Am I a deist or a non-deist?

Question

My model is an expanding sphere with a massless point at its centre;
It has two existences, an actual existence and a virtual existence;
The virtual existence is 'knowledge' of the actual existence;
Everything contained in both expanding spheres is an expression of the 'point';
Cognitive operations slow down and stop as they approach and integrate with the 'point';
Nothing in the expansion can fully explain the 'point'.

I am trying to understand why deists and non-deists argue.
I suspect it has nothing to do with the theories of deism or non-deism.

Thanks for great input so far.

I have tried to make the model non-dependant on language.

The only relevence of an expanding sphere is that everything in it is derived from the point, and that nothing or everything in it can illuminate the point.

The point could be at the centre of the Multiverse if you want to include M Theory, still irrelevant to the point.

There are no tricks or riddles, it's up front.

I'm not sure anyone is helping me with my query yet.


'My' point has no consciousness.

I believe that Deists and non-Deists cannot 'know' anything about the point except, perhaps, that it possesses the potential to develop into a Universe.

I have integrated Deism and non-Deism, with no angst, into my belief system, but obviously I can't be both.

Answer 1

Actually you sound a bit more like a deist to me.

It all hinges on which of the two existences you see as being your primary or true reality.

I have know many people who confused the actual with the virtual because perception makes the virtual seem more real than the actual.

Love and blessings Don

Answer 2

The universe is expanding in all directions, however it has no center. It's center can only be seen in the 4th dimension. In our 3 dimensional world, the universe IS the center of the universe. It is now thought that there are 11 dimensions. At the moment of the Big Bang, the only thing that existed were matter and anti-matter (called smatter). Almost all of the anti-matter went into another dimension. If matter and smatter come into contact, they annihilate each other, anti-matter is very hard to obtain - it takes a supercollider. There is hope the new supercollider called CERN will be able to do a better job at having it materialize. At that point, it cannot be explained, because at that point there is no math or words to explain it. As it was before the Big Bang. We can explain everything at time>0, but nothing before time=0 because there was no math or words to do so.
This thought has nothing to do with deism, as far as I can tell - it's strictly science. I think the reason deists and non-deists argue is because each thinks the other is crazy.

Deist to non-deist; You remind me of a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat.
Non-deist to deist; Well, you remind me of a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.

Answer 3

Deism is the idea that a first mover set everything in motion, stepped away and hasn't interfered since then. If I understand it right. I'm not aware of any fixed dogmatic cosmology beyond that.

I don't have enough info to decide whether or not you are or aren't a Deist.

Depends on whether or not your 'point' has a consciousness or intent and an active varying effect on the sphere in the 4th dimension. Assuming there is a real (non-illusory) temporal dimension in your schema.

Good luck with your cosmology, just don't make an embarrassment of it by encouraging pedophilia or murderous intolerance if you tack a system of 'morals' on it. ;)

Answer 4

I thing you are a non-deist, as you tend to seek unification of being onto one singularity, unlike deist you do not derive your thoughts for the articles of nature and the world in general, you instead demonstrate an ability to conceive and develop abstract ideas and innate thoughts, which are most probably genuine and original. The metaphysical quality in your ideas, notions and thoughts makes it possible for you to seek truth by reaching the essence of things, and independent of the forms in existence. If you can experience nothingness, then you can understand that the beginnings and end are only arbitrary, they are definition of our physical really - things have to end to allow for other things to begin on there behalf, but in essence there is only one truth, one really that is at the centre and spread around is meaningless for that singularity - the meanings for the things to recognised and know other things in the 'spread'. It can be intriguing to think whether this spread is the spread of light as sphere round the flame of a candle, or the spread of mass about the centre of gravity?

Answer 5

Your model, as it stands, is non-deist. Deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being. Your model says nothing about how/whether your system reveals the existence of one God or supreme being.

In fact, your model could even be a sort of model for Cartesian skepticism about the existence of the external world.

Answer 6

non-deist
your model contains 'what' but no 'why'