Do deists exist?

[munky99999]

Stolen from: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism)
Historical and modern deism is defined by the view that reason, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject both organized and revealed religion and maintain that reason is the essential element in all knowledge. For a "rational basis for religion" they refer to the cosmological argument (first cause argument), the teleological argument (argument from design), and other aspects of what was called natural religion. Deism has become identified with the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world, though this is not a necessary component of deism.
Well cosmological arguement is wrong. Hypothetically. Create a new universe. No God. and 1 atom of radioactive (oh whatever, plutonium, doesnt matter).
Nothing CAUSES this atom to decay. as there is nothing in this universe. it is entirely random and impossible to predict. Just shoot over to QM forum just a weeee bit higher up. BAsically everything they work with has no cause at all. Virtual particles for example have absolutely no cause. So the first axion/premise of the cosmological arguement is broken.

and the telelogical arguement simply is the watchmaker arguement. which is commonly expunged. as it is a fallacy to begin with. the axiom/premise presuppose the results.

So if deists actually base their belief of deism based on reason. and since all known logical/reason arguements have been rather refutted. Do deists even exist?

[Tzemach]

Nothing CAUSES this atom to decay. as there is nothing in this universe. it is entirely random and impossible to predict.

You are simply talking about a zero entropy universe, this would mean one in which time did not flow. How does it disprove the existence of deism?

[munky99999]

Nothing CAUSES this atom to decay. as there is nothing in this universe. it is entirely random and impossible to predict.

You are simply talking about a zero entropy universe, this would mean one in which time did not flow. How does it disprove the existence of deism?
you do know that atoms in our universe are truely random when decaying. as far as we know. so since there is no cause to the event the premise that all things have a cause is incorrect. therefore breaking the arguement.

[selfAdjoint]

you do know that atoms in our universe are truely random when decaying. as far as we know. so since there is no cause to the event the premise that all things have a cause is incorrect. therefore breaking the arguement.

An atom decays when some quark in it emits a weak boson. We don't know why that happens and we can't predict it, which makes decaying atoms good for random number generation.

But to call it, in a philosophical, ontological sense, "truly random" is going too far. Who knows what physics of the future may discover?

I wouldn't want to hang my philosophers hat on any statement that the universe is "truly rndom".

[munky99999]

well is there any "truths" in science? im just saying at the moment. it appears, rationallly, that a single atom decays randomly. and while ive been told that im much to set into newtonian physics mindset when speaking about the uncertainty principle. But wouldnt that itself make a statement that randomness is possible. As probably dictates that what result which will occur will be random.

Take the electron double slit one. there are 3(semi-4) outcomes

1.electron goes through neither slit
2. electron goes through left or the right slit
3. electron goes through both slits.

Which i'd go far as to say that, beforehand its completely impossible to determine which of those 3 will be the true answer. As its seemingly random. Sure perhaps in the future we will have a breakthrough and all randomness that we have no will be explained. But currently it would be most rational, using the current data and evidence, that it is random.

[octelcogopod]

I would disagree and say that nothing in the universe is random.

[munky99999]

I would disagree and say that nothing in the universe is random.
ive already pointed out a situation which all current information points towards being random. so unless you have information scientists dont.

Unless your blindly asserting that a god has a plan for which no free will exists. But this is an appeal to ignorance and since you have no evidence to assert any of the god of the gaps are true.

[selfAdjoint]

well is there any "truths" in science? im just saying at the moment. it appears, rationallly, that a single atom decays randomly. and while ive been told that im much to set into newtonian physics mindset when speaking about the uncertainty principle. But wouldnt that itself make a statement that randomness is possible. As probably dictates that what result which will occur will be random.

Take the electron double slit one. there are 3(semi-4) outcomes

1.electron goes through neither slit
2. electron goes through left or the right slit
3. electron goes through both slits.

Which i'd go far as to say that, beforehand its completely impossible to determine which of those 3 will be the true answer. As its seemingly random. Sure perhaps in the future we will have a breakthrough and all randomness that we have no will be explained. But currently it would be most rational, using the current data and evidence, that it is random.


If the experiment is properly set up, 1 can be eliminated, and 3 does not occur (perhaps you have misunderstood an explanation?). The apparent randomness is all in 2, the electron may go through slit 1 or slit 2. But note that if a great number of electrons are put through, the result shows a pattern that expresses the preexisting relationship: superposed states. So the randomness here just arises from fixing your attention too closely on a small part of the experiment.

[munky99999]

well maybe i misunderstood.But as you explained. There is a part(s) which is random. and perhaps it might be a small part. But its still random/without-a-cause which just points toward further violations of the causation arguement.

[Rader]

well maybe i misunderstood.But as you explained. There is a part(s) which is random. and perhaps it might be a small part. But its still random/without-a-cause which just points toward further violations of the causation arguement.

Is not the cause, the observation, which is the result? Experiments verify that the pure act of observations changes reality even after the fact. So really it makes no difference which one it went through.