BothAndBlog Forum

A Deist Creation Myth
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ation-myth

I have previously discussed the plausibility of a creator god in the post "A Functional Deism". I realized sometime later that if I just assume that my speculation is correct, then I can write a creation myth similar to past creation myths. This is useful from a psychological perspective, because the values of a culture are embedded in their stories and myths. So, in writing this, I am creating my own religion.

Before the beginning, there was God. Nothing was before God, and neither does God depend on anything else. It is difficult to say much about God, because he is before logic and before matter. God has no body, and he exists neither in time nor space. Yet in God, in the abstract, exists all else that could be. — Brendan Golledge

I don't view Deism*1 as a religion, but simply a philosophical worldview that attempts to explain the contingent existence of our physical world, and its intelligent creatures, without resorting to magical thinking, or by putting words in the mouth of an anthropomorphic fascist-father-figure in the sky.

Several years ago, I thought about writing a Deist Creation Myth that is consistent with modern science. But, unlike Spinoza in the 17th century, I couldn't just assume that our world (Natura sive Deus) is self-existent, because we now have evidence for a "big bang" beginning of space-time & matter-energy. And, since the bang did not instantly fizzle out like fireworks, I had to account for the Cause & Laws that reveal themselves in progressive Evolution, over far more than 6000 years. But I also could not give any credence to the pre-scientific scriptural myths of Judeo-Christian religions. So, my myth had to include a plausible First Cause & Law-Giver, that didn't resort to miracles to fix human problems. I guess you can see that it would have to be a provisional Deist myth instead of an absolute Theist Faith.

My approach is somewhat different than yours, in part because I can't imagine what an eternal-infinite "God" might do or think. As you said, "It is difficult to say much about God, because he is before logic and before matter. God has no body, and he exists neither in time nor space". So, the story only gives a cursory background, and focuses on the conditions related to the "birth" of our world. The rest. as they say, is history. However, since Intelligent beings, such as the posters on this forum, have emerged from eons of Cosmic evolution, I must assume that the anonymous First Cause must also be Intelligent & Intentional, instead of an infinite chain of rambling stumbling Chaotic un-aimed accidents.

In the essay linked below*2, I coined some new terminology, such as In-Form-Action, because our current language has no way to express the novel notion of Energy as a Causal program. In my blog, I now spell it EnFormAction. My neologisms, and other unorthodox terminology, are defined in the Blog Glossary*3. Do you see any commonality or overlap between your myth and mine?


*1. Deism :
An Enlightenment era response to the Roman Catholic version of Theism, in which the supernatural deity interacts and intervenes with humans via visions & miracles, and rules his people through a human dictator. Deists rejected most of the supernatural stuff, but retained an essential role for a First Cause creator, who must be respected as the quintessence of our world, but not worshipped like an imperial tyrant. The point of Deism is not to seek salvation, but merely understanding.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

*2. Intelligent Evolution :
A 21st Century Creation Myth
https://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essa ... 120106.pdf
Note --- Yes, the essay agrees with Intelligent Design theory, except in the designation of the designer.

*3. BothAnd Blog Glossary :
Since they are based on an unconventional worldview, many traditional terms are used in unusual contexts, and some new terminology has been coined in order to convey their inter-connected meanings as clearly as possible.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page2.html

"Before the beginning" is not actually an arbitrary phrase. The matter we are familiar with only acts after it's first acted upon. So, it follows that if there was a first cause, it can't be anything at all like the matter we are familiar with. . . . . math might still have been true before the Big Bang. — Brendan Golledge

↪180 Proof's trite comparison of a metaphysical a priori concept, Original Cause, with our physical experience of the arbitrary designation of a navigational North Pole on a spherical planet, is completely missing the philosophical principle of how to explain the scientific Big Bang beginning of our space-time universe. The "true" North Pole is a human construct (idea), not a physical place, and the magnetic pole wanders*1. The Cause of our Cosmos is neither a place nor a time.

As you implied, alternatives to the god-postulate --- such as the Multiverse conjectures --- simply assume that the "before" was not a timeless First Cause principle, but a chain of mundane material causation without beginning or end. Yet I agree with you that our material world is a morphological effect --- something from Singularity --- and the Prime Mover must be more like a determining action (cosmic bang). Both Mathematics and Energy are defined in terms of logical & causal relationships*2*3. So I can agree that whatever caused the Big Bang must be more like logical Math & causal Energy than mundane malleable Matter. I call it EnFormAction : the power to cause form change.

*1. "True north" refers to the geographic North Pole, a fixed point on Earth's axis of rotation, while "magnetic north" is the direction a compass needle points to, which is influenced by the Earth's magnetic field and constantly shifts, meaning it is not a fixed point. ___Google AI overview

*2. Math is built on a foundation of logic, with each theorem, proof, and equation derived from logical rules. ___Google AI overview

*3. Yes, in the context of physics and science, "energy is logical" because it follows consistent and predictable laws, ___Google AI overview

. . . disagree with the analogy of creation being like an egg or a fetus. Based on what I discussed immediately above, we have good reason to think that a creator god must be utterly unlike anything that we've ever experienced. — Brendan Golledge

The analogy of the Big Bang with an Egg or Fetus is a metaphor, not to be taken literally. Yet, I can't agree that the Creator "must be utterly unlike" anything in the Creation. I suppose your God-model is imagined as an immaterial Spirit. But I think the Creation must have something in common with the Creator, in order for us philosophers to even imagine what it's like. The word "like" implies a comparison.

The traditional notion of Spirit is more mind-like & energy-like than matter-like*4. My thesis observes that invisible relational causal Energy is more mind-like than anything else in the non-human world, and Creation is an Action. Therefore, I coined the term EnFormAction to combine Platonic (ideal) Form with Aristotelian (physical) Causation : Form + Action.

*4. Mind :
In the Enformationism thesis, this common term is used in some uncommon senses. Ordinarily, Mind is equated with Consciousness, but I sometimes use it in a more general sense to include all kinds of information & energy processing.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page15.html

the deist creator god fits together more nicely with mathematics than the pandeist god. — Brendan Golledge

I agree that the pre-space-time Creator of the Cosmos should be more like timeless Logical Mathematics (ratios ; relationships) than like the time-bound entropy-destined material aspects of the world. But if the timeless Creator necessarily existed eternally prior to the creation event we call Big Bang, then it would not be identical to the space-time Creation (Pandeism)*5. Instead, the temporary Effect would exist as a momentary blip within the eternal existence of the Cause. That god-model is known as PanEnDeism*6*7.

*5. A number of Christian writers have examined the concept of pandeism (a belief that God created and then became the universe and ceased to exist as a separate entity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_pandeism

*6. There is something called PanEnDeism which perceives God or the Divine as being part of nature and somehow beyond the universe.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/panendeism

*7. PanEnDeism :
# Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
https://panendeism.org/faq-and-questions/
# Note : PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as supernatural creator rather than the emergent soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

I briefly discussed in one of my earlier replies that I can't imagine a difference between an unconscious creator god and the laws of physics. — Brendan Golledge

↪180 Proof arbitrarily & "parsimoniously" limits his god-model to the immanent knowable things of Spinoza's space-time Natural world. But in order to accept that 17th century paradigm, he would have to ignore or deny the evidence of a point-of-beginning for Space-Time. Your god-model, and mine, are more like a meta-physical Idea than a physical Thing. But which is simpler : the Chicken or the Egg ; the Cause or the Effect? Some imagine that God must be infinitely complex, but that's a materialistic notion, not a philosophical principle. If the Creation has evolved sentient creatures, then the pre-conscious Creator of natural laws must have the Potential for Consciousness (ability to know), even though objectless thought might not be identical to our Actual experience of the material world.

So, in writing this, I am creating my own religion. — Brendan Golledge

Do you view yourself as the founder of a religious movement, as opposed to merely the author of a novel religious worldview/manifesto? Due in part to the confusing plethora of other religions, and in some cases, direct resistance to the competition, starting a new religion ain't easy.

Years ago --- after the worldwide shock of 9/11/2001 --- I tentatively joined a local college student "club", that was originally called The Deus Project, and led by a pre-med student, who later became a doctor. Within a couple of years, the "club" became a website, and the name was changed to The Universist Movement. Due to its broadened appeal, it eventually attracted a variety of people who could be identified as "spiritual but not religious", yet even included some Atheists and Agnostics. Online members were located all around the world, but mostly in English speaking countries. In the Manifesto written by the student leader, it said "The Deus Project began by addressing Deism with the mission to make it into a 'religion of the future'. We wanted to fix what was wrong with Deism, and make it a satisfying replacement for faith, by determining why it failed. Our conclusion was that the opposite of faith, uncertainty, is the only satisfying antidote."

Unfortunately, as an online religion, I suspect that it never became as popular as Satanism. And due to internal philosophical divisions --- atheist vs agnostic ; materialist vs spiritualist ; etc --- the movement fizzled away into a footnote on failed religious movements.


↪180 Proof
I'm used to thinking of God as being holy. So, if the universe is God, then it would follow that the universe is holy. — Brendan Golledge

Holiness and Sacredness are expansions on the ancient notion of Taboo, in which certain things (foods, weapons, etc,) were reserved exclusively for a hierarchy of gods & kings & nobles. Another aspect of Taboo was that certain proscribed things --- such a woman's menstruation --- were disgusting & repellent. I mention this because Holiness and Taboo are faith-based non-democratic notions, which eventually lead to a hierarchical priesthood, and a pantheon of saints. Do you envision your "religion" in such terms? Would it involve worship of the universe, or sacred trees?

Holy : dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred.
___Oxford dictionary

Taboo : The English term taboo comes from tapu in Oceanic languages, particularly Polynesian languages, with such meanings as "prohibited" or "forbidden".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taboo

↪Brendan Golledge
We wanted to fix what was wrong with Deism, ... by determining why it failed. — Gnomon
Afaik, deism is just 'the god of theism' on its day off (or on vacation), and so, if the latter is a fiction (e.g. ontologically separate – "transcendent" – from existence aka "nonexistent"), then the former must also be fictional. [/quote]

Brendan, is this how you view Deism : as a continuation of Theism without the bad parts (e.g. possibility of eternity in Hell)? If so, then ↪180 Proof may be justified in ridiculing it as a Pollyanna "fiction", based on non-empirical (transcendent) presumptions.

However, the alternative explanations for human existence (e.g. Multiverse) are also transcendent & non-empirical. Also, Spinoza's theory of immanent PanDeism or PanPsychism begs the Ontological question of our contingent temporal existence, when faced with empirical evidence for an inexplicable space-time beginning : a creation event. But, if you postulate an eternal Creator to play the role of First Cause, then, sans divine revelation, you are left with no further information upon which to build your philosophical god-model.

Which is why I make no assumptions about a Transcendent existence, apart from its logical necessity. For example, I have no good explanation for Why an eternal deity would create a temporal world, and then "take a day off". Or why an immanent deity would suddenly & inexplicably self-create in a burst of energy & laws. I simply imagine the Big Bang as the execution of a computer program, and Evolution as its ongoing implementation. Ironically, our world is a program with sentient beings, who question where they came from and where they are going*1. With only empirical information to go on, we can only theorize & speculate about both ends of the time-cycle of physical existence. And that's what philosophers do, in order to intuit the Purpose behind the Program (if any).


*1. Setting aside such questions as why a loving god would choose to "create intelligent life through such a horrific process as natural selection". Philip Goff, in Philosophy Now Dec-Jan

According to cosmological arguments, a first cause is one of the options for explaining existence, which implies something like a creator god. So, this part is at least plausible. Alternatives are an infinite regression of causes, or circular causality. — Brendan Golledge


I suppose you are contrasting an eternal transcendent Creator God with various versions of immanent or more-of-the-same-forever-and-ever-amen (linear-or-circular) physical explanations for Causation. All transcendent options are hypothetical & unprovable, hence philosophical & non-scientific. Therefore, ↪180 Proof says it makes more sense to him, to simply "substitute existence (laws of nature) . . . . for God". His preferred god-model is based on Spinoza's deus sive natura, which is similar to Deism, except no accounting for a contingent & temporary world. Transcendent Deism is one answer to "who lit the fire" questions.

Some form of divinity seems to be the original philosophy of inquisitive primitive humans, who imagined what we now call "laws of nature" as-if they were the arbitrary (whimsical) behavior of invisible humanoid beings in the sky : i.e. Nature Gods. As people became more civilized (e.g. Mesopotamia) they began to include in their pantheon of gods some abstracted functions of nature (e.g. Damu = healing & rebirth). Over time, the Hebrews developed an even more extremely spiritualized notion of their tribal god (who, by taboo, cannot be named). Eventually, the Jews abstracted their storm-&-war-god even further to a non-local, singular, eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent ruler of the whole world. This was still a sort of cosmic Nature God, except that it favored one tribe of humans over all others.

The notion of a partisan deity was always common, but unsurprisingly, for "stiff-necked" Jews, it triggered some enmity with the neighboring Gentiles. And the Christian version of Judaism exacerbated that religious hostility by emphasizing the necessity for voluntary Faith over accidental inheritance, with catastrophic consequences for disbelief. That may be one reason for the emergence of a less eternally-fatal alternative in cosmopolitan but non-soteriological Deism*1.

By contrast with the personalized primitive pantheons of Mesopotamia, and the inscrutable & un-nameable & timeless & spaceless Yahweh of Israel, in Hellenic Greece Plato & Aristotle advocated some further-abstracted mathematical & scientific concepts, such as First Cause and Prime Mover. You could even describe them as the (intentional or unintentional?) creators or causes or instantiators of what we now call "Natural Laws".

Yet, in view of the modern Big Bang beginning of space-time and cause-laws, the question remains : what were Cause & Laws doing before the Bang? Any postulated answers to such questions are, as you said, "working off speculation". So, is there any good reason to prefer extending what we now know into eternity, and an intentional entity, over attributing the Cause & Laws of our world to mere happenstance : it is what it is, for no particular reason?

As you mentioned before, your Deist worldview is intended to provide some foundation, or standard, for a stable universal Morality in a world of conflicting motives and opinions. But, without a valid revelation from the Lawmaker, how can we know what we humans ought to do? Most Deists would say to consult the Book of Nature (science), but moral interpretations tend to vary widely (e.g. homosexuality : natural or perversion?).

Also, as you said, "it is the people who believed in a creator god who came up with the scientific method". And the early Deists did indeed accept the world itself, as revealed by science, for the embodied intention (design) of G*D*2. Ironically, the natural world has been described as "red in tooth & claw" and its laws of Evolution (i.e. Natural Selection) denounced as resulting in suffering & death of apperceptive beings. Therefore, sentient suffering must be accounted for in order to answer Theodicy*3 questions. Does G*D care that I, or a worm, must suffer the slings & arrows of outrageous fortune?

Can we then supplement the objective facts of Science, with the subjective reasoning of Philosophy? Would you call that a Deist "religion", or simply a "natural philosophy"? Would an immanent Deity (the evolving Cosmos) suffice for your Deist morality, without speculating beyond the beginning of the space-time world for a super-natural higher authority?


PS___ My hypothetical transcendent deity (programmer) is imagined as amoral regarding how humans deal with each other. The ultimate design is for an evolving Cosmos, of which we humans are merely a willful cog of the system. Presumably, developing a workable morality is an essential part of the Game of Life in a real (not ideal) world.


*1. Deists have had different beliefs about rebirth, with some believing in reincarnation or resurrection.
___Google AI overview

*2. In Deism, the "word of God" is essentially understood as the natural world itself, meaning that God's existence and will are revealed through the observable laws and order of nature, rather than through any specific religious texts or pronouncements; essentially, God created the universe and set it in motion with natural laws, and that is how we can understand His design.
___Google AI overview

*3. In philosophy, the justification for a good God allowing evil to exist, often called a "theodicy" is typically based on the idea that permitting some evil is necessary to enable greater good, such as human free will, moral development, or the potential for deeper appreciation of good, even if it means suffering can occur; essentially arguing that a world with free choice, even if it leads to evil, is better than a world without it where everyone is always good by default.
___Google AI overview

PPS___ Regarding religion and science, here's a quote from a Sherlock Holmes story :
" What a lovely thing a rose is. There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion. It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner. Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers".
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0506452/quotes/

As I have said before, I believe my psychological motive for creating this system was that I wanted to be able to see the good in situations where things were not going my way. — Brendan Golledge

Rabbi Kushner wrote a book on that same subject : When Bad Things Happen to Good People*1. Generally, it advises us to look at the Big Picture --- when we personally experience the badness of life --- in order to see that the world as a whole is evolving as intended by the Creator, and that your personal problems are minor in the overall context. Would a theoretical theodicy make you feel better about your own suffering?

*1. When Bad Things Happen to Good People is a 1981 book by Harold Kushner, a Conservative rabbi. Kushner addresses in the book one of the principal problems of theodicy, the conundrum of why, if the universe was created and is governed by a God who is of a good and loving nature, there is nonetheless so much suffering and pain in it. ___Wikipedia

I am not aware that deism ever "failed" in the intellectual sense. Has anyone ever proven that it's impossible? It is merely not popular. I think the reason is probably that most people would rather believe in a god who is interested in their personal happiness. — Brendan Golledge

Yes, you hit the nail on the head. When the Deus Project manifesto said it wanted to "fix what's wrong" with Deism, it wasn't casting aspersions on the deity. And it didn't imply that Deism "failed" as a philosophical worldview. It was simply noting that Deism had its "intellectual" heyday in the 18th century, but failed to appeal to the general public as an emotional "opiate"*2, hence failed to qualify as a popular religion.

Personally, I'm not interested in a popular religion that panders to the emotions (dreams & fears) of the average human. Catholicism hit the jackpot 2000 years ago, and is still fulfilling the religious needs of millions of people : rituals & traditions to take the mind off the bad things, and myths to give them something better to look forward to. Do you think your Creation Myth has the "right stuff" to appeal to the six basic emotions*3 of homo sapiens? :sad: :gasp: :halo: :worry:

*2. "Opium of the masses” is a phrase that refers to religion and is derived from a quote by Karl Marx. The phrase is often used to describe religion as a way to soothe the suffering in society and the universe.
___Google AI overview

*3. The Six Basic Emotions :
A widely accepted theory of basic emotions and their expressions, developed Paul Ekman, suggests we have six basic emotions. They include sadness, happiness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust.
https://online.uwa.edu/infographics/basic-emotions/

PS___ I don't view the Deity (Programmer of Evolution) as "good and loving", but merely Logical and Causal. So, our best strategy for coping with the ups & downs of life, is to use our rational faculties to align our behavior with the laws of reality. Even ↪180 Proofmight agree with that, as a philosophical policy, not a religious belief.

I think the cosmological argument provides a very good proof that SOMETHING exists outside the realm of human understanding. — Brendan Golledge

The 13th century Cosmological Argument, making a distinction between Necessity and Contingency, was scientifically supported by the Big Bang theory. On the space-time side of the Bang everything real is temporary and dependent on prior causes. But on the infinite-eternal side of the equation, we can reasonably infer that only timeless/ideal essentials, fundamentals, and necessities existed : including Causal Power (energy) and Controlling Power (laws). The only viable alternative to a deistic First Cause is the materialistic Multiverse Theory, which is just as un-falsifiable as the God Theory, and must assume, without explanation, that the Potential for Mind/Consciousness predated the Bang.

Spinoza's 17th century Cosmological Argument*1 generally agreed with Aquinas' 13th century Natural Theology, but added the notion of Substance Monism. That "substance" was not mundane Matter, but Aristotle's "essence", which I update to the 21st century as Information/Energy (EnFormAction)*3 : the power to enform or to transform. What we now call "energy" is invisible and unknowable, except by its after-effects*2. And the ultimate pre-bang source of cosmic Energy/Law*3 may be "outside the realm of human understanding", but its instantiation in the real world is the basis of modern Science.


*1. Baruch Spinoza's cosmological argument for the existence of God is based on the idea that there must be a necessary being that all other beings depend on. . . . .
Spinoza's argument is based on his concept of substance monism, which is the idea that there is only one infinite substance, which is either God or Nature. Spinoza believed that God is the cause of everything, and that the universe is a mode of God. He also believed that thought and extension are attributes of God, and that the human mind and body are perfectly correlated.
___Google AI overview

*2. Yes, energy itself is invisible to the human eye; you cannot directly see energy, but you can observe its effects, like movement, heat, or light, which are manifestations of energy in different forms.
___Google AI overview

*3. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html


if he contains an infinity of abstract potential, — Brendan Golledge

Astronomers like to assume that the space-time universe may be infinite-eternal, but the observable evidence indicates that our knowable Cosmos*4, is finite . So, we have no way of knowing what exists on the outside of the manifest horizon of our contingent world. Nevertheless, the Big Bang couldn't have happened without a priori creative Potential, including Cause & Laws.

So I think your guess may be right, that the Creator/Programmer consists of unlimited potential. And, from the perspective of contingent & sentient beings, that absolute Power could have good or bad effects on contingent entities capable of suffering & dying. Yet, “infinite abstract Potential” could not be characterized as either Good or Evil. Such notions only apply in the sentiments of creatures who evolved with life-protecting senses capable of detecting positive & negative influences on their well-being.

Therefore, as you suggested, the First Cause may be like logical Mathematics, including the possibility of infinity, but also of innumerable instances of finitude. Our finite world cannot exist outside the scope of infinity. Therefore, I think of the God/World relationship in terms of PanEnDeism (all within god). In my thesis the common god/world substance is the creative potential for enforming : Energy/Information.

*4. In astronomy, the cosmic horizon is the boundary of the observable universe, similar to the horizon at sea. The cosmic horizon is a sphere that's 46.5 billion light years away from Earth.
___Google AI overview


So, I think it's fair to say that the existence of entropy implies that the universe in its current form had a beginning. — Brendan Golledge

Yes! The Big Bang theory implies that space-time began with high Energy/Law (low entropy)*5 and will eventually fade away to the high Entropy of Heat Death. But in the meantime, our world has evolved from formless Plasma to all the "endless forms most beautiful" that Darwin marveled about*6. Scientists have explained that mystery by postulating some constructive "force" that works in opposition to destructive Entropy. But their inappropriate name for that positive trend in evolution sounds negative*7. So, in my thesis, I coined a new term*8 that I think is more descriptive of an upward evolutionary trend.

*5. The cosmic initial entropy problem (IEP) is the conflict between two views on the entropy of the universe. The past hypothesis states that the entropy of the universe has been increasing, while the standard model of cosmology states that the universe began with low entropy and then increased.
___Google AI overview

*6. Charles Darwin's quote about beauty from On the Origin of Species is, "from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved".
___Google AI overview

*7. Negentropy is a concept that describes a system becoming more organized or less disordered, and is the opposite of entropy:
___Google AI overview

*8. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
# I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
# Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
# "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be super-natural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- Enformy is more like an initial programming algorithm than occasional divine meddling.

So, homosexuality in this mindset is not terribly interesting, because it is not useful for the continued existence of the species. I suppose it is interesting to investigate how it is possible that such an evolutionarily unadaptive trait can continue to exist. — Brendan Golledge

Homosexuality is "interesting" to me, mainly because it is so politically divisive in society. Most human cultures have considered same-sex relations to be a perversion of nature, and of divine intent. Which leads to your question : "how is it possible", given the seeming necessity for male-female intercourse to produce a viable fetus, thereby reproducing the species? Parthenogenesis --- virgin birth --- is another seemingly impossible means of reproduction ; but it happens.

According to Darwin's theory, physical --- and presumably psychological --- traits are inherited through the combination of male and female genes. Ironically, same-sex relations are observed in almost all human societies, and in many animal communities. So sexuality may be simply a statistical range with opposite-sex as the most common (average) combination. Scientists have found some evidence for a genetic allele*1 that may be connected to homosexuality, but it's still mostly a mystery.

Yet, for humans, it could also be simply a "free-will" choice. Although, in my personal experience, I don't remember being presented with a voluntary option for sexual attraction. That's why sex has been called "doing what comes naturally". If I had to choose though, I'd go along with the French phrase : "vive la difference!".

However, for the purposes of this thread, the question may arise : did G*D --- or Darwin --- make a mistake? Or is the emergence of multiple genders*2 simply a result of the statistical probability for non-dual combinations? From a Deist perspective --- with no scriptural condemnations of perversions --- I'm inclined to go with the mathematical explanation.


*1. The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality :
The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

*2. How many genders :
There is no fixed number of genders, and the possibilities are infinite. Gender is a person's internal sense of identity, and it can be complex and ever-changing. Some people may feel most comfortable with a specific point on the gender spectrum, but this can change over time.
___Google AI overview

↪Brendan Golledge
Since I no longer correspond with 180proof, due to his acrimonious trolling replies to philosophical postulations, I'll provide some alternative statements by experts in the relevant fields, for your consideration. He believes his eyes (material world), and ridicules philosophical & scientific conjectures (rational inference) beyond the Cosmic Horizon.

Postulation : a suggestion or assumption of the existence, fact, or truth of something as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief. ___Oxford dictionary

The 13th century Cosmological Argument, making a distinction between Necessity and Contingency, was scientifically supported by the Big Bang theory. — Gnomon
False. — 180 Proof

As usual, ↪180 Proof makes terse & emphatic true/false statements of Belief, with no supporting evidence. Here's some of the scientific/philosophical underwriting for the concurrence of the Cosmological Argument and the Big Bang theory. Which sounds more likely to be "false" : eternal "current state" Entropy (matter) or eternal "prior state" Potential (math)?

Cosmology with a Bang
The cosmological argument, in relation to the Big Bang theory, suggests that since the Big Bang indicates the universe had a beginning and therefore a cause, this points towards the existence of a "First Cause" or creator, often interpreted as God, which is a key tenet of the cosmological argument in philosophy of religion
___Google AI overview

Cosmological Big Bang Beginning
This unique singularity constitutes the beginning of the universe—of matter, energy, space, time, and all physical laws. It is not that the universe arose out of some prior state, for there was no prior state. Since time too comes to be, one cannot ask what happened before the initial event. Neither should one think that the universe expanded from some state of infinite density into space; space too came to be in that event. Since the Big Bang initiates the very laws of physics, one cannot expect any scientific or physical explanation of this singularity.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosm ... eoCosmOrig
Note --- With no "scientific or physical explanation" for the beginning of space-time from nothing knowable (measurable), even scientists turn to philosophical hypothetical conjecture (metaphysical) about a precedent that literally transcends the known universe (e.g. multiverse).


Multiverse Theory[MWI of QM], which is just as un-falsifiable as the God Theory[mythology] ___Gnomon
Incorrigible nonsense. — 180 Proof

Both Multiverse and Transcendent God Theory are literally non-sense, hence false : in his Immanent Materialism belief system, and his 17th century deus sive natura creed. But most scientists are more open minded. Since all of those notions are non-verifiable, they are non-scientific. But they may be considered either pseudo-science or philosophical postulation, depending on the hubris of your personal worldview.

Multiverse
Some physicists argue that the multiverse is a philosophical notion rather than a scientific hypothesis, as it cannot be empirically falsified
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Multiverse

↪180 Proof
A cursory search for what the Big Bang is shows that it actually is the beginning of the universe — Brendan Golledge

"Cursory searches" are more often too simplicistic (lazy) and misleading, especially in modern physical sciences, than deliberate study. — 180 Proof

180proof's disparaging assessment ("simplistic/lazy") of your self-effacing (non-expert) post is ironic. He typically dismisses transcendent (non-immanent ; pre-space-time) conjectures by labeling them as "non-parsimonious" ; which is a code word for Empiricism. His philosophical notion of Parsimony*1 is essentially Keep It Simple Stupid. But when used to limit our philosophical search for truth beyond the limits of empirical Science, Parsimony may convert a theoretical virtue into a personal vice : synonyms "niggardly, penurious, stingy"*2.

I'm currently reading a non-fiction book : How Fascism Works. And one statement reminded me of 180's censorious kind of Parsimony. "The pull of fascist politics is powerful. It simplifies human existence " into either/or categories : male/female (no rainbow variations on gender) ; makers/takers (wealth creators / welfare mothers) ; natural leaders / innate followers (fuhrer / masses). His criticisms of hypothetical suppositions (to place beyond evidence) on a philosophy forum are mostly political put-downs, thinly disguised as logical arguments. For example, if you are "simple-minded" enough to believe in transcendent entities or principles, he may label your naivete as a "Dunning-Kruger effect".

If this was a Physics forum, and you were an Astrophysicist or Cosmology student, then "deliberate study" of the Big Bang theory might be appropriate. But as an amateur poster on a philosophical forum, a "cursory search" may be enough to get the gist of the theory's implications. Besides, there are plenty of scientists, who make cosmic beginnings a "deliberate study", from whom we can obtain a non-empirical philosophical overview*3.


*1. The parsimony principle, also known as Occam's razor, is a philosophical principle that states that the simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct: ___ Google AI overview

*2. parsimony : the quality of being overly sparing with money : miserliness. parsimonious. ___Merriam-Webster dictionary

*3. Is the big bang the beginning of the universe or time?
Simply put the Big Bang is an extrapolation from current evidence to a universe that was hotter and denser in the past ( and had a period of early very fast expansion) . If you continue that extrapolation then theoretically you would arrive at a singularity but by that point our models have broken down and we simply don’t know whether that is ‘real’. Hypothetically the universe can apparently both not have a beginning and yet not be eternal either perhaps. It’s thought that the use of the word ‘before’ itself becomes problematic and the Big Bang was everything there was no other ‘void’ or some such - it didn’t expand into a ‘place’ it is place. Even time is a problematic concept that we don’t really understand fully some posit that all time exists as a block and we move through it or a sort of spot light effect does. I think one could consider the following no doubt loose analogy - the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe as we know it - perhaps in the same way your birth is the beginning of you as we know you but as if we knew nothing about conception or whether conception were even a real thing. Again there are hypothesis that our Big Bang is just one of many - either lots of ‘bubbles’ in a foaming multiverse , or in some way real branching quantum universes , or one realised version of potential but not realised quantum possibilities but this is as far as I am aware pretty much speculation for now.
https://www.reddit.com/r/astrophysics/c ... iverse_or/
Note --- Your Deist Myth is one attempt (speculation) to explain the "conception" of the universe "as we know it".