What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-07-2014, 07:46 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(08-07-2014 07:02 PM)Mora Wrote:   Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence .

What I was addressing with that is confident atheism that denies the possibility of a God. Without supporting evidence . As Einstein explains , this is missing the point , that our knowledge is so humble and so we should be . I can understand that you do not acknowledge something without supporting evidence even if we have no supporting evidence . But You should not pridefully deny the possibility . Which I see many people do not .

So where I am now is confusion between agnosticism and atheism . If agnosticism is being open to possibility without denying pridefully . Then is it the same as atheism? than that would mean that no one really denies the possibility of a God .

The difference is that when other people make the claim - the "God" of any specific religion - it is on them to substantiate their claim. Absent evidence, the claim may be dismissed.

"God created the universe" is unfalsifiable. It is incoherent and meaningless, but not falsifiable. Depending on how "God" is defined, we might all be agnostic to it.

"God answers prayers" is eminently falsifiable. "God causes miracles" is eminently falsifiable. "God is [insert incoherent attribute here]" is falsified without lifting a finger.

The questions are meaningless unless one defines the terms. Theists and apologists love to equivocate and blur the semantics. Don't let them get away with that.

"I don't know, therefore I don't not know, therefore maybe" is godawful logic.

Heck, why not extend the legal analogy. In a criminal court the prosecution (I almost said "Crown", lol Canada) must establish beyond reasonable doubt that their claim is true. If reasonable doubt exists - even if it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the accusation is not true - then the verdict is "innocent".

Just so with atheism. Is the theistic claim established beyond reasonable doubt? Fuck no. You're an atheist.

(08-07-2014 07:22 PM)Mora Wrote:  I would have to disagree with you .
The God that I might believe is not the answer himself . That is in creationism which I do not believe in . The God that I give possibility to is the God that is so sophisticated and God like that everything is scientific . Some thing Einstein believes that he made everything with the set of rules that he is . Not something that breaks the laws of physics that ends curiosity . In the contrary Einstein through his holy curiosity and scientific research wanted to understand . He said "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

He also said "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
Letter to Guy H. Raner Jr. (28 September 1949), from article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1997).


You will find the many hall mark scientists like Michio Kaku and Einstein Believed in a deist God that flamed and enraged their sense of curiosity .

No.

They believe in a complicated universe and call it "god" in order to convey awe and appreciation. Einstein did so in the old philosophical tradition; were he to have known how blatantly he would be quote-mined in latter years, I have no doubt he would have expressed myself differently.
(and in fact the provided quote shows that he was an atheist for all intents and purposes; he used the word to refer to those rejecting earlier religious belief, something he never had - he writings indicate he would certainly accept our modern definition of the term)

Deism is pointless. It explains nothing, it predicts nothing, and it accomplishes nothing.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 07:49 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(08-07-2014 07:22 PM)Mora Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 06:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is neither benign nor harmless. It is a block to inquiry, and end to curiosity, a non-answer.

It is only benign in comparison to the malignancy that is theism. Drinking Beverage


I would have to disagree with you .
The God that I might believe is not the answer himself . That is in creationism which I do not believe in . The God that I give possibility to is the God that is so sophisticated and God like that everything is scientific . Some thing Einstein believes that he made everything with the set of rules that he is . Not something that breaks the laws of physics that ends curiosity . In the contrary Einstein through his holy curiosity and scientific research wanted to understand . He said "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

He also said "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
Letter to Guy H. Raner Jr. (28 September 1949), from article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1997).


You will find the many hall mark scientists like Michio Kaku and Einstein Believed in a deist God that flamed and enraged their sense of curiosity .

I don't think 'enraged' is the word you want there.

And, no, belief in a deity did not drive Einstein's curiosity. That's just a silly statement.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 07:51 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(08-07-2014 07:43 PM)Mora Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 07:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  My opinion is that you are an agnostic atheist. You just haven't realized that because you don't yet understand the definition.

Do you know that a god exists or does not? No? You are agnostic.

Do you believe a god exists? No? You are an atheist.

I can not affirm it , but I give it a possibility . If that makes me an agnostic then agnostic I am .

And part two? Do you have a belief that there is a god?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 08:03 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(08-07-2014 07:22 PM)Mora Wrote:  "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
Letter to Guy H. Raner Jr. (28 September 1949), from article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1997).


You will find the many hall mark scientists like Michio Kaku and Einstein Believed in a deist God that flamed and enraged their sense of curiosity .

So what ? It's the Argumentum ad Vericundiam.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html
None of those people are experts in any field EXCEPT their own. Einstein made many glaring errors.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-...t-mistakes

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
08-07-2014, 08:31 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(08-07-2014 07:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Deism is pointless. It explains nothing, it predicts nothing, and it accomplishes nothing.

I would have to disagree. It's a way to play both sides against the middle.
Ya know. Hedge yer bets.
Anything is possible ya know. You can't really know there is no teapot orbiting the sun.

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
08-07-2014, 08:41 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(08-07-2014 08:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 07:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Deism is pointless. It explains nothing, it predicts nothing, and it accomplishes nothing.

I would have to disagree. It's a way to play both sides against the middle.
Ya know. Hedge yer bets.
Anything is possible ya know. You can't really know there is no teapot orbiting the sun.

Okay, fine.
Sleepy

In a sense it's convenient. So there's that.
Tongue

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
08-07-2014, 10:57 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
Mora - you shouldn't deny the possibility that I am the wisest being that has ever existed and as such, you should listen to what I have to say.

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
09-07-2014, 03:20 AM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
There is no real problems with most deism really. While there is no real logical reasons to believe there is any kind of higher powers per say, It is not completely out of the realm of possibility like the mono and poly theist religions are.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2014, 04:56 AM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(09-07-2014 03:20 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  There is no real problems with most deism really. While there is no real logical reasons to believe there is any kind of higher powers per say, It is not completely out of the realm of possibility like the mono and poly theist religions are.

Saying that something existed before there was existence is the same as saying a child created its own parents.

I think there are real problems with that kind of thinking

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
09-07-2014, 06:02 AM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(09-07-2014 04:56 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 03:20 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  There is no real problems with most deism really. While there is no real logical reasons to believe there is any kind of higher powers per say, It is not completely out of the realm of possibility like the mono and poly theist religions are.

Saying that something existed before there was existence is the same as saying a child created its own parents.

I think there are real problems with that kind of thinking

We do not even have any scientific proof of what "nothing" is exactly and string theory and recent ideas from Michio kaku proves that any being wanting to travel from one Universe to another universe would be forced into creating an entire universe in order to create a path way between them in order to do so.

If this is true. Our universe ...universe B was created because someone from Universe A wanted to travel to B and Opened up new universe B to make a connection to C. Then before it collapsed into its own separate thing. Held it open until they got to the other side and then it popped into place by itself.

Not to mention, any species advanced enough to live inside that spacial nothing...whatever it is. Could also theoretically defy or create laws of physics on the fly because they felt like it.

Remember, High levels of technology are no different then magic and the supernatural.

I do not necessarily believe in such things; however, they are theoretically possible to exist.

You are also using a poor analogy for this sort of thing. Almost a misrepresentation and over simplification of it really. We simply cannot possibly know any of these kinds of answers with our current understanding. So we must take what we do know and what seems like some possible answers and have as many different theories of what "could be" from that. A alien race from another universe arbitrarily creating ours because it needed a bridge to connect to another place seems feasible in a "there is no such thing as impossible" scientific mentality.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: