Keith Russell

Greetings:

Space-time is a property of energy; energy is all that exists.

(Matter is only a form of energy, after all.)

To know that space-time is a property of energy, you would have had to observed something that was not energy, and observed that space-time was not a property of that thing.

You still would not know that space-time was only a property of energy, but at least you would then know that there were things which did not have space-time as properties.

But you've never observed anything except energy, in its various forms.

So, you have no idea whether space-time is a property of energy, or whether energy is a property of space-time, or if they simply happen to exist together, but each could exist by itself.

You have nothing with which to compare the universe, as the universe is all that exists.

Keith.

capnkirk

Keith,

There IS an inherent danger here, and that danger is in being so sure of what constititues "reason" that reason itself begins to be filtered out.

Just remember that some of Einstein's colleagues went to their graves denouncing the "unreason" of Einstein's relativity theory, and Einstein himself denounced quantum physics as "unreason" with his famous quote 'God does not play dice!'. In both cases, their own senses of reason blinded them to a given truth.

Mind you, I am not arguing that you are wrong on the deism issue, only that opposition must follow the demonstration of unreason. When it precedes it, that opposition becomes something else.

B. H. Manners was also correct in observing that there is no difference in a literal deist's relationship with god and the athiest's (I made the same point in a previous post). To that I would only add that the 'sorta' deists are mostly just 'recovering' theists...who should be engaged, not opposed.

Jayhawker Soule

What possible relevancy does this have?

Keith Russell

capnkirk:

A valid point.

Keith.

George W.

Deism asserts a creator, further undefined, that caused the universe but does not interfere with natural laws in any way. Deism does not define god. Therefore, it does not even say that the creation was in any way "supernatural". It leaves that up to the individual deist if he/she chooses to make the creator a "being" or a "force". Deism permits for a naturalistic explanation of everything, avoiding the need to make a humanoid God or even a conscious, cognitive god.

We don't fully understand events until after the Big Bang erupted. What caused it to expand is unknown. Whatever preceeded it is unknown. Theists have chosen to call it God, by which they generally mean an old man up in the sky who says magic words. Deists simply say that God did it without defining God.

That could fit with a Stephen Hawkings view of the Big Bang. Or my view that "I don't know." I can only speculate. Perhaps the creator is a hole in the fabric between dimensions, and "stuff" gets sucked into the hole like a black hole, and expands into this dimension. I know it sounds fanciful but it is mere speculation.

Unlike theists, I don't feel the compelling need to have an explanation for everything. What I need is for all explanations to have proof. Inventing a god is not proof for me and I reject it. Defining a natural process as God is begging the question.

George W.

capnkirk

The relavency is SIMPLY this: There is no difference between a person's relationship with a god that has no interest in human affairs and a person's relationship with no god at all! :banghead:

Jayhawker Soule

Therefore? You've yet to address relevancy. I'd be interested in your response to my comments on the previous page.

Keith Russell

capn said:
"The relavency is SIMPLY this: There is no difference between a person's relationship with a god that has no interest in human affairs and a person's relationship with no god at all!"

Capn, I disagree.

The former requires that this 'God' at least exist.

The latter asserts that this 'God' does not exist.

The two are entirely different states of being, even if the actual impact on human beings is the same...

Keith.

capnkirk

Philosophically, your point is well taken, matter IS just a state of energy. :notworthy , but it is the incorrigibly applications oriented engineer in me that keeps coming back to the premise: Whether there was a creator (who established laws of nature and then rested) or there wasn't makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in the way I live my life, not my ethics, not my expectations, not my hopes and dreams.

So, it must remain unknowable whether such a god exists, but there is no pain in it because such an existence would be relavent only to the extent that it would require that there be more to "reality" than science has been able to access thus far.

I am not so vain as to declare that man has fully defined reality. Scientific history is rife with discoveries that relegated the contemporary "general case" theory to "special case" status (Einstein's impact on Newtonian physics being a prime example). I feel confident that there are discoveries in our future that will expand our definition of reality in similarly dramatic fashion more than once (a quantum understanding of the nature of gravity is a candidate with that kind of promise).

Keith Russell

capn:

How are you defining 'God'?

I have a feeling what you call this 'unknowable god' is far different from what I call (the false concept) 'God', and what most theists call God.

Keith.