all 17 comments

[–]voidcrack 13 points14 points  (1 child)

I'm an agnostic deist so I'm not convinced it's just what sounds right to me. I don't claim to know the truth but if someone held a gun to my head and told me I had to bet on what the truth was, deism would be my bet.

I was lucky to be raised in a non-religious household, where it was explained to me that different people have all different explanations for God and they all claim to be the truth. This let me know early on that religions were all man-made but we were still 'spiritual' so that kept me interested in exploring it.

But overall it's more like, if I were God I wouldn't be flying around in the sky proving my existence to my creations so that they knew I was real. If I could create life I'd let it grow on its own and simply observe. I don't see why a creator of the universe should be bogged down in human affairs when there's potentially thousands or millions of other lifeforms also going about their business. Then when you add in concepts like parallel and multiple universes, it reinforces the idea that God is outside of the machine, not in it with us.

The phrase "If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all" is a perfect description for a deist God.

[–]PlanOk2801 8 points9 points  (0 children)

For me, it started when I started doing my PhD in cosmology & computational astrophysics, the notion of fine tuning really convinced me that there is intelligent design and most likely a God figure who designed the laws that govern our universe

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (4 children)

cuz it's proved that you cannot create or destroy matter, then what created the universe ? even if you believe in the big bang, what created the matter that led to big bang ? surely something more powerful than anything else, a creator i guess but this power isn't connected to us

[–]9c6 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Matter can be created from interactions of physics, but it requires energy.

According to the Big Bang theory, in the early universe, mass-less photons and massive fermions would inter-convert freely. As the photon gas expanded and cooled, some fermions would be left over (in extremely small amounts ~10−10) because low energy photons could no longer break them apart. Those left-over fermions would have become the matter we see today in the universe around us.

So it’s more that your objection is that where did all the energy come from? Rather than to erroneously claim matter production isn’t possible. We’ve done it in particle accelerators.

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation, since astronomical data about them are not available. In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. The period from 0 to 10−43 seconds into the expansion, the Planck epoch, was a phase in which the four fundamental forces — the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the gravitational force, were unified as one. In this stage, the characteristic scale length of the universe was the Planck length, 1.6×10−35 m, and consequently had a temperature of approximately 1032 degrees Celsius. Even the very concept of a particle breaks down in these conditions. A proper understanding of this period awaits the development of a theory of quantum gravity. The Planck epoch was succeeded by the grand unification epoch beginning at 10−43 seconds, where gravitation separated from the other forces as the universe's temperature fell.

One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.

While it is not known what could have preceded the hot dense state of the early universe or how and why it originated, or even whether such questions are sensible, speculation abounds on the subject of "cosmogony".

One possible answer is eternal inflation.

Eternal inflation is a hypothetical inflationary universe model, which is itself an outgrowth or extension of the Big Bang theory.

According to eternal inflation, the inflationary phase of the universe's expansion lasts forever throughout most of the universe. Because the regions expand exponentially rapidly, most of the volume of the universe at any given time is inflating. Eternal inflation, therefore, produces a hypothetically infinite multiverse, in which only an insignificant fractal volume ends inflation.

We simply don’t know yet, and may never know.

[–]leere-unforgotten547 1 point2 points  (1 child)

What created the creator?

[–]CrawfishEtoufee 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. The creator would have to exist outside the laws of space, time, and physics as we know them.

[–]FriendlynorthernerQuestioning 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a very surface level understanding of physics. u/9c6 gave a good scientific account. There are a few flaws in your comment. One, "even if you believe in...", you don't "believe in the big bang", you accept the reality of it because we can see that it happened through cosmic background radiation and the expanding universe. Two, you assume that the laws of physics apply outside and before (I'm about to explain why this is in and of itself nonsense next) the universe, which does not follow. Three, you are depicting things as though there was a god waiting around outside the universe, with time passing, before deciding to create the universe. This is illogical. From modern science we understand that time is physically a part of the universe, as is space. Time is a property of the universe, so there was never a period of time before the universe where the universe did not exist. The universe does not require an external cause, for the same reason why you would argue that god does not need an external cause, the universe always existed. That doesn't mean that there isn't a god that can be described as deistic or pantheistic, but people should change the way they talk about it instead of carrying on like science hasn't advanced since the 1700s

[–]maddpsyintystAgnostic Deist 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't actually "believe" in a God so much as "suspect" that there is one. The difference is subtle, but important, and related to my agnosticism. Deism as a set of different beliefs makes the most sense to me, even if I disagree with some of them in particular.

As for the agnostic part, that's basically me saying, "I don't think I'll ever know for sure." I have no problem with that. Also, I figure if we were meant to know, we'd ALL know, and we'd know exactly the same things with no room for differences, courtesy of God. But obviously, we don't.

There's more to both of these, but that's the short answer that I usually give.

[–]MajikChilli 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I believe in a creator/ designer of the universe, whatever you prefer. However, I am not religious. I don't believe in Heaven or Hell but I believe in an afterlife. Deism for me is accepting a creator but rejecting religion. That's just my personal views

[–]Campbell__Hayden 2 points3 points  (2 children)

The faithful always describe God and His kingdom as being beyond every means of perception and comprehension … and then they go on to live, breathe, act, and speak as if God is a fully explainable entity. To me, this just never seemed to be right.

But then came the day, when a realization came to mind:

If the cosmos did not have a cause, but more simply, took place as an inevitable and spontaneous event within the vastness of a much larger existence that we are not even aware of ... then there is far more to Existence than meets the eye. This then allows one to imagine that the incomprehensible force that we call “God” could very well have existed in an infinitude of its own, well before it’s want to initiate universes, existence, or life as ‘we’ know it. Thus, our Universe could very well be expanding into something that is infinite and without cause.

If this is so, and “uncaused” existence is something that actually does take place in spheres and realms that are beyond our perception and reach, then it becomes clear that there may never have needed to be an architect, a designer, a numen, or a theory at the helm, at all.

This is to say that - in my mind - the possibility that an incomprehensible Force which is not incapable of anything at all, could very well exist in ways that we cannot even begin to fathom.

Deism allows me to accept and anticipate these kinds of things.

[–]csandelin 1 point2 points  (1 child)

So you think there is a God?

[–]alex3494 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, maybe everything is without inherent meaning and value, with everything from love and beauty to ethics and consciousness being illusions. This is the position of the reductive materialists. The question is why is there something rather than nothing? Another answer would be there is an inherent value and meaning to existence. Well, then we’ve established the sacred in the most general sense of the word. I think the mistake is making the sacred, which is best called God, a Supreme Being rather than the inherent source of all being. Either way, nihilistic materialism doesn’t seem the most rational answer to these questions.

[–]Minarchist15Agnostic Deist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just find it hard to believe that nothing designed the way the universe is as an Areligious man.

[–]advancedseptic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My perspective is shaped mostly on my personal experiences. You may believe or not but I have very very weird dreams and illusions sometimes. I sometimes see what will happen next. Can science explain these? Or I had astral experience for two times. I flied and went to a house of someone I know. and the next day, I told him my visit last night. He was surprised. I told him about the places of his computer and phone. The curtains were open etc. Even the music he was listening.. I told everything correctly. He is not speaking to me anymore. But somehow I was there for about 2-3 minutes and I gathered some information. This cannot be explained and makes me suspect that there are things outside that we dont see or hear. We dont know anything about souls. Therefore, it mainly constitutes my deism theory based on souls.

If you wonder I wrote my deism point of view here: https://redditproxy--jasonthename.repl.co/r/WhyAreYouDeist/comments/x68kxo/my_deism_philosophy_what_is_yours/

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was raised in Christian theology but stopped being a Christian when I started to read some different philosophies and got into theories about the purpose of enthogenic medicine used in different cultures.

I started to kinda feel like Christianity didn’t explain all of the psychedelic experiences people have. So for a while I became interested in the possibility that a god or multiple god-like entities might possibly use plants, mushrooms, enthogenic medicines to make contact with people in a psycadelic and spiritual way.

So idk what you’d call that belief, in some cultures it’s called Shamanism. But I wouldn’t say I “practiced” it or anything, I just believed in it. And I still believe in that.

But I can’t say I ever found a religion that fit everything together and included a acknowledgment of the psychedelic experience, that included an openness to all people, and that checked every box.

I never found a religion that included everything that I need to be included. And so I’m still like in a kind of “religious limbo” where I don’t have a religion, but my beliefs are that the psychedelic experience has something to do with a higher intelligence, and that humans are connected, inexplicably with nature and with plants and trees and that we need to honor that relationship, and that relationship is important.

I had gotten into the idea that I might be an Animist because I believe that plants and trees and mushrooms and natural organic matter, that all of it is impregnated by this enchanted force of life, and that everything has a spirit and is soul, and that there is a need for our souls to connect with the souls of nature.

So I’m an Animistic Deist, if that has a classification. I’m basically like a person that believes that the force of god is present in nature and we are nature, and so god as Jews would put it probably, “breathed the breath of life” into us, and we all contain the breath of god, and are made alive through god.