A first cause is logically necessary
— Philosophim
Because it is presupposed. And a good and useful presupposition it is, too. And of course because presupposed, logically necessary for any system in which it is presupposed. But is that the way the world works? And it seems to be for our local ordinary world. But if we stretch into into areas governed by either quantum mechanics or gen. relativity, it's all not quite so simple. — tim wood
A first cause is logically necessary
— Philosophim
Maybe in metaphyasics but not for modern fundamental physics — 180 Proof
That is an interesting post. I've never thought about it that way before. But is there necessarily a contradiction in existence being evil? — Brendan Golledge
Deism is a philosophical axiom, not a religion. However, probably due to its religious associations and implications, several posters take issue with your first choice : an uncaused, hence eternally existing, general power of causation or generator of change*1. For them, a space-time limit on philosophical Causation is not self-evident. But Entropy does place an ultimate limit on physical Causation.Therefore, there are only 3 choices:
1. There exists a cause without a cause
2. There is an infinite regression of causes with no beginning
3. Causality is circular (maybe like someone going back in a time machine to start the big bang) — Brendan Golledge
Will you elaborate on your topic, to explain why you refer to it as "functional" Deism? Is functional merely the opposite of useless? Or do you mean that G*D has some specific function in the evolving space-time world that presumably began, for no apparent reason, with a cosmological Bang? :smile:I am a deist because I find cosmological arguments convincing. Someone replied that deism was a completely useless belief. — Brendan Golledge
The person who wrote that needs no defense from me - or anyone (and to anyone who tried he would likely just tell to get out of the way). But the plain bald fact of the matter is that if you do not know what it means, then your education is lacking. And not only just because you don't know what it means, but also because you don't seem to recognize that it's meaningful, or that you can easily look it up. It also means you're unfamiliar with books that commonly have comments in them in Latin, Greek, German and so forth. So while it does not say, "You're an idiot," you yourself have instead said, "I'm an idiot," and apparently proud to be.For example, "Res ipsa loquitur, coming from him, simply means "you're an idiot". — Gnomon
:clap: :sweat:[T]he plain bald fact of the matter is that if you [@Gnomon] do not know what it means, then your education is lacking. And not only just because you don't know what it means, but also because you don't seem to recognize that it's meaningful, or that you can easily look it up. It also means you're unfamiliar with books that commonly have comments in them in Latin, Greek, German and so forth. So while it does not say, "You're an idiot," you yourself have instead said, "I'm an idiot," and apparently proud to be. — tim wood
So while it does not say, "You're an idiot," you yourself have instead said, "I'm an idiot," and apparently proud to be. — tim wood
For me, Deism is not a religion of any kind. It is instead, a philosophical position that is an alternative to both biblical Religion and scientific Materialism. At this moment, I don't know a single Deist or Shaman in my area. And I have never joined with other worshipers of Nature*1 to dance around trees in the moonlight. However, if that is 's definition of Deism, I can understand why he likes to label me a "New Age nut". That common misunderstanding is why I don't normally identify myself as a practicing Deist ; just an amateur Philosopher.Here FWIW, a definition of Deism
deism
noun: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe. — tim wood
Another trollish non sequitur ...However, if that is ↪180 Proof's definition of Deism ... — Gnomon
Perhaps Deism is an aesthetic philosophy that sees beauty & design in the world, and speculates on its provenance. Not to serve physical needs, but to fulfill metaphysical desires for meaning & understanding. On the other hand, materialistic Science is not concerned with Beauty, but Utility. So, the role of theoretical Philosophy is "outside the scope" of physical necessities, but does serve the "human desire" for virtue & pleasure & happiness, and our homo sapiens need-to-know.This philosophy is perhaps bleak because there is no covenant with the divine, and therefore there is no promise of personal fulfilment. But this religious belief also necessarily implies that there is a whole universe (or possibly multiverses) of beauty and goodness completely outside the scope of my own personal desires. — Brendan Golledge
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.