Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 28, 2014, 04:34:59 PMDeism is much more intellectually respectable than theism when it comes to a cosmological playing field. However, as Laplace said to Napoleon: "I had no need of that hypothesis."I thought you were agnostic though?
Deism is much more intellectually respectable than theism when it comes to a cosmological playing field. However, as Laplace said to Napoleon: "I had no need of that hypothesis."
Quote from: SexyPiranha on October 28, 2014, 04:40:44 PMAs an origins hypothesis it essentially solves nothing. Because instead of asking where the universe came from you're forced to ask where the clockmaker came from.But if it's supernatural you don't really necessarily have to answer where it came from, considering it's supernatural. Maybe the laws of physics behave differently in a completely void Universe, and maybe that just might mean creating something from nothing.
As an origins hypothesis it essentially solves nothing. Because instead of asking where the universe came from you're forced to ask where the clockmaker came from.
is it really such a radical idea to consider, agnostically, that it's possible that a supernatural act (specifically using the word 'act' instead of 'thing') gave rise to the Universe?
Quote from: DustinTimeForBed on October 28, 2014, 04:33:15 PM is it really such a radical idea to consider, agnostically, that it's possible that a supernatural act (specifically using the word 'act' instead of 'thing') gave rise to the Universe?Yes.
Discussion on Deism (not religion)
