally Posted by ntellect

So in my opinion, I believe reincarnation is a possibility because it's just a transformation. Doesn't necessarily mean you come back in a physical form but it doesn't mean that you can't as well.

In your opinion, there is a possibility. Fine.

What probability percentage does you possibility have in being true?

There is a lot of if's and just's assumptions in your thinking.

Do you include the possibility that "reincarnation" is an undefined expression based on word creation and not on factual data?


BoyntonStu

If you would like to see my signature that the SJ censors deleted, email me privately.

[ntellect]

Originally Posted by BoyntonStu

In your opinion, there is a possibility. Fine.

What probability perecentage does you possibility have in being true?

There is a lot of if's and just's assumptions in your thinking.

Do you include the possibility that "reincarnation" is an undefined expression based on word creation and not on factual data?


BoyntonStu

If you would like to see my signature that the SJ censors deleted, email me privately.

Stu, I don't believe anyone can estimate a probability percentage on any of this being true.

There's a lot of assumptions in everything we think, say and do.
I think the fact that both science and religion teach that all human life transform into some eternal state allows that possibility.

As far as reincarnation being an "undefined expression based on word creation and not on factual data", guess it depends on how and by whom the word is being defined. The fact of the matter is, that there are thousands of ancient civilizations that "believed" in life after death in some form.

I guess we will never truly know until was pass on, right?

[BoyntonStu]

[quote=ntellect]There's a lot of assumptions in everything we think, say and do.
I think the fact that both science and religion teach that all human life transform into some eternal state allows that possibility.

QUOTE]

Where does science teach as a FACT that human life transforms into anything?

Science is humans attempt to measure Nature. Science does not "teach" anything. Religion teaches. We learn about science and scientific measurements.

Please give us one reference for your factual claim.


PM Me to see what the SJ censors were afraid to publish in my signature.

Originally Posted by ntellect

I think we are all in the same ball park with some of our thoughts. Going back to science or nature. What is the only thing that can never be destroyed? From a "science" perspective it's energy. From a "religious" perspective it's the soul. Both just change or transform into something that isn't measurable or tangible. According to "science" and "religion" they both exist forever in some state.

I don't think we are in the same ball park. I think you're trying to mix science with religion to muddle the meaning of words.
The word soul is a man-made concept and there's no evidence it exists in the natural world. There's no way to physically measure something that exists only in the imagination of man.

Energy is a whole different issue. Unlike the soul, energy doesn't belong to one particular person or entity. Energy exists everywhere and it can be measured.