- Big Questions
- Consciousness & Healing
- Extended Human Capacities
- Worldview Transformation
- Community Groups
No comments yet
Scientific Deism Explained
By Alumno deVerum
Does God exist? Theists say yes. Atheists say no. Who am I to believe?
Justifying a belief by basing it on the works or opinions of others is called “argument from authority”. And it is tempting as it relieves one of the awful burden of thinking for one's self. Especially when society sets up some people as experts in certain fields. But actually this only means they have a deeper knowledge of a given subject than the average person does. It does not mean they know everything there is to know about it and are therefore infallible.
Even the greatest minds can make mistakes. The cosmologist Stephen Hawking, for instance, once speculated that if the universe ever collapsed in on itself time would run backwards causing people to be “born” in the grave and “die” in the womb. He neglected to factor in entropy though which would overwhelm the relatively weak force of gravity and keep time moving “forward” even as the cosmos imploded. I cannot think of a better example of the dangers of argument from authority.
So whatever conclusion I arrive at it must be based on arguments and evidence I can verify myself. Therefore like the great French philosopher Rene Descartes I must begin with myself.
The phrase “I think therefore I am” is a self-referential observation that provides certain knowledge of my own conscious existence (though it says nothing about the nature of the “I”). But that observation can also be put in the form of a syllogism which is the formal expression of a logical statement:
I am a thinking being.
In order to think a being must exist.
Therefore I must exist.
This is the basis of all philosophy and everything I know about logic is derived from it; proper distribution of terms to avoid non-sequiturs, the copula which establishes the relationship between those terms, either positive or negative, by using a form of the words “is” or “is not”, and the fallacy of contradictions because how could I be aware of myself if I did not exist? In order to better understand it let’s look at it in generic form:
A is B major premise
B is C minor premise
A is C conclusion
Notice how the (middle) term “B” occurs in both the major and minor premises thus connecting the term “A” to the term “C” allowing for a conclusion. This connection must exist so if a statement does not conform to this or any other rule of logic it must be dismissed without exception. So with only these simple tools, for they are all I have, I begin my quest.
The central tenet of every definition of God that I know of is simply “an intelligence which for some reason has caused the world to exist” which is why there is something rather than nothing. So in my opinion any convincing argument for the existence of God would have to show that the universe could not exist for any other reason but God.
Before we can proceed however we must first establish what we mean by the word “something”. That is not as hard as it might seem. Everything observed has some property and all we know of them are those properties. So logically the only definition of “somethingness” that has any foundation is simply “that which has property”.
Now traditionally attempts to answer the question, “why is there something instead of nothing?” have failed because, if we assume our common materialistic notion of “nothingness” as a void that is absolutely “without property” is correct, “something from nothing” is a non sequitur. But is this definition correct?
According to the rules of logic as revealed above it seems to me there are only two ways we can legitimately derive definitions; induction (observation or experience guided by the scientific method), and deduction (the syllogism). Since we see “something” when we look around us we cannot experience “nothingness” so the only way we can define it is by deduction.
Now utilizing the methods allowed by the rules of logic we should be able to strip away all the permutations of existence simply by putting a form of the words “is not” (the negative form of the copula in the syllogism) in front of “being as a whole”. This ought to give us a definition of “no being” or “nothingness” as absolutely “without property”. But potential is a property and the world could not exist if it did not have the potential to. So how can “nothing” have potential?
First we must recognize the concept of absolute nothingness is not the same as the absence of something in the world. Absolute means just that. ABSOLUTE! No property. No potential. No exceptions. Therefore, since the world exists, logically “nothingness” is not absolute and thus must have at least one property. So perhaps the question should be rephrased as “what is it about nothingness that keeps it from being absolute?”
“Nothingness” is the only thing (and since it has property it is a thing) that can be thought of in completely negative terms except for the fact it is a concept that can be thought of. Nothingness is a concept. You're thinking about it right now!
So even when “being” is stripped of every other attribute we are still left with the idea of nothingness. This is because of what is known as the principle (or fallacy) of composition which says that even though it must still be logical a whole, or absolute in this case, may not be subject to the same restrictions as it's parts, or that which is not absolute.
To see why this is so consider the universe as a whole. The total amount of energy of the universe will, as far as we know, never change. However the energy levels of things in the universe can change. Heat from a flame can flow into a block of ice melting it. The ice gains energy and the flame loses it but the total amount of energy in the universe stays the same. So the universe as a whole is different from it's parts.
Likewise “nothingness” may be logically exempt from complete negation by the principle of composition because it is comprehensible. However it has no other property. But what does that mean?
Consider a scale with 1 ounce of gold in each pan. The scale would read 0 because the pans are balanced but there would still be 2 ounces of gold. So in this case 0 means “no difference” or “equilibrium” not “empty”.
Likewise what we call “nothingness” is not an empty void “without property” but is actually a neutral concept (which is something) permitting us to now define it as a concept in absolute equilibrium. All other definitions must, for the time being, be dismissed as unfounded and meaningless. So how can the world emerge from that?
Imagine a straight line that extends outward forever.
Such a one dimensional line is analogous to “nothingness” by this definition because “nothingness” has but one property- it is a concept in equilibrium (this technique is called the principle of equivalence and was used by Albert Einstein to equate gravity with acceleration when he formulated the theory of relativity).
Because it may bend in any number of ways there are an infinite number of waveforms that exist in potential in such a line.
Now if things happen simply because they can happen and they can happen because they don't result in contradiction then as long as the probability of an event does not equal zero (which is what happens when two identical but opposite waves try to emerge at the same time and cancel out) they may occur for no reason other than the fact there is nothing to prevent them from occurring. Therefore any of these waveforms may emerge spontaneously by themselves or in combination by simple addition.
By themselves the most basic waveforms (sine waves) have no meaning but, utilizing a technique developed by the French mathematician Jean Baptiste Fourier, we can see that merged with others they can create radically different patterns which not only match the same patterns we see in our world they are also analogous to the emergence of an infinite number of other universes each with different physics.
In other words in this model there is a spectrum of self organizing universes. And they don't just obey mathematical rules they are mathematics- manifest. Ours just happens to be one that is conducive to life explaining why it seems so finely tuned.
However all the evidence I have says that for a concept to exist there must be a mind to consider it and I have no evidence to the contrary. For example I can have 9 coins in one hand and 9 stones in the other but where is the number 9 apart from what I hold? I cannot point to anything in nature and say, “This is the number 9 by itself.” I can only think about it.
A materialist may reply that the number 9 must be expressed physically as stones or coins to exist but what is the “physical”? Albert Einstein proved that mass (matter) is just energy in particle form. Then the physicist Erwin Schrodinger discovered that energy could be manifested as a wave as well as a particle. And finally another scientist, Max Born, showed that waves are just the probability distribution of a possible event. Probability, in turn, is mathematical in nature and mathematics itself is nothing more than the rules that govern numbers which are concepts.
Others say the numbers themselves are merely the products of material processes in the brain we impose on the world. But one can not assert the brain and its processes are material in order to prove the brain and its processes are material as that is a circular argument. The brain is made of tissue composed of cells built from molecules of atoms that are particles of matter which is energy...
Even the evidence of science itself seems to me to cast doubt on materialism.
One of the consequences of the wave/particle nature of physics touched on above is Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Simply stated, this points out a fundamental mathematical law that says that an observer can never know both the position and the speed or frequency of a “particle/wave” at once. To know it's position energy must be at rest and in particle form and to know its speed it must be a wave. Since it can’t be both at rest and in motion at the same time, it creates uncertainty.
So depending on how it is observed energy can appear as either a particle or a wave. The experimenter determines which form it will take by the way she decides to measure it. If she sets up an experiment to detect particles that is what she’ll find. Likewise, if she wants to find waves she will see them. Not both at once.
The uncertainty principle has created a great many problems for physicists and philosophers alike. The consequences that arise from it deeply troubled many scholars when it was first set forth, Einstein among them. He, along with the scientists Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (tests based on their views are called EPR experiments after them) pointed out that if two particles are produced by the breakdown of a parent particle and one of the daughter particles is then sent off into space (at a speed well below that of light to avoid any relativistic effects) while the one that remains is examined (after it's partner arrives at it's destination of course) to determine it’s direction of spin, for example, it’s twin must instantly assume the opposite spin in order to keep from violating the law of conservation no matter how far apart they are!
Up until the wave function collapses all the properties associated with a particle, including its direction of spin, exist only in potential so that trait is also bound by chance and it could just as easily have spun the other way. But, by what mechanism does the other particle “know” to assume the spin opposite it’s counterpart?
The fastest means of transmitting information available is light but even it can only go so fast (about 186,000 miles per second) and nothing can make it go faster. It's easy to see why this must be so. Imagine yourself standing in the middle of the road looking at two automobiles approaching an intersection in which they collide. The first is traveling left to right at 50 miles per hour. The second is coming toward you at 100 miles per hour. If it behaved the same way as other things then the light from the car ahead of you should pick up another 100 mph while that which is emitted from the other vehicle would only gain a fraction of that. Therefore common sense says the light from the car going 100 mph should reach your eyes first when the vehicles crash because it is going faster. However if that was the case then you would observe that automobile enter the intersection first and collide with nothing! Then when the slower light reached your eyes you would see the car it came from enter and wrap itself around the damage the first one has already sustained. But that isn't what we see in such events. We see both cars enter the intersection and hit each other at the same time. And that is because light has a finite speed that cannot be increased by any means.
As fast as light is even it takes time to reach it's destination so what if an observer on another planet tests the above particle for direction of spin before the information can reach it? Is there a chance it could assume the same spin as its partner and violate the conservation laws?
If not and someone on Earth can “determine” the properties of a particle light years away she has never seen simply by measuring another one here, it would seem that the role of the observer in keeping the universe orderly is more important than previously thought. And the reported results of EPR experiments do seem to confirm that order is indeed maintained.
There are only two possibilities here; one the world requires an observer (idealism), and two, the world does not require an observer (materialism). A transcendent observer would have no problem seeing the cosmos in it's entirety and keep it orderly because if the world is basically concept It would perceive only logical connections. So “distance” wouldn't matter at all to It. In that case what we see as “time” and “space” would be an illusion arising from the way our brains view the universe.
That is not the case in materialism, however, because it assumes space/time is all there is which means it is constrained by the limitations of space/time. So in an effort to do away with the need for such an observer while avoiding the problem of super luminal information transference some materialists have advanced what is known as the “many worlds theory by decoherence”, a hypothesis which holds that in order to avoid uncertainty whenever there is an event with more than one possible outcome the entire universe actually splits like a wave in an interferometer to accommodate every single one. They reason that if all possible outcomes occur then it doesn't matter if they are seen or not.
However for it to work there must be a way by which a universe can tell what it's sister world is doing so it can do the opposite. The only mechanism I am aware of that has been put forth which can allow for the communication necessary for it to do that (possibly because there may be no alternative) is a shared history up to the point of differentiation where they “branch”.
If true considering the rapidity of nuclear interactions as well as the sheer number of them and the fact that there is more than a handful of probable outcomes for any event and all must occur separately, parallel universes of this type must be being created continuously at a rate that boggles the mind. Imagine tossing just one coin ten times. The first flip would produce two coins (heads in one world tails in the other), the second would create four since each of those would have two possible outcomes. The third throw makes eight, then sixteen, thirty two, sixty four and so on until by the tenth flip you have produced one thousand twenty four coins each in their own separate universe (ten more and you will create over a million)!
The problem here is obvious. It appears to violate the laws of conservation. However there is a very good philosophical reason to think this is not possible and it is simply this; if “new” energy can be created from nothing (in the materialistic sense) then shouldn't it be possible “old” energy could be destroyed at the same rate and keep the level of energy in the universe constant?
There is empirical evidence in support of conservation as well in the form of the big bang. But how do I, a layman with no access to the instruments of an astronomer, know the big bang happened?
A clue can be found in a problem called Olbers’ paradox (named for a 19th century German astronomer named Heinrich Olber), which is a direct consequence of Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity. It asks why, if all the stars in the cosmos are attracted to each other is the night sky black? If Newton was right, it says, and the world has always existed as it is now, the sky should be white!
This is because all the stars would collapse together due to their mutual gravitational attraction unless there was something pulling them back and holding them in place. The only force known that could do that would be gravity pulling in the opposite direction, which would mean that another star would have to be behind the first. But that star would require a gravity source on the other side of it, or it too would be pulled in and so on into infinity, for no matter how many stars there were, there would always have to be a balancing force on the other side, so wherever you look (since the stars are scattered in all directions), your line of sight would always lie on a path that led to the surface of a star, thus making the night sky white.
Now it could be argued that the further out a star is, the dimmer it appears, because the light from it spreads out spherically and dims at a rate equal to the cube of the distance so that we just don’t see them. However, the volume of space increases at the same rate the further out you go and that space could accommodate more stars (providing more light), which would be needed to maintain a static universe.
Or maybe there are vast clouds of obscuring dust blocking our view. But if that was true then wouldn’t they themselves start to glow white from an infinity of absorbing all that radiant heat?
The third possibility, that all the stars are lined up perfectly behind one another, is so unlikely as to be absurd. Besides as the Earth went around the sun our line of sight would change so we would be able to see if there was such a line behind some of the nearest stars.
So no matter what, it may be concluded that if the cosmos is static and unchanging, the sky should be filled with an infinite number of stars and appear white. Since the night sky is black, the universe must be finite, and if it is finite it cannot be static.
There are only two possibilities I can think of to explain a finite universe: one - all the stars are moving toward each other, which would imply that they all were created separately far apart from each other, which is unlikely; or two - all the stars are moving away from each other, which would mean that they were created together in the far ancient past. The big bang.
The big bang suggests the universe is finite and if it is finite there is a limited amount of matter and energy within it. And if there is a limited amount of matter and energy then the conservation laws must be true and thus obeyed which begs the question, “if the many worlds theory is correct how can an infinite number of universes be created out of a finite amount of energy?”
When a wave of a finite amount of energy propagates the total power in it initially stays the same but it spreads out over a greater distance, thinning and thus getting weaker at any particular place. If the ocean is wide enough even a tsunami will eventually become nothing more than a ripple unless more energy is supplied to it to maintain its strength and there is no evidence I am aware of that is happening anywhere in the universe.
Splitting a wave only accelerates the process in which case the cosmos would become so dilute so fast there would never be enough energy in any specific universe long enough to form the matter we see around us and the world as we know it could not exist.
Even if we succumbed to pure speculation and postulated an infinite reservoir of energy “out there” somewhere all the forces in the universe are finite so what here could possibly be strong enough to channel something of infinite strength and keep it from flooding this system and tearing the world apart?
There is just no evidence to contradict the conservation laws I know of. And since that seems to be necessary in order for the many worlds theory (which seems to be an inevitable consequence of the only alternative to idealism I know of) to work I have no reason to believe materialism is true.
However we have seen that doesn't mean there are no other universes only that there is no reason to believe they can come into being in this way. So it may be there are an infinite number of types of universes but not every variation of a type may be realized.
But if, as the evidence suggests, the world is basically concept and concepts must be observed what was observing it before intelligent life evolved? This “problem” is really no problem at all. Lines may curve in many ways. One is a circle.
Bending the line representing the “concept of absolute equilibrium” in on itself makes it self referential or self observing. That also makes It conscious because structurally It is identical to the self referential observation “I am”.
I call this foundational state the Prime Observer because It is literally observing Itself. The circle in this model is perfectly smooth and therefore in absolute equilibrium but contains within It an infinite number of potential worlds which may emerge spontaneously as an epiphenomenon or side effect. In other words It is the simplest possible structure but contains within It all the complexities that can ever be.
As it is a concept we can say “nothingness” is not “nothing”. That is a contradiction thus such a state cannot exist. Just saying “nonexistence exists” is absurd. But an unobserved concept is also paradoxical and therefore unstable. It must collapse into a state that is stable but in order to do that it must have something in common with that state. Since the only property that which we commonly call “nothingness” has is that of a concept it can only be reduced to something else that is also a concept to avoid a non sequitur. All it has to do to accomplish that is bend back on itself. Nothing more. And as it only has one property the model also solves the “who created the creator” problem because logically it can't be reduced any further.
This model makes logical sense but that doesn't mean it's true. The best we can do is ask, “does it match what we see in the world?” The answer, in my opinion, is yes.
The first evidence of the dual nature of matter touched on earlier was discovered in 1801 when a medical doctor named Thomas Young built a device called an interferometer and sent a beam of light through it. Until that time it was thought light was composed of only particles because Isaac Newton showed light “rays” seem to travel in straight lines since they leave sharp distinct shadows when they strike an object whereas waves can bend around things such as boats in the water making a “fuzzy” shadow.
The instrument Young built is very simple. An interferometer is just a box with a pin hole at the exact center of the front end to admit light, a panel with two off center slits in it which divides the front of the interior from the back, and a photographic screen at the rear. If light really is made of particles they should travel in straight lines and either strike the panel between the slits so they could not be observed on the screen or, if they had just the right trajectory, pass through the slits and show up on the screen as a concentration of dots right behind the openings and no where else. But if light is a wave it should spread out like a ripple and strike the entire center panel. The slits in the divider would then act as new points of origin for that part of the light that happened to fall there. As they passed through they would, again, spread out like ripples but as there are now two of them they would interfere with each other. That is when a trough of a wave met another trough (or a crest met a crest) they would reinforce each other. However when a trough met a crest they would cancel out. Together these would appear as smooth and unbroken light and dark bands on the screen. And that is exactly what Thomas Young saw proving light was a wave. The same effect can sometimes be seen on bright sunny days as concentric rings on window screens because the space between the wires act as slits when sunlight passes through them.
About a century later though Einstein revived the particle theory of light in order to explain a phenomenon known as the photo electric effect. It had been observed that an electric current could be produced by shining a light of a specific wave length on certain metals. But other frequencies would have no effect no matter how intense the illumination. For instance a very bright red light was unable to cause an electric current but a very dim blue one could.
Einstein theorized that the current was initiated by the light kicking out electrons from the metal itself. Because the electrons were bound to the atom so tightly however it would take a great deal of energy to dislodge them. But if light was a wave it would spread the energy out too thin. The only way it would work is if the energy of the light was concentrated in a particle. That was why a bright red light could not create a current but a dim blue one could. Even though they are more numerous because it is brighter the individual particles of red light are just not energetic enough to overcome the force binding the electron to the atom. But the individual particles of blue light are much more energetic and thus can knock the electrons out and make an electric current. If you have ever left a fork or other metal object in a microwave you may have seen the effect for yourself as sparks.
So energy can take the form of a particle or a wave depending on how it is observed.
But what happens if the light source for the interferometer Young built is calibrated so that only enough energy is produced to create just one photon at a time and they are sent through individually? Common sense says they should produce a particle distribution pattern behind each slot. And that is what is seen when only one slit at a time is open like that shown below.
However if both slits are open instead of just two isolated groupings behind each one as you might expect the individual photons will build up a speckled wave pattern across the entire screen. That is the result is a combination of both wave and particle distribution patterns.
From a materialistic point of view this makes no sense at all because it requires a lone particle go through two slits at the same time and interfere with itself. But such a result is not only perfectly understandable and compatible with the model presented here it is predicted by it because this model says there is no “particle” going through the device. Only mathematical waves of chance (that can interfere with each other just like any other kind of wave) which collapse as “particles” somewhere in the area allowed by their probability curves when they hit the screen. And according to all the evidence I have mathematics appears to require an observer. Remember the number 9?
But as compelling as all this is to me the main reason I reject materialism is that it seems to be anti-reason because it violates the rules of logic by which I am bound. Materialism holds that all property is physical. Therefore there can be no non-physical properties. However if that is the case then nothingness (which is the total absence of all physical property) must be absolute. But if that's true we wouldn't be here to ponder the question because that means “something from nothing” in materialism is a non-sequitur. That doesn't mean materialists haven't made the attempt to connect being and nothingness, though. They have.
The arguments vary a little but they all basically go like this: The universe is an energy field that curves. The amount of curvature determines how much energy is in it. It may have a great deal of curvature locally but if the energy invested in the outward expansion of the universe caused by the big bang is exactly balanced by the force of gravity trying to pull it all back in then they will cancel out and the overall curvature of the universe would be zero and there would be no net energy to the universe as a whole. And since matter is just a form of energy it too would be equivalent to zero or nothing.
The reason why this argument fails is because proponents of it are confusing (intentionally or not) zero meaning “no difference” with zero meaning “nothing” in the materialistic sense. But if there are no nonphysical properties zero in this case means “nothing” defined as “absolutely without property”. So if the world is basically material it could never emerge from nothingness as they have absolutely no connection at all. This is because 0/2=0. In other words half of nothing is still nothing.
But it does more than fail. It actually suggests that no materialistic explanation for existence can ever be found. This is because complexity arises from simplicity not the other way around. And this does seem to be the simplest possible description of the universe. Half of it is positive and goes one way and the other half is negative and goes the opposite way. It cannot be made any simpler so if a logical materialistic reason for being cannot be arrived at here it probably doesn't exist.
So the advocates of materialism are reduced to trying to equate an explanation for existence with time when they say “if the universe has always existed it doesn't require explanation” But there is no reason to think that is true. The argument I make here also holds that the Prime Observer is eternal similar to the way a number is eternal in that It's fundamental nature never changes. But that conclusion is based on fundamental principles that can explain themselves. Not an endless chain of cause and effect that can't.
There is a story entitled the “Tower of Turtles” illustrating the problem with this type of reasoning. There are different versions of the tale but basically it goes like this:
A physicist is giving a public lecture about the structure of the universe as described by science when an elderly lady in the audience raises her hand.
“Yes?” he says, rather annoyed at the interruption.
“Sir you have it all wrong. I know how the world really is!”
“Please enlighten us madam.”
“The universe sits on the back of an elephant which is riding on the back of a turtle.” She informs him.
“But what, pray tell, is the turtle riding on madam?” the physicist asks condescendingly.
“Ah! You can’t fool me sir! Its turtles all the way down!”
This amusing little story makes a serious point. Simply pushing things back into infinity doesn't explain anything. So if materialism is logical it must be able to answer the question, “why is there a 'Tower of Turtles' at all?”
Thus materialism is forced into an unexplainable infinite regression (which is essentially the same as the “who created the creator” problem) by claiming (counter to the evidence of the big bang that the universe is finite in material “time”) that the cosmos has always existed or it is derived from something else that is basically material and has always existed without explanation (for example even the best current theory for the origin of the universe, the lambda cold dark matter model which except for the fact it doesn't “close the circle” appears almost identical to the Deistic model presented here, must assume an unexplained pre-existing “quantum foam”).
But if the cosmos is intrinsically unexplainable then it would be fundamentally mystical and we would not have any reason to think any logic based system of inquiry could explain anything because even though it asserts the cosmos has always existed it can't explain why the cosmos has always existed. And that directly contradicts the ability of science to not only describe but predict phenomena. A feat that would seem unlikely if the world were not basically logical because reason from mysticism is a non sequitur. Therefore if, as all the evidence of science suggests, the world is logical it must have a logical reason for being.
Thus I have no reason to think materialism is true because not only does it seem to result in contradiction (how can an infinite number of universes be created out of a finite amount of energy?), it doesn't appear to match what we see in the world (remember the double slit experiment?), and it can't even explain itself (0/2=0) which forces it into an intrinsically unexplainable infinite regression (that, being essentially mystical, would open the door to all kinds of religious arguments). Any other theory with problems like these would have been dismissed long, long ago. Therefore I have no choice but to dismiss it myself and accept the only alternative available to me which is Deism as defined by the model presented above.
However there are two questions remaining that must be answered; is this model compatible with the definition of God and is it scientific?
First is this model compatible with the definition of God? To answer this question we must understand how the concept of God first arose.
People are pattern seeking animals. The recognition of pattern is one of the most basic characteristics of consciousness. Psychologists have determined that our sense of beauty arises from the appreciation of form and symmetry. Rhythm in music, rhyme in poetry, form in sculpture, all instill in us a sort of awe, sometimes to the point of being almost hypnotic. Even the most abstract paintings display subtle patterns that can induce the same feelings we sometimes experience when looking at a particularly beautiful sunset or mountain vista.
The association of order with intelligence and the recognition of order in the world would, it seems to me, naturally lead early men and women to conclude that a supreme mind, similar to their own, created the universe. Therefore that is the only definition of God that is logically necessary. It is an awareness upon which the cosmos is contingent. Nothing more. Attributes such as omnipotence and omniscience were probably just added on to this core definition later by early thinkers with no knowledge of natural law. And those who still insist on them are really doing nothing less than creating strawman arguments simply to “win” debates.
And those characteristics apparently weren't really part of most ancient conceptions of God anyway. For example in Greek mythology Cronus created the world but was then overthrown by Zeus. A feat that would not have been possible if Cronus were omnipotent. So even though the definition of God arrived at here is not “traditional” it is legitimate.
Lastly is this form of Deism scientific? Again yes, I believe it is because it meets all the requirements of the scientific method which are:
*Ask a question (why is there something rather than nothing?)
* Do background research (philosophy, mathematics, logic,and physics are all represented)
* Construct a hypothesis (the model presented above)
* Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment (the double slit experiment)
* Analyze your data and draw a conclusion (the results of the double slit experiment match predictions made by the model)
* Communicate your results (this essay)
Thus may we construct a model, derived from logic itself, providing us with a possible answer to our original question, “why is there something instead of nothing?” But though it is not a proof when contrasted with the apparent contradictions, which must be dismissed, arising from the only alternative (atheistic materialism) I know of it seems, to me at least, the only reasonable conclusion. But it's consequences are clear. God exists. However It is the God of Deism not Theism and there is no purpose other than that which we choose to make for ourselves.