Do Deists Exist? A Historical Analysis

  • Thread starter munky99999
  • Start date
In summary, deism is a belief system that is based on reason rather than revelation or tradition. It rejects organized and revealed religion, and instead focuses on the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and other aspects of natural religion. However, some of these arguments have been refuted, leading to the question of whether deists actually exist. The randomness observed in the universe, such as the decay of atoms and the electron double slit experiment, challenges the premise that all things have a cause and raises doubts about the existence of deism.
  • #1
munky99999
202
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism" [Broken]
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 argument is wrong. Hypothetically. Create a new universe. No God. and 1 atom of radioactive (oh whatever, plutonium, doesn't 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 argument is broken.

and the telelogical argument 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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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?
 
  • #3
Tzemach said:
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 truly 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.
 
  • #4
munky99999 said:
you do know that atoms in our universe are truly 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".
 
  • #5
well is there any "truths" in science? I am just saying at the moment. it appears, rationallly, that a single atom decays randomly. and while I've been told that I am much to set into Newtonian physics mindset when speaking about the uncertainty principle. But wouldn't 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.
 
  • #6
I would disagree and say that nothing in the universe is random.
 
  • #7
octelcogopod said:
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.
 
  • #8
munky99999 said:
well is there any "truths" in science? I am just saying at the moment. it appears, rationallly, that a single atom decays randomly. and while I've been told that I am much to set into Newtonian physics mindset when speaking about the uncertainty principle. But wouldn't 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.
 
  • #9
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.
 
  • #10
munky99999 said:
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.
 

What is Deism?

Deism is a philosophical belief that posits the existence of a supreme being or creator, but does not adhere to any specific religious doctrine or belief system. Deists believe that this supreme being created the universe, but does not interfere in its functioning and does not reveal itself through religious texts or miracles.

When did Deism emerge?

Deism emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment. It was a popular belief among intellectuals and scientists who rejected traditional religious doctrines and sought to understand the natural world through reason and observation.

Who were some famous Deists?

Some famous Deists include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine. These founding fathers of the United States were influenced by Deist ideas and incorporated them into their political and philosophical beliefs.

How is Deism different from other religions?

Deism differs from other religions in that it does not have a specific set of beliefs or practices. It does not have a holy book or clergy, and does not promote organized worship or rituals. Deists also do not believe in the concept of divine revelation or the existence of miracles.

Do Deists still exist today?

While Deism was a popular belief during the Age of Enlightenment, it is not as prevalent today. However, there are still individuals who identify as Deists and adhere to its principles. Some modern Deists view science as a way to understand the universe and reject traditional religious beliefs.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • Cosmology
Replies
25
Views
17K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Computing and Technology
2
Replies
44
Views
11K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
25K
Back
Top