Rational Reasons for the existence of God

Gnomon wrote:

Does anybody know of a treatise on the difference between the disparate "logics" of Idealism and Realism

One other thing I forgot to mention. If Idealism is correct it is real. The term realism used in this context implies that anything that disagrees with it is unreal. A better term for that particular philosophy would be materialism or physicalism.

I accidentally deleted all the other stuff I wrote in this reply sorry I pmed Aaron to see if it could be restored but if it can't I'll try to rewrite it later if anybody wants it.

Quote :

Now many think that means light needs no medium to travel through but what it actually means is that it needs no physical medium to travel through.

I'm currently reading THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS by Lee Smolin. He covers in some detail the conceptual difficulties physicists had in dealing with light "waving" in empty space. He hasn't yet come right out to say that space is made of meta-physical information, but he's getting very close to that fundamental axiom of my Deism. For years I've been wondering what space and gravity and fields and forces and such consist of, if not particles of matter or vibrations of energy. Smolin seems to be very close to saying that information (mind stuff) will be the unifying concept of 21st century physics. Stay tuned.

Quote :

Quote:
Quote RB
Deism is a side trip to ego-centrism IMO. It could be true. It is probably a very self-flattering ego-centric musing.

reply by Gnomon:
Stretmediq

The accusation of "ego-centrism" is often leveled at Deists and Theists. Do you see yourself or humanity as the center of the universe, or the apple of God's eye, or the be-all-and-end-all of existence?


Stret was banned before he had a chance to answer. Any thoughts?

You didn't comment on the ego-centrism question. I need your input before I make my response.

I've heard a little about Smolin's theory - That's pretty much what Ervin Laszlo has been saying for years. He's written about 20 books, but my favorite is Science and the Akashic Field in which he makes his case for a field (like gravity is a field) of "in-formation" that contains the instructions for building universes - over and over again.

Interesting stuff!

Gnomon wrote:

Quote :

Quote:
Quote RB
Deism is a side trip to ego-centrism IMO. It could be true. It is probably a very self-flattering ego-centric musing.

reply by Gnomon:
Stretmediq

The accusation of "ego-centrism" is often leveled at Deists and Theists. Do you see yourself or humanity as the center of the universe, or the apple of God's eye, or the be-all-and-end-all of existence?


Stret was banned before he had a chance to answer. Any thoughts?

You didn't comment on the ego-centrism question. I need your input before I make my response.

You have to remember I myself am an Atheistic Deist. But thats not the only kind of Deist there is so I can only speak for myself as my answer may not apply to another type of Deism. That said as an Atheistic Deist I think the world was not purposely created but is instead an epiphenomenon or unintentional byproduct of a Prime Observer that has no powers of intervention. Therefore if the world has no purpose other than that we choose to create for ourselves the charge of egocentrism does not apply because we are just a product of blind evolution and thus are not special.

IMO, most Theistic religions like Christianity arise from an ethnocentric not egocentric state of mind. That's why they stress things like conformity, worship, and sacrifice over things like lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride. Theistic religions actually came about as a way to solve the problems that arose because of the egocentric mindset.

Deism arose as a result of the new "Self-Aware" vantage point. This new vantage point gave humans the ability to grasp a truly third person perspective for the first time. It also allowed for a homocentric mindset, hence you get things like Humanism.

So in response I would say that most theistic and deistic conceptions of god arise from ethnocentrism, homocentrism, and even ecocentrism, not always egocentrism.

This is just a final report on the Freethought Fellowship Forum topic: Rational Reasons for the Existence of God.

Over the weekend, all of the posts on that thread were deleted. That act of vandalism was officially blamed on an intrusive hacker, but the moderators suspect that a member, either accidentally or deliberately, trashed the thread. Since I have been keeping copies of my posts as a record of my thesis project, it didn't bother me. But most others had put a lot of effort into their postings, and won't be happy to find that "the dog ate their homework".

Actually, this happened at a good time. The thread had become so convoluted with off-topics and sub-threads that any continuity was compromised. Anyway, I was finally ready, after a long prelude of definitions, to post my summary argument for choosing "God" as the most logical reason for being. So the thread is now back to the original topic.

Although I have referred to it as a Deist Thesis, I am aware that many Deists would not agree with my particular concept of the deity. But that's Ok, because it's a "just a theory". Humanity, for eons, has been guessing and arguing about the character and motives of the Causer of Reality. So let the guessing game go on.