What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-07-2014, 05:20 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(07-07-2014 05:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 04:56 PM)Mora Wrote:  I would certainly like to hear an expert argument of weather life can only evolve in similar circumstances than earth or not . If you have a video or something about it please reply it .

It is not in principle impossible. The more important things is that we don't know what we don't know.

The request amounts to proving a universal negative - not a productive way to go about things.

(07-07-2014 04:56 PM)Mora Wrote:  My other point that I always ask to my atheist friends is how can you deny the existence of something without supporting evidence.

... Because that's the only way to get through life and remain sane?

(07-07-2014 04:56 PM)Mora Wrote:  Especially that we have no frame of reference to what is God , I don't believe the silly belief of a God that sits on a chair . So really we have no frame of reference .

Indeed. That's why claiming to know anything - anything at all - is unwarranted.

"I don't know therefore it's not impossible therefore I believe [vague deistic claim]" is not sound logic.

(07-07-2014 04:56 PM)Mora Wrote:  Since , Christopher Hitchens is your choice for a profile image . I would like to mention that he too struggled with this question , in my opinion . I know he says he is an anti theist . But when William Lane Craig asked him in a debate , do you withhold belief in God the way an agnostic does or do you believe in no deities , he never gave a direct answer to that .

Because those words are not coherently defined, and asking as odiously dishonest a person as William Lane Craig to define them is agreeing to ride the express train to failuretown.

(07-07-2014 04:56 PM)Mora Wrote:  I am a lawyer , I know that in court if you acknowledge or deny something you need proof because both are positive postilions that are really claims . And remarkable claims require remarkable evidence . Because it is different from saying I do not know and I do not care , that would be an agnostic take . or am I wrong .

Thank you for a thoughtful reply .

You know that agnosticism is totally different from deism, right?

Thank you for your answer . I find it hard to answer everything . I didn't expect quick replies. That's a good thing .

I agree that you can discard something without evidence when there is frame of reference . So eliminating the possibility is maybe not convening to me .

You are right in saying that a possibility is not an evidence so it is not right logic to support it .

I know agnosticism and deism are different . That is why I said agnosticism is my refuge . but when I stretch my thoughts I can see deism being possible. Something that Richard Dawkins thinks he can have a serious discussion with .

Thank your for your reply !
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2014, 05:26 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(07-07-2014 04:57 PM)Hobbitgirl Wrote:  I see Deism as a stepping stone from theism to atheism for some. Kind of a comfort blanket to help you adjust to the thought of no gods.

As said above. There is no evidence to support the claim. So it is unreasonable. But maybe you'll eventually take the next step. Smile

Possibly true . I come from , a religious country , Saudi Arabia .
Atheism was something I would get angry to hear about . I am 22 now so I am not old . But I think at some point watching debates many illusions broke before me . It is funny how we are programmed . When we see how everyone claims the same things we realize how ridiculous it is . And Than when we are finally free many thing change instantly . I must admit , it was very hard on me in the beginning . Maybe , it could explain my search for something that has a God that is still compassionate and reasonable .

Thank you for your reply .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2014, 05:31 PM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2014 05:35 PM by DLJ.)
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
Firstly... welcome to the forum

Secondly, there is an ambiguity in this question ...
(07-07-2014 04:56 PM)Mora Wrote:  ...
My other point that I always ask to my atheist friends is how can you deny the existence of something without supporting evidence
...

Did you mean:
a) deny the existence of something that has no supporting evidence?
or
b) deny the existence of something without supporting evidence to support your denial?

I think we can do a)... the deity is found not guilty of existing.
I think we cannot do b)... the deity is not found innocent.

(07-07-2014 04:56 PM)Mora Wrote:  I am a lawyer , I know that in court if you acknowledge or deny something you need proof because both are positive postilions that are really claims . And remarkable claims require remarkable evidence . Because it is different from saying I do not know and I do not care , that would be an agnostic take . or am I wrong .
...

The lawyers for the defence and the attack may wish to to find evidence for counter-claims but really the defence just needs to pick holes in the attack (see OJ Simpson trial etc.).

The audience (the jury) just need to be convinced of guilt or not convinced of guilt. They don't need to be convinced of innocence.

So far, all deities, however they are defined, have been found not guilty of existing.

Case dismissed.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
07-07-2014, 06:03 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(07-07-2014 05:31 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Firstly... welcome to the forum

Secondly, there is an ambiguity in this question ...
(07-07-2014 04:56 PM)Mora Wrote:  ...
My other point that I always ask to my atheist friends is how can you deny the existence of something without supporting evidence
...

Did you mean:
a) deny the existence of something that has no supporting evidence?
or
b) deny the existence of something without supporting evidence to support your denial?

I think we can do a)... the deity is found not guilty of existing.
I think we cannot do b)... the deity is not found innocent.

(07-07-2014 04:56 PM)Mora Wrote:  I am a lawyer , I know that in court if you acknowledge or deny something you need proof because both are positive postilions that are really claims . And remarkable claims require remarkable evidence . Because it is different from saying I do not know and I do not care , that would be an agnostic take . or am I wrong .
...

The lawyers for the defence and the attack may wish to to find evidence for counter-claims but really the defence just needs to pick holes in the attack (see OJ Simpson trial etc.).

The audience (the jury) just need to be convinced of guilt or not convinced of guilt. They don't need to be convinced of innocence.

So far, all deities, however they are defined, have been found not guilty of existing.

Case dismissed.

Wink

In your first one it is choice b the I meant .

For your second point . A defendant can be found not guilty not because he was able to prove himself not guilty but because of the lack of evidence of him being guilty . We chose that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty . It is the right thing to do , but many people we might know are guilty get out because there isn't enough legal evidence found yet.

What I am saying is we may not prove the existence of God , and if so it might seems unnecessary to entertain such thought ( equal to finding someone not guilty based on the lack of evidence against him ) But if further evidence is found a trial could be reopened at least in my country . However if you find an alibi that completely end possibility of him being guilty . Case will not be reopened unless you can undo the alibi . So We can chose not to believe in God because there aren't enough evidence . But what is still true is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence . So it can not be dismissed .

Sorry for this long paragraph and thank you for a thoughtful reply .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2014, 06:10 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(07-07-2014 05:14 PM)CiderThinker Wrote:  
Quote:Your take is quiet interesting, I have heard of a similar argument . That we see we call wisdom and order , but if we existed in completely different world , we would have still called it wisdom and order from a different perspective and a different frame of reference .

I would certainly like to hear an expert argument of weather life can only evolve in similar circumstances than earth or not . If you have a video or something about it please reply it .

I'm not by any stretch an expert in evolution, but it seems to me logical that if life can evolve in circumstances like ours that those may not be the only plausible circumstances. Even if they were, that still does not answer the age-old question of where God (in this case a deistic one) comes from. Nor does it mean that ours is the only planet with evolved life in the universe. For all we know there may be many other planets with similar if not identical chemical make-up to support life.


Quote:My other point that I always ask to my atheist friends is how can you deny the existence of something without supporting evidence . Especially that we have no frame of reference to what is God , I don't believe the silly belief of a God that sits on a chair . So really we have no frame of reference .

I think in this case you're confusing what the vast majority of atheists think, which is that we see no evidence or proof for the existence of God. We for the most part do not claim to be able to prove the non-existence of God just as we cannot disprove the existence of dragons, yetis or unicorns. This is a common misconception which was also dealt with by other replies in this thread.

Quote:Since , Christopher Hitchens is your choice for a profile image . I would like to mention that he too struggled with this question , in my opinion . I know he says he is an anti theist . But when William Lane Craig asked him in a debate , do you withhold belief in God the way an agnostic does or do you believe in no deities , he never gave a direct answer to that .
I'll have to go back and watch that debate again - it's been a while and it is difficult as I find Craig to be one of the most intellectually dishonest and evasive people I've seen - debating is stretching a term when it comes to his arguments. As to Hitchens, from all that I've seen and read I think he was an agnostic atheist - pretty much like I described above, but I think as far as he was concerned, the existence of God was secondary to the harm of religious belief and institutions. This is where I see a difference between Hitchens and for example Richard Dawkins, who is much more concerned with the idea of a deity from a scientific perspective.

Either way - although Hitchens is someone I greatly admired I think no less of him (or anyone else) if they wrestle with the question of their own mortality, this seems to me to be perfectly natural because as animals we are all about survival.


Quote:I am a lawyer , I know that in court if you acknowledge or deny something you need proof because both are positive postilions that are really claims . And remarkable claims require remarkable evidence . Because it is different from saying I do not know and I do not care , that would be an agnostic take . or am I wrong .

Thank you for a thoughtful reply .
If you're a lawyer then I'll put it this way. In court you need to prove someone guilty of a crime rather than innocent. In the same way I ask any believing person to prove God guilty of existence. That doesn't mean that I can't conceive of the fact that he doesn't exist, just as I can see the man accused of theft is capable of the deed even if found innocent. But both need to be proven to be the case for the prosecution.

I hope that makes my position clearer - of course I'm happy to answer any further questions.

What I think I am confusing here maybe is that the atheism I am addressing is the confident denial of a God which I now see is not the case in most posts .

Another thing is I agree that there is a very high chance that earth like planets exist with life on them . It is not something I can deny considering the amount of possibility .
But I am still wondering if life can occur only in similar conditions or can we find completely different forms of life in completely different conditions . We poorboy need a scientist for that .

Thank you for the post .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2014, 07:36 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(07-07-2014 06:10 PM)Mora Wrote:  What I think I am confusing here maybe is that the atheism I am addressing is the confident denial of a God which I now see is not the case in most posts .

The trouble with that sentence is that God is a very hard thing to define.

Is it the "God" (specific, personal, knowable, interventionist) posited by major religions? I can say with a great deal of confidence that those "Gods" do not exist. They are incoherent and ill-defined, and completely without evidence.

A deistic "God"? Traditionally in English we only capitalise the word for the theistic God; deists posit a possible god (or creator, or prime mover, or some other choice of word to avoid inappropriate connotations).

But even in that case there is a serious barrier, which you acknowledge: if we don't know, then to even say there might be something requires - if the claim is to have any meaning whatsoever - knowledge of the something. Which we don't have, or else we wouldn't need to suppose it...

No one knows how the observable universe originated. That is beyond our present knowledge. To fill the gaps with anything at all is unwarranted. We have some suppositions based on physical theories - but these ideas are not yet testable. Any deistic explanation is necessarily possible in the sense that it's unfalsifiable, but that's only because it's based on precisely that lack of knowledge - there's no reason to assert it, either.

So, I am entirely agnostic as to the origins of the observable universe. I am necessarily agnostic towards most deistic prime mover arguments (but I find them wholly pointless). I can quite confidently claim that all major religions are false. Those are answers to very different questions!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
07-07-2014, 07:52 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
A puddle of water expands out on the highway filling cracks and crevices. Sentient life from within the water charts the expansion and working backwards they can show that their universe as it were, existed in some other state.

The reality they may never know is that the universe they inhabit was once a hail stone.

At what point do you insert a god into nature ?
Every step along the way in human history, we keep removing gods from the gaps in our knowledge as we continue to learn and grow as a species.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rahn127's post
07-07-2014, 08:09 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(07-07-2014 07:52 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  A puddle of water expands out on the highway filling cracks and crevices. Sentient life from within the water charts the expansion and working backwards they can show that their universe as it were, existed in some other state.

The reality they may never know is that the universe they inhabit was once a hail stone.

At what point do you insert a god into nature ?
Every step along the way in human history, we keep removing gods from the gaps in our knowledge as we continue to learn and grow as a species.

[Image: 10391453_10152522491391605_6343622742110487555_n.jpg]

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
07-07-2014, 08:20 PM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2014 07:18 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(07-07-2014 04:28 PM)Mora Wrote:  Lets jump straight to the point .

I quit Religion for 2 years now . I am not an Atheist in the narrow sense that it is the belief in no deities . It is funny how people imagine that you have a clear opinion , in reality I have conflicting arguments and I wanted to see your opinions on them .

Firstly , I want to say that I think my safest place is Agnosticism . Just because it is less confident than Atheism . For that same reason it angered Einstein that people called him an Atheist . When I stretch my thoughts , I believe in a non personal God that Caused the big bang and watched it happen . However , not a separate being who lives in the sky but rather the conscious God manifested in the laws of physics .

I think , there is a higher wisdom than we will ever understand that is not centered around us as human beings . But rather something above us and above our understanding . Something , like what skeptics like George Carlin believe in . Something maybe close to what Einstein and Michio Kaku believe in . That it is too good to be a random thing . Too good to the point that something as simple as a sunset can make Dawkins cry .

I do not preach , I do not promise eternal life , I am not so certain that I can not retreat . I support equal rights to women and gay people . Basically , I follow no moral guideline from a book .

Would you think it is so unreasonable to believe so ?

Nope. Agnosticism with respect to deities is the same as agnosticism towards teapots orbiting the sun. There is no evidence any god, personal or otherwise, created anything. In fact the phrase "caused the Big Bang" is incoherent. Causality requires TIME, and there is no evidence space-time existed anywhere until this universe. Saying something "caused" the Big Bang is the same as saying something is south of the South Pole. It's meaningless. There is no evidence Causality works anywhere except sometimes in this universe. You're slapping meta level common sense intuitions onto a situation (a singularity) in which we know they don't apply. Your agnosticism is just another "god of the gaps" cuz you have no better explanation, and your brain *needs* one, cuz that's what human brains do, that don't get, that the universe at it's fundamental level, it is not intuitive. Causality presumes that what may have been external to this universe works the same as what sometimes is observed within it. There is no reason to presume that.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
07-07-2014, 08:28 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
I think of diests as people who hold a general and nonspecific reverence for the natural universe. It is a completely harmless and benign belief system. As an atheist I think of the natural universe as apathetic and completely material, as a diest you probably see a greater expression of which we are a small part of. I see no reason why can't share much the same intellectual space. Welcome to the forums. I do hope you find answers and enjoy your stay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: