What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-07-2014, 02:03 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 01:59 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Your uncertainty is just a remnant of your religious upbringing. The only reason you give credence to the god concept is because you are familiar with the idea. While you will hum and how over the possibility of a god and that we can't KNOW if he exists so he might, but if I asked you what your opinion is on the probability of things your not and never were invested in you would dismiss them out of hand.
You aren't agnostic about Santa, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, Jlousic the time traveling turnip, or any other concept I can come up with. You don't seriously maintain an agnostic attitude or world view on these things despite there is just as much evidence for god: none. The evidence for a theistic god and a deistic one are the same: none at all. Its just special pleading for a concept you understand.

Yep. Russel's teapot.

Just because I can freely assert a coherent and unfalsifiable proposition doesn't mean I have to be agnostic towards it.
(and theism doesn't even fulfil those two criteria).

(16-07-2014 01:59 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Its not a matter of humility. Either a thing is or is not, and our being humble about the possibility of a thing says nothing about the reality of the thing. "I don't know its not true" is not a sound or intellectually valid reason to believe something. Unless you can provide reasons or evidence why a thing should be believed then it remains irrational to do so and its not a mark of humility to entertain credulous views without a shred of evidence.

Also that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
16-07-2014, 02:11 PM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2014 02:35 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(15-07-2014 11:41 AM)Mora Wrote:  
(14-07-2014 06:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So despite that fact you don't know what your brain is referencing when you call up the "meme" "gawd", you feel the need to take a formal existential defining position ("Agnostic") with respect to something you don't know what you mean, can't define, or can't say what you're talking about. I see.

Sounds like a waste of time to me. If we all needed to take formal positions with respect to things we can't define, not much else would get done, would it ?

I think you're not being totally honest here. Either with yourself, or with us.

A waste of time is me answering , many things , from books that I had to search specific things on and to quote people from a debate or a lecture to share my thoughts and you come here and not even give a damn about it .

It shows that really , you do not want to share thoughts , you want to prove your point . So really it is rather a waste of time .

It especially reflects the arrogance represented in your confident denial of giving a possibility to a higher power . Like I said , I am humble enough to acknowledge our humble existence and amount of knowledge . But you do not want to acknowledge a possible existence of a higher power perhaps you want a picture or a diagram of its powers .

This is especially when I am not saying it exists , but I will not confidently deny the possibility . I think there is no need to continue a discussion further with you , if we can not go further than this point .

You're not an agnostic. You're a believer with doubts, and you're not honest about it. It's hardly "arrogant" to ask for a definition. You're just pissed off you have no satisfactory answer, and you KNOW it makes no sense to feel you need to take a formal postition with respect to something you can't even define. The person you're REALLY pissed off at, is yourself. The LEAST I expected was some sort of coherent argument. The LEAST you could have done is tell us what it is you think you need to be agnostic about. You're in a phase.

I actually do think the original concept of agnosticism makes some sense. It's not that an agnostic "doesn't know", but the classical one of the medieval mystics and Oriental mysticism, that it's *not possible to know*.

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
16-07-2014, 02:41 PM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2014 02:53 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 12:09 PM)Mora Wrote:  
(16-07-2014 09:50 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I don't think you understand what Bucky was saying.

It's all well and good to say "I don't know what I don't know".

That is not agnosticism.

"Agnostic" refers to uncertainty regarding a specific belief or claim. "Higher power" is a vague and vacuous deepity. It means nothing. There's quite literally nothing to accept or not accept in it. It is pointless.


You're referring to an "it". Can you define "it"?

If not, the statement is meaningless.

Being pissy does not endow nonsense with meaning.


I would say vague is word that can be used subjectively . But what I think many people agree on in a God is that he is a higher power that is conscious that has made everything possible through science and yet he is forever over time and space.

Again I am not sure of it . I guess I am fluctuating between agnostic atheism and agnostic theism and that I am not confident enough to go either way .

It might have been an Islamic finger-print left in me . Since I am a Saudi and forever I was a Muslim . So The Idea of believing a God that you do not understand is not a stranger to religion . Which could be why I do not see eye to eye with people here on wanting to define God more precisely . I say this with pure honesty , I think someone who have the thread would understand , I do not want someone to jump over to this comment and tell me I am hiding Muslim or preacher .

Bible
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

Quran
"He is the First and the Last, the Ascendant and the Intimate, and He is, of all things, Knowing."

"[He is] Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing."

All three are incoherent and apriori REQUIRE that spacetime already exists. ALL THREE are temporally dependent. SO ALL THREE are instantly out on their butt. Which is exactly why I asked for a definition.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
16-07-2014, 05:09 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 02:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-07-2014 12:09 PM)Mora Wrote:  I would say vague is word that can be used subjectively . But what I think many people agree on in a God is that he is a higher power that is conscious that has made everything possible through science and yet he is forever over time and space.

Again I am not sure of it . I guess I am fluctuating between agnostic atheism and agnostic theism and that I am not confident enough to go either way .

It might have been an Islamic finger-print left in me . Since I am a Saudi and forever I was a Muslim . So The Idea of believing a God that you do not understand is not a stranger to religion . Which could be why I do not see eye to eye with people here on wanting to define God more precisely . I say this with pure honesty , I think someone who have the thread would understand , I do not want someone to jump over to this comment and tell me I am hiding Muslim or preacher .

Bible
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

Quran
"He is the First and the Last, the Ascendant and the Intimate, and He is, of all things, Knowing."

"[He is] Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing."

All three are incoherent and apriori REQUIRE that spacetime already exists. ALL THREE are temporally dependent. SO ALL THREE are instantly out on their butt. Which is exactly why I asked for a definition.

You seem to persist that I am not being honest . I said I am being honest already and so I cant argue with that , neither that I am trying defend religion or the God of a religion . The first and the last thing doesn't matter to me , you might have missed the point , what I wanted to show was that it was ok for me believe in a creator that I can not understand his being , but I could understand that he was creator ( not such a strange idea for religion )

Let me just bury this for later if needed , and I came here to learn , I would be happy if anyone teaches me something new . Anyway , I watched a debate between Lawrence Krauss and Hamza on the big or great debate I do not remember , Lawrence was saying whether we want it or not , The universe had a beginning . So the question is not about time because time only came to be after that , but why is there is something rather than nothing . It is not something I can understand , if it was created than was God created , but if you are willing to accept either one of them being there without a cause or a creator , because who created God , Than I understand that you can find a God silly because it would lead to a quantifiable infinite but so does the multi-universe theory , But if you are able to accept one than why not the other ? And So this is what I arrive to , is that either one is possible to me .

I also siad how the value of opinions of hall mark scientist like Einstein can be valid about God because science is connected . I looked in a book a debate and a lecture , and you didn't even mention it which pissed me off .

I am not being in one side or the other . I do not know what you expect me to do , to be a hidden Muslim that will be angry and spill it out , I feel treated like radical confident believer , it makes me understand what Robert Wright stands for unfortunately .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2014, 05:22 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 01:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-07-2014 12:09 PM)Mora Wrote:  I would say vague is word that can be used subjectively . But what I think many people agree on in a God is that he is a higher power that is conscious that has made everything possible through science and yet he is forever over time and space.

And? So what?

Deism is the worst sort of God of the Gaps - taking what we don't understand and calling it God for no reason.

Anything further - ascribing any quality whatsoever to whatever "God" - needs to be considered separately.

In which case - even if theistic claims of knowledge and divine intervention weren't easily falsifiable - the attributes themselves are explicitly incoherent.

(16-07-2014 12:09 PM)Mora Wrote:  Again I am not sure of it . I guess I am fluctuating between agnostic atheism and agnostic theism and that I am not confident enough to go either way .

It might have been an Islamic finger-print left in me . Since I am a Saudi and forever I was a Muslim . So The Idea of believing a God that you do not understand is not a stranger to religion . Which could be why I do not see eye to eye with people here on wanting to define God more precisely . I say this with pure honesty , I think someone who have the thread would understand , I do not want someone to jump over to this comment and tell me I am hiding Muslim or preacher .

That's fair enough.

I think what some of us here find frustrating is that for you to say "I believe in something" without being able to say what "something" is is nonsensical.

And to be sure, that is how many believers take the easy way out. "Oh, but it's all ineffable, so never you mind the details." We atheists are the ones who aren't satisfied with that kind of platitudinous non-answer.

And it's self-defeating, because it only ever comes after claiming to know something. Let's say "God is all-powerful". Superficially that glosses as "God is, like, really powerful". But that isn't what it means, or else they would just say that instead. So - can omnipotent God violate his own physical laws? Can omnipotent God create something greater than himself? The questions can't be answered. So perhaps the believer says "God is all-powerful in ways we can't understand". But the concept remains incoherent. "All-powerful" is a meaningless phrase. It conveys nothing. The sentence contains exactly the same meaning if it just skips to "God is something we can't understand".

Or perhaps "God answers prayers". Answering prayers is a predictable cause-and-effect phenomenon. It has never happened ever. So the believer says, "God answers prayers in ways we can't understand". Which is once again to say that God doesn't answer prayers, because how can you assert that God does if you're also saying necessarily that you couldn't possibly know how or even if God actually did or not?

So that's where faith comes in. Believing in things you know ain't so. Usually this means ignoring anything rational because there's an emotional attachment to the idea. People want to believe, so they make up whatever shitty justifications they need to pretend it's justifiable.

Examined seriously it all collapses down to deism. "Something we don't understand created the universe in ways we can't understand and may or may not continue to interact with us in ways we can't understand". Which is finally coherent, but now also completely unfalsifiable.

Except even that is a positive claim even so. Removed from testability and banished to the realm of idle speculation, yes, but nonetheless an assertion only, literally impossible to ever prove. What, then, is the point to it?

At every step of the way the claims for what God may or may not be and what God may or may not do - which were originally intended to explain things - had to be modified. Except preserving them means they now explain nothing.

The fancy philosophical word for what I believe - that all conceptions of "God" ever proposed are pointless, meaningless nonsense - is theological noncognitivism.

I backed out of Deism , I said so , But perhaps my last comment to Bucky can explain better . However , I doubt that what I say is that we should be satisfied , What I say we do not know yet , but we might never know , like we might never know why is there is something rather than nothing , Before the big bang , where did the the condensed universe came from . My last comment explains this better .

Thank you for your response .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2014, 05:31 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 05:22 PM)Mora Wrote:  I backed out of Deism , I said so , But perhaps my last comment to Bucky can explain better . However , I doubt that what I say is that we should be satisfied , What I say we do not know yet , but we might never know , like we might never know why is there is something rather than nothing , Before the big bang , where did the the condensed universe came from . My last comment explains this better .

Thank you for your response .

Oh, there are lots of questions left. Of course there are! The way to answer them is rationalism and science. But those are the questions. What are the answers? Religion has never answered a single one along the way. Never. Not a single one. Nor does deism - it cannot, by definition. It never has and never will.

Now, we ask ourselves "why is the universe the way it is?" Because we have answered most of the questions up to that point. But once upon a time...

"Why does the sun rise"?
"Why do the tides move"?
"Why do the seasons change"?
"Why are animals different"?
"Why are stones hard"?
"Why are skies blue"?

Once upon a time the answer was "God". Eventually people realized it might be possible to find real answers.

Of course, "why is there something instead of nothing" is an anthropic fallacy. Why am I me instead of someone else? The question is incoherent. Of all the possible outcomes, one happened. We're in it. So what?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
16-07-2014, 05:35 PM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2014 06:03 PM by Mora.)
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 01:59 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Your uncertainty is just a remnant of your religious upbringing. The only reason you give credence to the god concept is because you are familiar with the idea. While you will hum and how over the possibility of a god and that we can't KNOW if he exists so he might, but if I asked you what your opinion is on the probability of things your not and never were invested in you would dismiss them out of hand.
You aren't agnostic about Santa, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, Jlousic the time traveling turnip, or any other concept I can come up with. You don't seriously maintain an agnostic attitude or world view on these things despite there is just as much evidence for god: none. The evidence for a theistic god and a deistic one are the same: none at all. Its just special pleading for a concept you understand.

Its not a matter of humility. Either a thing is or is not, and our being humble about the possibility of a thing says nothing about the reality of the thing. "I don't know its not true" is not a sound or intellectually valid reason to believe something. Unless you can provide reasons or evidence why a thing should be believed then it remains irrational to do so and its not a mark of humility to entertain credulous views without a shred of evidence.

All you have, no offence, is an inability to fully let go of your childhood indoctrination. It's sad but its common and it might just be your not at the point in your life where you can move past the last vestiges of your Islamic way of thinking.

Well , thanks for your response , But there is no need for santa , there is frame of reference to santa . We never have seen something being created , so we would not be able to relate to that , so we might not understand a creator . But there is something rather than nothing , and we can not understand that too , at-least for me . I doubt we will ever know , and I do not believe in an interacting God . we might never know it why there is something rather than nothing , not that we should stop reasoning for it . And if you are able to accept that there is something rather than nothing with no cause , than why not accept a God without a cause too . Seems to me that a condensed universe doesn't just come to be , a God is something that breaks rules , so maybe he was there without a need for someone to get him to be . What is the difference between either one if you are ready to accept one . Since a quantifiable infinite breaks math equation . And I backed down from Deism as I said in other comments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2014, 05:52 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 05:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-07-2014 05:22 PM)Mora Wrote:  I backed out of Deism , I said so , But perhaps my last comment to Bucky can explain better . However , I doubt that what I say is that we should be satisfied , What I say we do not know yet , but we might never know , like we might never know why is there is something rather than nothing , Before the big bang , where did the the condensed universe came from . My last comment explains this better .

Thank you for your response .

Oh, there are lots of questions left. Of course there are! The way to answer them is rationalism and science. But those are the questions. What are the answers? Religion has never answered a single one along the way. Never. Not a single one. Nor does deism - it cannot, by definition. It never has and never will.

Now, we ask ourselves "why is the universe the way it is?" Because we have answered most of the questions up to that point. But once upon a time...

"Why does the sun rise"?
"Why do the tides move"?
"Why do the seasons change"?
"Why are animals different"?
"Why are stones hard"?
"Why are skies blue"?

Once upon a time the answer was "God". Eventually people realized it might be possible to find real answers.

Of course, "why is there something instead of nothing" is an anthropic fallacy. Why am I me instead of someone else? The question is incoherent. Of all the possible outcomes, one happened. We're in it. So what?

Well that is true , that those got answered But I can say something turned to be right , sure by chance , but lets say , none of the prediction of religion were right does that mean that none of them is ever going to be right . It is not that religion thought its inexplicable its that its guesses were mostly wrong . Its not like if a religion makes a prediction it is a proof that it is wrong . One person (Nicolaus Copernicus) a very long time ago looked at the sky and said the earth or the sun is in the center of universe , and we know its wrong but it is applaudable for what he had known at the time . It isn't right , it missed , but there was chance .

So We shouldn't consider every prediction , but we should give a possibility if we are ready to believe something without understanding it . Like the fact that there is something rather than nothing . That is true , it is a fact that there is something rather than nothing and we have deal with it and accept it . I would like to reason why and how . But is as inexplicable Like who created God than why be satisfied by one . Shouldn't it be looked more .

I am going to watch this and see what I can find
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V82uGzgoajI
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2014, 06:20 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 05:35 PM)Mora Wrote:  
(16-07-2014 01:59 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Your uncertainty is just a remnant of your religious upbringing. The only reason you give credence to the god concept is because you are familiar with the idea. While you will hum and how over the possibility of a god and that we can't KNOW if he exists so he might, but if I asked you what your opinion is on the probability of things your not and never were invested in you would dismiss them out of hand.
You aren't agnostic about Santa, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, Jlousic the time traveling turnip, or any other concept I can come up with. You don't seriously maintain an agnostic attitude or world view on these things despite there is just as much evidence for god: none. The evidence for a theistic god and a deistic one are the same: none at all. Its just special pleading for a concept you understand.

Its not a matter of humility. Either a thing is or is not, and our being humble about the possibility of a thing says nothing about the reality of the thing. "I don't know its not true" is not a sound or intellectually valid reason to believe something. Unless you can provide reasons or evidence why a thing should be believed then it remains irrational to do so and its not a mark of humility to entertain credulous views without a shred of evidence.

All you have, no offence, is an inability to fully let go of your childhood indoctrination. It's sad but its common and it might just be your not at the point in your life where you can move past the last vestiges of your Islamic way of thinking.

Well , thanks for your response , But there is no need for santa , there is frame of reference to santa . We never have seen something being created , so we would not be able to relate to that , so we might not understand a creator . But there is something rather than nothing , and we can not understand that too , at-least for me . I doubt we will ever know , and I do not believe in an interacting God . we might never know it why there is something rather than nothing , not that we should stop reasoning for it . And if you are able to accept that there is something rather than nothing with no cause , than why not accept a God without a cause too . Seems to me that a condensed universe doesn't just come to be , a God is something that breaks rules , so maybe he was there without a need for someone to get him to be . What is the difference between either one if you are ready to accept one . Since a quantifiable infinite breaks math equation . And I backed down from Deism as I said in other comments.

See but the bulk of what you just said is an argument from ignorance and personal incredulity. You also ignore Occam's razor and you special plead to hell and back. I'm sorry but that entire post was a monument to fallacious thinking.

The claim "we do not know how the universe started" and the claim "we do not know how the universe started....so maybe a god did it" are NOT equally claims. If your stance is that its just as reasonable to believe that claim without any supporting evidence then you have to believe EVERY unsupported claim or your just engaged in special pleading hypocrisy.

God is something that breaks rules because has been DEFINED that way by believers not because that's a demonstrated attribute he has. First you have to show he exists BEFORE you can comment on what he is like.

You're looking for a way to break rules to explain a thing you don't understand. That's not knowledge. Its not rational. I'm sorry but your just...wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
16-07-2014, 06:27 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
At this point you just seem to be making an argument from fear...


"Name me a moral statement made or moral action performed that could not have been made or done, by a non-believer..." - Christopher Hitchens



My youtube musings: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfFoxbz...UVi1pf4B5g
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like CiderThinker's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: