Your opinion on Deism and non intervening God?

[badmash_khel]

Is it logically absurd to say that God doesn't intervene in the universe?
What I mean by that is that yes there is a God but he just got the ball rolling so to speak, by starting the big bang and letting the universe expand until it is destroyed. In that time he doesn't intervene in human affairs, doesn't send messengers, not bothered with any human concerns and so on.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

There seems to be a conflict in premises with the deitsic idea of God; firstly deism surmises that a God created all the laws of the universe in a similar manner that a clock maker devises the mechanisms of a clock and then let it continue on independently. The analogy maybe oversimplified and perhaps deceptively incongruent on some level, but let's look at it this way without resorting to any sort of special pleading. The clock's mechanisms are stagnant, it operates by very few sets of parameters, it is not a model of something like we may see in a computer simulation, but an actual object with definitive spatial characteristics rather than assumed characteristics depicted in some representative form like a MATLAB program. The Universe much like the clock can also be said to be an object with spatial parameters and certain sets of algorithms to motivate how it operates, except the universe has a property of superdynanism; its changes occur in such a way that the It's Laws could not in themselves be extrapolated from a preexisting mechanism but change and coagulate in the process of the universe's own operative motions. This would be totally in conflict with the idea of a Non-Intervening power/being/

[DaMalakandGhar]

Is it logically absurd to say that God doesn't intervene in the universe?
What I mean by that is that yes there is a God but he just got the ball rolling so to speak, by starting the big bang and letting the universe expand until it is destroyed. In that time he doesn't intervene in human affairs, doesn't send messengers, not bothered with any human concerns and so on.

The point is, the working of the universe at any level atomic/sub-atomic, cosmic, or ordinary can be completely explained by physical laws and there isn't any need for a cause (an intervening God) outside the universe or the physical world we know. The Tsonami in Japan last year and the earth-quake in 2004 in Pakistan that killed a lot of people have physical explanations though mullahs would call these catastrophies the wrath of God (a wrathful God somehow hot angry and caused these as punishment).

[Al Hanif]

The Tsonami that occurred in Japan last year or the earth-quake in 2004 in Pakistan that killed a lot of people has physical explanation though mullahs would say it is the wrath of God.

false dichotomy fallacy

[RevolutionThroughReason]

The point is, the working of the universe at any level atomic/sub-atomic, cosmic, or ordinary can be completely explained by physical laws and there isn't any need for a cause (an intervening God) outside the universe or the physical world we know.

are you saying this based on an understanding of the physical laws of the universe or are you merely just parroting something misinformedly that you have heard others say?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

false dichotomy fallacy

where are they making a false dichotomy in this statement?

[badmash_khel]

There seems to be a conflict in premises with the deitsic idea of God; firstly deism surmises that a God created all the laws of the universe in a similar manner that a clock maker devises the mechanisms of a clock and then let it continue on independently. The analogy maybe oversimplified and perhaps deceptively incongruent on some level, but let's look at it this way without resorting to any sort of special pleading. The clock's mechanisms are stagnant, it operates by very few sets of parameters, it is not a model of something like we may see in a computer simulation, but an actual object with definitive spatial characteristics rather than assumed characteristics depicted in some representative form like a MATLAB program. The Universe much like the clock can also be said to be an object with spatial parameters and certain sets of algorithms to motivate how it operates, except the universe has a property of superdynanism; its changes occur in such a way that the It's Laws could not in themselves be extrapolated from a preexisting mechanism but change and coagulate in the process of the universe's own operative motions. This would be totally in conflict with the idea of a Non-Intervening power/being/

care to elaborate?
Not all of us are as familiar with physics and philosophy as yourself

[roadrunner]

Is it logically absurd to say that God doesn't intervene in the universe?
What I mean by that is that yes there is a God but he just got the ball rolling so to speak, by starting the big bang and letting the universe expand until it is destroyed. In that time he doesn't intervene in human affairs, doesn't send messengers, not bothered with any human concerns and so on.

It's not impossible that the universe created itself.

If someone could create a universe from nothing they would need to be able to interfere with it. Whether they want to is another matter. To be honest, I would interfere if I were this creator to get rid of some idiots and to show I exist. That is myself of course.

[badmash_khel]

The point is, the working of the universe at any level atomic/sub-atomic, cosmic, or ordinary can be completely explained by physical laws and there isn't any need for a cause (an intervening God) outside the universe or the physical world we know. The Tsonami in Japan last year and the earth-quake in 2004 in Pakistan that killed a lot of people have physical explanations though mullahs would call these catastrophies the wrath of God (a wrathful God somehow hot angry and caused these as punishment).

So what is your position regarding my question? Am I correct in assuming that you don't believe in any God intervening or non intervening?

If that is the case then how do you explain the big bang? How did these natural laws come into existance so soon after Big Bang?

[کیش]

Does a work of art, not have an artist? Does a book, not have an author? Did the big bang not have a creator who predetermined the "laws of physics?"

If you don't belief a creator set off the big bang, then you must belief a book is written by itself; a painting is painted by itself. . .

[badmash_khel]

Does a work of art, not have an artist? Does a book, not have an author? Did the big bang not have a creator who predetermined the "laws of physics?"

If you don't belief a creator set off the big bang, then you must belief a book is written by itself; a painting is painted by itself. . .

kash, Deists believe in God but not religion. Deists don't believe in miracles and prophethood.

Can you tell me what you think about Deism or a God that doesn't intervene?

[badmash_khel]

Just for clarification before we move further

Deism (i/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is a religious philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator. According to deists, the creator rarely, if ever, either intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Critical elements of deist thought included:

• Rejection of all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.
• Rejection of all religious dogma and demagogy.
• Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries".

Constructive elements of deist thought included:

• God exists, created and governs the universe.
• God gave humans the ability to reason.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

care to elaborate?
Not all of us are as familiar with physics and philosophy as yourself

Sure; what I mean is that the Laws of the Universe weren't always as they were. There is a school of thought in physics which establishes that all the properties by which we identify matter, energy and the forces which in turn determine the laws of the universe were completely different. Namely, how could you for example have an entropic system when there is no determinable spatial-time variation. thus thermodynamics would have no coherence. The Laws were not "ready-made" in the sense that it merely went by an algorithmic process but they were constructed while the universe itself was. This is actually key in understanding things like Dark Matter/Dark Energy, because the rapid thermal expansion of the universe could have turned out very different and the early particles that meditate fundamental forces like strong nuclear force for example may not have existed and we'd have a totally different universe than what we witness.

My point being that as the universe grew, so did the Laws.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Does a work of art, not have an artist? Does a book, not have an author? Did the big bang not have a creator who predetermined the "laws of physics?"

If you don't belief a creator set off the big bang, then you must belief a book is written by itself; a painting is painted by itself. . .

There are many examples of patterned things existing without an apparent creator. Even in seemingly random processes we find patterns.

[roadrunner]

Does a work of art, not have an artist? Does a book, not have an author? Did the big bang not have a creator who predetermined the "laws of physics?"

If you don't belief a creator set off the big bang, then you must belief a book is written by itself; a painting is painted by itself. . .

It's called m-theory and gravitation mon lacklustre ami.