Existence of God

[Stario]

For something to be fine-tuned it would have to be fine-tune-able. This universe is deterministic (perhaps with the exception of free-will): everything in the universe is the direct result of an unbroken chain of cause and effect from the moment of the big-bang, there is no time or place where the universe could have been fine-tuned.

An all knowing God could not exist within an indeterministic universe. Determinism implies Gods existence.

Precise compared to what?

Precise resulting from the extreme narrow parameters of these constants i.e "electromagnetism- a change of only one part in 10 to the power of 40 would have spelled disaster for stars, thereby precluding the existence of planets". Now we can compare life producible parameters with parameters unable to produce life i.e compare current electromagnetism parameters with a change in value of 10 to the power of 40, result of the latter value compared to the former= no planets vs planets.

[Sar1n]

An all knowing God could not exist within an indeterministic universe. Determinism implies Gods existence.

No, you're jsut showing your bias toward your idea of god. Omniscience is not a generic property of any possible god, it's a property of god that you believe in, and determinism doesn't imply that it exists. First off, nondeterministic universe is compatible with omniscience, as long as the omniscient entity has knowledge of all possible results. It just precludes total predictability of future. But anyway...deterministic universe does not imply any kind of god, omniscient or not. In fact, it limits the possible gods, as within deterministic system you can't have any consciousness acting on free will, therefore if there is god, it can only be passive observer.

Precise resulting from the extreme narrow parameters of these constants i.e "electromagnetism- a change of only one part in 10 to the power of 40 would have spelled disaster for stars, thereby precluding the existence of planets". Now we can compare life producible parameters with parameters unable to produce life i.e compare current electromagnetism parameters with a change in value of 10 to the power of 40, result of the latter value compared to the former= no planets vs planets.

That's misinterpretation. If the unvierse had started with different constants, stars or life wouldn't be the same. But can you say that they wouldn't be at all? We don't have the knowledge or resources yet to even superficially simulate an alternative universe.

[Himster]

An all knowing God could not exist within an indeterministic universe. Determinism implies Gods existence.

Very much the opposite, a deterministic universe doesn't allow for divine interventions. A deterministic universe is inherently natural and self-contained.

Precise resulting from the extreme narrow parameters of these constants i.e

"Narrow parameters" compared to what? What makes them narrow? Reality allows for no deviation from universal constants.

"electromagnetism- a change of only one part in 10 to the power of 40 would have spelled disaster for stars, thereby precluding the existence of planets".

That's not a narrow deviation, that's a massive deviation.

Now we can compare life producible parameters with parameters unable to produce life i.e compare current electromagnetism parameters with a change in value of 10 to the power of 40, result of the latter value compared to the former= no planets vs planets.

You can't change the fundamental universal constants that permeate all of reality, nothing can change universal constants: they are constant universally, of all of known reality, there is no deviation from this fact. The nature of the universe is the nature of the universe. Imagining a universe that isn't this universe is just imagining a universe that isn't this universe, it's pure sophistry when used in an debate.
From our knowledge of the universe 100% of all universes have the same universal constants because we only have one sample, probability cannot be calculated when there is only one sample.

[Stario]

Very much the opposite, a deterministic universe doesn't allow for divine interventions. A deterministic universe is inherently natural and self-contained.

Determinism implies that everything that has ever happened or will ever happened was destined to happen from the very beginning (assuming there is a beginning). Gods plan is one interpretation of this. With that said determinism itself has not yet been shown to be true.

Narrow parameters" compared to what? What makes them narrow? Reality allows for no deviation from universal constants.

That's not a narrow deviation, that's a massive deviation.

What makes them narrow is the very small deviations required i.e. "a change of only one part in 10 to the power of 40"
This is not a massive deviation, to the contrary it is actually a very small deviation. Let me illustrate how small:
10 to the power of 40 is equal to 1 followed by 40 zeros.
Now imagine a pie, now if we were to divide a pie equally into 10 pieces, then each piece would be one part per ten or one tenth of a total pie. Now lets cut this pie into a million pieces, each piece is now very small & would represent a millionth of the total pie or one part per million of the pie. Now lets cut the pie into 1 followed by 40 zeros pieces, each pieces is now even smaller & would represent one part to the power of 40 (however you call that number), this is how small the deviation in electromagnetism needs to be thereby precluding the existence of planets.

Finally we don't need to physically change the constants we can already calculate what effects certain deviations will have on the laws of physics and life as we know it.

[Himster]

What makes them narrow is the very small deviations required i.e. "a change of only one part in 10 to the power of 40"

In what way is that small? Small compared to what? Completely altering the basic principles of reality is the most wide sweeping totally inclusive action possibly imaginable, calling it small does not make it small.
Relative to the definitions of universal constants/immutable laws that govern all of reality: any and all deviation is inherently inconceivably massive and all-changing by definition.
The hypothetical alternatives to this reality are hypothetical and infinite, you cannot divide infinity.

Determinism implies that everything that has ever happened or will ever happened was destined to happen from the very beginning

Yes, based on the immutable and constant laws of nature, this is an accurate description of observable reality.

Gods plan is one interpretation of this.

By breaking (ie. miracles) the immutable universal constants that permeate all of reality (which are what imply the deterministic nature of the universe in the first place): typical incarnations of god(s) are not compatible with determinism.

[Stario]

In what way is that small? Small compared to what?

Small compared to say one part per ten or even one part per million. Just trust me on this one, a change of only one part in 10 to the power of 40 is small. Now it seems you're just trolling. ლ(ಠ益ಠლ

[Himster]

Small compared to say one part per ten or even one part per million. Just trust me on this one, a change of only one part in 10 to the power of 40 is small. Now it seems you're just trolling. ლ(ಠ益ಠლ

It's no small act to alter the very fabric of reality. Come on, be realistic here.

[Falconiano]

I'm an anti-creation agnostic.
I don't really argue on the non/existence of God itself, but on the premise.
Most of the fallacies in theism/atheism are in the premises.


Premise: we assume that creation from nothing is required.
Therefore we imagine God, a being whos role is creating everything; but in this case we fall into a loop fallacy, since said God would need to have been created as well from a being which in turn should have been created itself, etc, ad infinitum.
We could retort that creation from nothing is NOT required for God itself, but that also lead to a fallacy.
Infact, if we assume that God itself isn't required to be created from nowhere, then we eliminate the premise that things need to be created from scratch; by this same premise we can say the universe always existed, Earth always existed, humanity always existed - or that they are a result of various phenomena - therefore making the need for the existence of God void.
In both cases, God doesn't make sense in any logical form to exist -in the form of creator- as it is either a loop fallacy, or an unnecessary element and therefore very unlikely to exist due to lack of purpose in the equation.
Adding the fact that creation was never witnessed in the entire universe, nor is a necessary component of it, and "creation" itself as a concept is purely human imagination, I refuse the existence of a God in the form of a creator being.
The baseless creation concept isn't much far from "thunder! omg god!" level of debate.

I do instead accept the possiblity of the existence of one (or more) "regulator" being(s).
We do have evidence that most chemical and astrologic events have a "master" that either triggered or rendered possible said event, or that manages the whole reaction.
We have not yet explained how it is possible that the universe, solar systems and life forms themselves manage to all work in cohesion and strive for their balance, nor why they do so.


Mind you I'm not falling for semplification and humanization of the unknown here, i.e. "I can't explain how/why THEREFORE GOD LOLZ MY IQ IS BARELY 50".
I'm merely evaluating the probability.
We are witnessing a system of powerful, uncontrolled, and usually unbalanced forces and events, yet all living in balance for several million years.
Normally, this is very unlikely to work for long. But with a system regulating the whole, it is indeed more likely.
Whether that system is a bearded man living on clouds among winged people playing harps - or something we can hardly imagine let alone definine - I cannot tell, I can just make sarcastic remarks about it.


So what I can tell that from this logic is: God is a logical possibility - but not in the form of humanized-father-figure-who-avdakedava'd-the-world-one-day-then-killed-millions-derp-then-son-killed-by-Rome2-bugged-Legionary.
We need to go a ton deeper to just grasp the clues to lead to the entry level of God's (in)existence and his forms understanding.

[ProjectX1963]

science and spirituality are intimately connected, atheists and theists alike have been led on separate paths in a deliberate attempt to divide/conquer, u will never find answers if u are focusing just on individual points, science alone can never adequately explain the nature of existence, and neither can religion on it's own, the key 2 understanding the universe is a fusion of science and religion... any1 who is intellectually honest and understands a thing or 2 about science and religion would have 2 come 2 a similar conclusion, we live in a spiritual universe, is god is an actualized, physical being, or an underlying spiritual energy that propels us further through this amazing sci-fi adventure called life? maybe both? perfectly valid questions

[MaximiIian]

I don't really believe in a god. Being a physics/economics major, I'm pretty quantitative so as you can tell, there aint much evidence of gods part on the world. *nevertheless* you can't claim there is proof of no god.

Well, yes. You cannot 'prove' a negative. However, in any proposition, the null hypothesis is assumed until evidence is brought forth that demonstrates the claim.

So, I think that a dispassionate atheism is still the most rational conclusion to have, unless one feels that they have sufficient proof of deity. Which is why it might surprise you that I'm a polytheist and a practising religious person. I feel that I have proof enough for me. But at the same time, I am not willing to claim that my experiences are applicable to everyone. What I've experienced is true for me and you've experienced is true for you. It's whatever, man.

At any rate, more importantly, I think some religions can be useful in teaching basic morals so I think the usefulness of the existence of things like the bible or the 10 commandments should not necessarily be discounted.

Ehh...I don't really agree. Morality does not derive from religion. It's a development of human societies to keep those societies running. But modern philosophy has provided frameworks for even the simplest of minds to develop their own individual morality. And quite a many of these religious moral codes are not suited to modern society and modern cultural customs. A good moral code should be simple and basic enough to be applicable in most societies and circumstances.

[Tankbuster]

Small compared to say one part per ten or even one part per million. Just trust me on this one, a change of only one part in 10 to the power of 40 is small. Now it seems you're just trolling. ლ(ಠ益ಠლ

That's like saying it's hard to hit the top of the Mount Everest with a marble. It all depends on where you're standing.
We don't know what the range is on the variables of the universe. Maybe all the electromagnetic parameters have to be between 0 and 1, in which case 10^-40 is indeed small. Maybe it's between 0 and 100, in which case it's even smaller. Or maybe the changes are typically in the realm of 10^-60 and a margin of 10^-40 is actually enormously large. We simply don't know this.

The fine-tuning argument is intuitively compelling but it cannot be quantified. This was nicely shown by the (Christian) philosophers Lydia and Timothy McGrew: without knowing what the boundaries of a range are, a fine-tuning argument has exactly the same force as a coarse-tuning argument, which is to say none at all.
That's to say, while a change of 10^-40 may seem spectacularly unlikely when compared to a range of 0 to 1, a change of 10^-35 looks exactly as unlikely on a scale of 0 to 10^5. And even if the changes could be as large as 100, it would still be astronomically likely when compared to the total mathematical space that the constant could be. This is a non-starter.

We don't know anything about the probability of cosmological constants. To pretend like we do so we can infer the existence of your favourite magical creature doesn't work.

[Alex(España)]

Hello, God or Jehová/Yahvé exist(of course)but he only help the jews because he is jew, simple haha. He is the same god of christians or muslims, the christians or muslims are jewish sects that were created for help Sionists to dominate the world. All people must recover their ancient religion to be authentic again,for europeans means be pagans again. The christians with other factors of course destroy de Roman Empire, they collapsed our great nation(Europe)and confront us(Catholics vs Protestants). But anybody is free to be christian or not or any religion of course(this is a pagan european think/ideology).

[Valden]

a deterministic universe doesn't allow for divine interventions. A deterministic universe is inherently natural and self-contained.

God has been defined as the Prime Mover at least as far back as Aristotle. God is an immaterial consciousness existing beyond the universe, but his designs and intentions are present within it. This is God's transcendence. The flip-side of this is God's immanence: God is immediately real and present in the physical world, and thus the spiritual directly governs the material. Material chains of causation are thus reflections of divine intentions. Indeed, a Neoplatonist would claim the physical world is an imperfect image of the perfect "world of forms".

My point here is that there is no intrinsic contradiction between a naturalistic, deterministic cause-and-effect physical universe and theism. This is because the theist does not have to make the claim that physical events have solely divine causes. Physical events may act in accordance with the intention or overall design of the Prime Mover. Physically, of course we perceive only the physical effects, which are of course physically explicable. Intuitively we may detect elements of design and suspect the existence of a divine consciousness. However, intuitively we all disagree with each other. It depends how much we trust our own intuitions. I personally find belief warranted because it is a logical consequence of my intuitive understanding of what I perceive. I accept I may be wrong, and I accept the validity of doubting my intuitions, but I see no validity in dismissing them in the absence of a categorical refutation. Until such a time, I trust my intuition the same as I trust my senses and my ability to reason.

To summarise, you are correct that things do not magically happen in a deterministic universe, but you are incorrect to assert this removes the possibility of divine intervention because this is not by definition physically detectable at all. It is however, I would posit, a valid intuitive interpretation of reality, and in the absence of some defeater we have no reason to disregard the properly basic beliefs -such as the validity of our sensory experience, the existence of other minds, the reality of the past, and the basic nature of the world we experience- in the absence of some refutation.

[Himster]

My point here is that there is no intrinsic contradiction between a naturalistic, deterministic cause-and-effect physical universe and theism

Surely you mean deism. Theism implies an interventionist deity in contradiction to determinism, naturalism and the physical universe in general. If the universal laws of nature can be intervened by a deity then they immediately cease to be universal, determinism has been dis-proven, the "universal" laws of nature cease to be universal at that moment, the laws of nature would be obsolete and/or subject to change according to the whims of some being.

I would point out that deism or aspects of deism are acceptable to many atheists (atheistic science-fiction writers have written much about this, especially "The last Question"), but as god of the gaps shrinks all the time, it seems to be a superfluous additional assertion, while it may appeal to our egos or our instinctive need to see patterns where there may be none, there is nothing to refute: it's a superfluous assertion which falls outside mankind's knowledge, there's nothing to discuss except culturally relative mythologies and personal feelings, refutation is impossible without fist having a convincing assertion.

[Ludicus]

So, I think that a dispassionate atheism is still the most rational conclusion to have, unless one feels that they have sufficient proof of deity. Which is why it might surprise you that I'm a polytheist and a practising religious person.

Whether or not they exist we are slaves to our gods.
F. Pessoa, The Book of Disquiet.

[Valden]

Surely you mean deism. Theism implies an interventionist deity in contradiction to determinism, naturalism and the physical universe in general.

You are correct that theism implies and in some cases may entail divine intervention, but this does not mean the said divine intervention necessarily suspends deterministic order. As I explained, there are at least two ways of looking at this: immanence and transcendence. Both are compatible with physical events having physical and divine causes that are complementary. In other words physical events can be physically determined by natural laws whilst also enabling divine intentions. You would need to demonstrate some logical incoherency in this concept for your objection to hold: you would need to prove it is impossible for a physical event to fulfil a divine intention.

If the universal laws of nature can be intervened by a deity then they immediately cease to be universal, determinism has been dis-proven, the "universal" laws of nature cease to be universal at that moment, the laws of nature would be obsolete and/or subject to change according to the whims of some being.

I think you’re making more assertions than are warranted here, because I did not argue that universal laws are directly intervened. To quote, I said “Physical events may act in accordance with the intention or overall design of the Prime Mover”, and that “Material chains of causation are thus reflections of divine intentions”. The concept of transcendence circumvents your objection, because it describes God influencing and guiding rather than supernaturally fixing physical events: If a physical chain of events leads to X outcome or X event, it can potentially be argued that that was a providential event that occurred through physical mechanisms by divine will. Remember, God’s timeless nature and omniscience enables him to view all temporal moments simultaneously. Thus what we physically recognise as a centuries/ millennia long physical chain of events may in fact be the bias of living linear lives. God is instead real in every moment and guiding physical events to His own ends.

I would point out that deism or aspects of deism are acceptable to many atheists

You’d need to define this more clearly, because as I understand it a deist may hold God to exist for the same reasons a theist may. The difference between them is that a deist is unwilling to accept the reality of miracles, divine “intervention” (supernatural suspension of physical reality, rather than my above definition) or the truth of religious dogmas. Deism is essentially “theism-lite” so I’m not sure which aspects of it an atheist could hold to without ceasing to be an atheist.

it seems to be a superfluous additional assertion

Deism is not an “assertion”: all the arguments for God’s existence excluding appeal to miracles and personal revelation are compatible with a deistic worldview. Like theism, it argues from nature that design/ creation are plausible explanations for reality. However, unlike the theist, the deist is unwilling to accept miraculous intervention.

However, in my view this separation is largely a red herring, because by and large physical events may fulfil divine intentions whilst being physically explicable.

it may appeal to our egos or our instinctive need to see patterns where there may be none

This commits the genetic fallacy: the fact we have an instinctive need to see patterns says nothing for the truth of the patterns we see.

it's a superfluous assertion which falls outside mankind's knowledge

This is a subjective judgement dressed up as an objective comment on the debate. In your opinion it falls outside our knowledge, but in my opinion we are warranted in deducing intentions and design in the universe that point to a designer. This is not presupposing knowledge we don’t have, it is an interpretation of knowledge we do have. You seem to be mischaracterising the issue.

there's nothing to discuss except culturally relative mythologies and personal feelings, refutation is impossible without fist having a convincing assertion.

This is another mischaracterisation. Speaking for myself I do not defend “culturally relative mythologies” as objective statements about reality (surely you saw the debate in the Adam and Eve thread?); I defend the position that the reality we perceive is best explained by design and guided creation. However, whether or not anything was “designed” is to a degree subjective, and given the complexity of the universe and our limited perspective of it, personal intuition seems a valid form of judgement, whether it sees design, no design, or deigns to make a choice.

[Himster]

You are correct that theism implies and in some cases may entail divine intervention, but this does not mean the said divine intervention necessarily suspends deterministic order. As I explained, there are at least two ways of looking at this: immanence and transcendence. Both are compatible with physical events having physical and divine causes that are complementary. In other words physical events can be physically determined by natural laws whilst also enabling divine intentions. You would need to demonstrate some logical incoherency in this concept for your objection to hold: you would need to prove it is impossible for a physical event to fulfil a divine intention.

Suspending the laws of nature (ie. a miracle) would make the universal laws of physics not-universal: miracles are by definition not compatible with universal laws of nature.

I think you’re making more assertions than are warranted here, because I did not argue that universal laws are directly intervened. To quote, I said “Physical events may act in accordance with the intention or overall design of the Prime Mover”, and that “Material chains of causation are thus reflections of divine intentions”. The concept of transcendence circumvents your objection, because it describes God influencing and guiding rather than supernaturally fixing physical events: If a physical chain of events leads to X outcome or X event, it can potentially be argued that that was a providential event that occurred through physical mechanisms by divine will. Remember, God’s timeless nature and omniscience enables him to view all temporal moments simultaneously. Thus what we physically recognise as a centuries/ millennia long physical chain of events may in fact be the bias of living linear lives. God is instead real in every moment and guiding physical events to His own ends.

How does transcendence circumvent my objection? The laws of nature are fixed from the start, we're on the same page here, "material chains of causation are thus reflections of divine intentions," word play I don't totally agree with but the core: we agree. Now, miracles, breaking the chain of causation, that's the issue, that's what's incompatible.

You’d need to define this more clearly, because as I understand it a deist may hold God to exist for the same reasons a theist may. The difference between them is that a deist is unwilling to accept the reality of miracles, divine “intervention” (supernatural suspension of physical reality, rather than my above definition) or the truth of religious dogmas. Deism is essentially “theism-lite” so I’m not sure which aspects of it an atheist could hold to without ceasing to be an atheist.

Deism can also be "atheism lite", as explored by many science-fiction writers; (praise science) the holy prophets of science speak of wonders that will befall the children of man, the destroyers shall be the creators and what-not. I'm sure you're aware of trans-humanist hypotheses and the relative technological singularity, well, there is also a universal equivalent, like Braniac from Superman, a being seeking to learn all knowledge and therefore make create the universe which he sees as his destiny as creator and destroyer of all things, the "first" and "final" piece in the puzzle of a cyclical reality, a deistic being who may be considered a god. There are many versions of this riddled with rich mytho-poetic prose, some are of supernatural bent like Fantasia and some are scientifically orientated like The Last Question, some are perfectly atheistic and some are not.

This commits the genetic fallacy: the fact we have an instinctive need to see patterns says nothing for the truth of the patterns we see.

I didn't say otherwise. I simply pointed out that our over-willingness to see patterns needs to be taken into consideration, particularly in topics of pure abstraction.

This is a subjective judgement dressed up as an objective comment on the debate. In your opinion it falls outside our knowledge, but in my opinion we are warranted in deducing intentions and design in the universe that point to a designer. This is not presupposing knowledge we don’t have, it is an interpretation of knowledge we do have. You seem to be mischaracterising the issue.

This is another mischaracterisation. Speaking for myself I do not defend “culturally relative mythologies” as objective statements about reality (surely you saw the debate in the Adam and Eve thread?); I defend the position that the reality we perceive is best explained by design and guided creation. However, whether or not anything was “designed” is to a degree subjective, and given the complexity of the universe and our limited perspective of it, personal intuition seems a valid form of judgement, whether it sees design, no design, or deigns to make a choice.

How is it a mis-characterisation? I said "it seems to be a superfluous additional assertion", how is that dressing up my opinion as "objective truth"?
And how is it a mis-characterisation that there's nothing to discuss here except personal feelings and culturally relative mythos, yes I read much of what you said in the Adam and Eve thread and even posted in support (only criticising the size of your posts, which I still think is the cause of the confusion there), but you have asserted explicit support for culturally relative mythos before (the resurrection and miracles by Jesus of Nazareth) and here we're primarily discussing our personal views/feelings of the "design" of the universe.

(Also happy new year.)

[Valden]

Suspending the laws of nature (ie. a miracle) would make the universal laws of physics not-universal: miracles are by definition not compatible with universal laws of nature.

You’re just reasserting what I have already offered counter arguments for (God’s immanence and/ or transcendence). Beside this I think the term “miracle” should be considered a red herring in this instance, because it is used by many to mean exactly what you’re arguing: divine intervention is necessarily a suspension of the natural order. I am arguing that as creator/ designer of the physical universe, it is logical to expect it to reflect God’s intentions: Replace “miracle” with “divine intervention” and this objection falls apart. Additionally, as he is omniscient, timeless and omnipotent, God may view all moments simultaneously, interacting instantaneously with our reality in such a way that physical events conform to his intentions. Given our linear, chronologically bound existence and limited perception, for us a millennia long chain of cause and effect may simply be the ripple-in-the-pond of a timeless God causing physical reality to fulfil X intention at X point in time. However, rather than suspending natural cause and effect, God’s will is integrated within His creation. This seems to me a far more plausible explanation for the way a maximally great (all the above qualities) God would interact with his creation. Suspending nature at will to change things doesn’t sit comfortably with omniscience (because it suggests a lack of foresight). A maximally great consciousness existing simultaneously and fluidly with its creation avoids this error.

Aside from this, “universal laws of nature” is a debatable term. There aren’t cast iron laws that everything at every time conform to. At best, this layman’s phrase we use describes patterns we currently see and predict to continue seeing. How and why matter organised itself into the way it did after the initial singularity isn’t conclusively known to us. The laws may well (and probably did) develop rather than simply exist, meaning they are not “universal” in the sense you mean it. They are instead common laws that describe the bulk of what we perceive and expect to perceive, but which haven’t always and might not always exist. This doesn’t mean reality doesn’t largely conform to our descriptions –it does- but that our descriptions are not objectively true in every situation, the beginning and development of the universe being one such example. Thus –even though it is irrelevant to my specific argument- your objection fails anyway on its own grounds, because a suspension of “universal laws” is a misnomer because they didn’t exist in the first place. At best your argument is that God may circumvent how we understand reality to work, which seems a fairly uncontroversial point to make about God. Of course He knows more than we do. So you see, without the objectivity of natural laws (which we have no logical pathway to presuppose anyway) your objection of miracles falls apart.

How does transcendence circumvent my objection?

Easily: physical events may fulfil divine intention(s) without lacking a simultaneous physical cause.

The laws of nature are fixed from the start, we're on the same page here

I’m open-minded as to whether or not the laws developed. It’s still an area of active research. We are warranted in asserting a set of descriptions of physical behaviour that are common to all perceived and expected events, but calling these descriptions “universal” unnecessarily papers over a lot of gaps in our knowledge. I’ve explained this above anyway.

"material chains of causation are thus reflections of divine intentions," word play I don't totally agree with but the core: we agree.

This is a terrible objection because it besmirches my point as “word play” without explaining itself. In other words the language of a put down is used to convey a point that contains no put down. That’s “word play” my friend.

Now, miracles, breaking the chain of causation, that's the issue, that's what's incompatible.

I’ve already covered this. “Miracle” isn’t the right term for my position because of its other connotations.

Deism can also be "atheism lite", as explored by many science-fiction writers; (praise science) the holy prophets of science speak of wonders that will befall the children of man, the destroyers shall be the creators and what-not. I'm sure you're aware of trans-humanist hypotheses and the relative technological singularity, well, there is also a universal equivalent, like Braniac from Superman, a being seeking to learn all knowledge and therefore make create the universe which he sees as his destiny as creator and destroyer of all things, the "first" and "final" piece in the puzzle of a cyclical reality, a deistic being who may be considered a god. There are many versions of this riddled with rich mytho-poetic prose, some are of supernatural bent like Fantasia and some are scientifically orientated like The Last Question, some are perfectly atheistic and some are not.

Whilst I appreciate your enthusiasm and can myself relate to it, these are literary/ artistic references that use God-like attributes figuratively rather than technically. My question remains how –considering the strict technical definitions of the two positions- deism and atheism can be compatible in any way. To me it seems an oxymoron: both “God” and “no God” simultaneously.

I didn't say otherwise. I simply pointed out that our over-willingness to see patterns needs to be taken into consideration, particularly in topics of pure abstraction.

No. This cannot be anything beyond a sociological point about the argument. If you “take it into consideration” within the argument you will be committing the genetic fallacy. It’s just one of those glib sound bites that when viewed logically has no actual bearing on the argument or the truth of its premises/conclusions.

How is it a mis-characterisation? I said "it seems to be a superfluous additional assertion", how is that dressing up my opinion as "objective truth"?

Actually:

I would point out that deism or aspects of deism are acceptable to many atheists (atheistic science-fiction writers have written much about this, especially "The last Question"), but as god of the gaps shrinks all the time, it seems to be a superfluous additional assertion, while it may appeal to our egos or our instinctive need to see patterns where there may be none, there is nothing to refute: it's a superfluous assertion which falls outside mankind's knowledge, there's nothing to discuss except culturally relative mythologies and personal feelings, refutation is impossible without fist having a convincing assertion.

The first bold statement is the one you are referring to, the second is the only I quoted. Notice, the “seems” disappears after you dismiss “appeal[s] to our egos or our instinctive need to see patterns”: after this you assert “it’s a superfluous assertion which falls outside mankind’s knowledge”. I chose the second statement rather than the first because it was a concluding point, whereas the first statement was you offering an issue which you then answered. I don’t thus think it’s fair of you to say you said one thing, when you then reasoned it into something else. I tried to be fair and address the product of your argument, which I think I did. If you want to reformulate what you said then I’m fine with that.

And how is it a mis-characterisation that there's nothing to discuss here except personal feelings and culturally relative mythos

We aren’t discussing (at least not primarily) artistic and literary understandings here; we are debating a point of logical compatibility between my take on theology and naturalism. There is no logical pathway for culturally relative mythologies and beliefs to get into this argument: we are dealing with the issue of specific logical coherency rather than wider sociological explanations. This is thus a fallacy of distraction.

yes I read much of what you said in the Adam and Eve thread and even posted in support (only criticising the size of your posts, which I still think is the cause of the confusion there)

Thank you, although to me there was no issue there. I fail to see how the length of my posts had anything to do with it. Excuse the slang, but objections like that are nothing but whining

but you have asserted explicit support for culturally relative mythos before (the resurrection and miracles by Jesus of Nazareth) and here we're primarily discussing our personal views/feelings of the "design" of the universe.

Well, primarily we have each been arguing for a different take on what God’s interaction with the universe would logically entail. That’s a philosophical issue. However, you are correct insofar as I accept that whether an individual perceives design or not is down to their intuition, however, I see no good reason to doubt my intuitions, so this isn’t a problem for me. The crucial thing to remember is that, just because something is a “matter of opinion” it doesn’t mean there isn’t an answer, it just means we currently have no logical way of getting there.

(Also happy new year.)

You too; mine is going well so far, so fingers crossed for the rest of it!

(isn’t it great talking crap on the internet?)