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, 06:49 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 06:27 PM)CiderThinker Wrote:  At this point you just seem to be making an argument from fear...

Starting to look that way ya.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2014, 07:35 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 06:20 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(16-07-2014 05:35 PM)Mora Wrote:  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.


What I am getting is what I think is the answer to " oh God did it " rather than " that is not impossible "

Well , first People got Angry because they told me , to say what a God is when I refused , than they told me it is not precise and illogical to to put the possibility for something this vague , then I get you have to prove it to say what it is like . When all I said was something that I think most people in general when they say God refer to.

Lets say I draw something and say an alien if it comes it could look similar to that without evidence . It will most likely be wrong , but there is a barely mentionable Chance that it is true . This might be even less likely than a God .

Sure if there is an unsupported claim that is valid to explain why is there is something rather than nothing I would consider it ( as long as there is no claim with better evidence doesn't mean I would acknowledge it as true) just like how people consider the multi-universe theory . The answer could come from considered candidate possibilities or something we never knew before . So what is so unacceptable about it . Seems to me science a lot of time is not built on certainties but on theories and hypothesis that for a long time people never imagined they could test .

If it was an other possibility that was raised beside God "like the multi universs " some people would applaud it but why not God . Both face Strong criticism .

If I say linguistically wrong sentences or misunderstand something it is because I speak three languages and this is not my mother language which might be also the case for other people .

I am watching a debate right now between WLC and Lawrence Krauss about the subject . I would say that I don't see either of them answering , it pains me that Lawrence tries to change the meaning of nothing at all , to mean something that is not what we see now or used to know . I think in the second half of the debate he is more humble than the start ( until what I reached ) . I think WLC is also saying it must be God out of no evidence . But why accept that it is just a brute fact and that we shouldn't even ask the question , seems just like when some religious friends told me you should never ask when was God created .

I fail to see what it is that I could be fearing since I broke the guidelines for every religion there is . I have completely crossed the bridge on what is possible to believe in my culture . If I say this in my country I would be executed and My family will be angry with me and they never talk to me . I crossed over the possibility of eternal life or going to heaven . I would most likely rot in hell if it was true . What is there that I might be fearing .

Is it so unacceptable to say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence . If something could offer a viable explanation to something with no answer . If they are all equally unsupported .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2014, 07:50 PM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2014 08:17 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 05:09 PM)Mora Wrote:  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 )

You're full to the brim with your presuppositions and unexamined assumptions.
Many people here have been non-believers since childhood. You seem rather new to it. This universe may appear to have had a beginning, but that's the most we know now. We also know that observation of a singularity from a distance is NOT reliable, and in fact way more than not reliable. Hawking's friend Roger Penrose write a book called "Cycles of Time" in which he propses the universe bangs, collapses, and re-bangs. "Creation" is an ACT. IN PRE-universe Reality. THAT STILL requires Causality AND TIME. It's meaningless. (See the debate below).

Science is "not connected" to the opinions of Einstein about religion. He's SPECULATING, and it's not science, as it can't be tested. Granted his speculation is on a higher level than some, but it's still speculation. He was wrong about many things, including some really BIG things he speculated about, ( using his "intuition"... ie "god doesn't play dice" was PROVEN WRONG). The fundamental nature of the universe has been proven to be non-intuitive, (Relativity, Uncertainty etc) and only evidence remains.

(16-07-2014 05:09 PM)Mora Wrote:  "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 .

I have no clue what that even means.

Listen very carefully when Carroll tells Craig why his assertions are meaningless, and you'll get where we're coming from .




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, 07:51 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
More arguments 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
16-07-2014, 08:19 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 07:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-07-2014 05:09 PM)Mora Wrote:  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 )

You're full to the brim with your presuppositions and unexamined assumptions.
Many people here have been non-believers since childhood. You seem rather new to it. This universe may appear to have had a beginning, but that's the most we know now. We also know that observation of a singularity from a distance is NOT reliable, and in fact way more than not reliable. Hawking's friend Roger Penrose write a book called "Cycles of Time" in which he propses the universe bangs, collapses, and re-bangs. "Creation" is an ACT. IN PRE-universe Reality. THAT STILL requires Causality AND TIME. It's meaningless. (See the debate below).

Science is "not connected" to the opinions of Einstein about religion. He's SPECULATING, and it's not science, as it can't be tested. Granted his speculation is on a higher level than some, but it's still speculation. He was wrong about many things, including some really BIG things he speculated about, ( using his "intuition"... ie "god doesn't play dice" was PROVEN WRONG). The fundamental nature of the universe has been proven to be non-intuitive, (Relativity, Uncertainty etc) and only evidence remains.

(16-07-2014 05:09 PM)Mora Wrote:  "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 .

I have no clue what that even means.

Listen very carefully when Carroll tell Craig why his assertions are meaningless, and you'll get where we're coming from .





Well , it is good to point out what you think is wrong , I would think that direct confrontation is important . But one that is aggressive by being sarcastic to someone who comes to learn as mentioned many times is wrong , in my opinion . Especially the tone of voice that makes you feel less . Why ?

I appreciate the debate I would watch it . When I watch debates and share thoughts I also expect something in return . I will watch it and see if I believe its convincing .

Things I can say I did right in this thread ,
Despite provocations and sarcastic comments I tried to keep it beneficial to me and advance and change .
I backed down from deism ( progress )
I acknowledged a misunderstanding of terms and actually asked someone over private massages and searched wiki
I tried to answer comments maybe that were not for me to answer .
I am sincerely trying to argument to my ability without being intimidated by the number of disagreement .
I am trying to incorporate things I watched from debates and lectures from people that most atheists accredit , like Krauss and Dawkins .

I might have been provoked to say something better not said . But I still struggle to see why this negative feeling when I try to cooperate . I see nothing left to do to please people than to say I completely agree with everything your saying , But why should I not say what I think is true , even if it is wrong . Honesty I expected people to say watch this and that , read this and that . But I feel it was more like people want to feel like a master teaching than a person helping .

For Example I still struggle to see how I can accept something that has not cause .

The fear thing I don't get Cider sorry .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2014, 08:27 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 08:19 PM)Mora Wrote:  Well , it is good to point out what you think is wrong , I would think that direct confrontation is important . But one that is aggressive by being sarcastic to someone who comes to learn as mentioned many times is wrong , in my opinion . Especially the tone of voice that makes you feel less . Why ?

I appreciate the debate I would watch it . When I watch debates and share thoughts I also expect something in return . I will watch it and see if I believe its convincing .

Things I can say I did right in this thread ,
Despite provocations and sarcastic comments I tried to keep it beneficial to me and advance and change .
I backed down from deism ( progress )
I acknowledged a misunderstanding of terms and actually asked someone over private massages and searched wiki
I tried to answer comments maybe that were not for me to answer .
I am sincerely trying to argument to my ability without being intimidated by the number of disagreement .
I am trying to incorporate things I watched from debates and lectures from people that most atheists accredit , like Krauss and Dawkins .

I might have been provoked to say something better not said . But I still struggle to see why this negative feeling when I try to cooperate . I see nothing left to do to please people than to say I completely agree with everything your saying , But why should I not say what I think is true , even if it is wrong . Honesty I expected people to say watch this and that , read this and that . But I feel it was more like people want to feel like a master teaching than a person helping .

For Example I still struggle to see how I can accept something that has not cause .

The fear thing I don't get Cider sorry .

Without a clear idea of just what you believe it is very difficult to know how to address it.

You have been vague and evasive defining your own beliefs throughout this thread.

I should think that if nothing else I have explained that although there are lots of things we don't know, calling our ignorance 'God' is one of the most pointlessly unproductive acts imaginable.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
16-07-2014, 08:37 PM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2014 08:41 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 08:19 PM)Mora Wrote:  For Example I still struggle to see how I can accept something that has not cause .

That's why you should watch Carroll/Craig.

"Causing" a universe is meaningless. Carroll explains why.
It also answers nothing. The problem is "Where does Causality (the principle) come from ?" How is Causality "caused" if REALITY and Causality is not already IN PLACE ?
Reality remains unexplained. The gods explain nothing.
Gods MUST participate in Reality. A god can't create that which it is REQUIRED, by definition, to participate in, for it's "existence". Existence ITSELF is a temporal concept, that requires time.

You might want to read this debate. : http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...l-Argument

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
16-07-2014, 08:48 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 08:27 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-07-2014 08:19 PM)Mora Wrote:  Well , it is good to point out what you think is wrong , I would think that direct confrontation is important . But one that is aggressive by being sarcastic to someone who comes to learn as mentioned many times is wrong , in my opinion . Especially the tone of voice that makes you feel less . Why ?

I appreciate the debate I would watch it . When I watch debates and share thoughts I also expect something in return . I will watch it and see if I believe its convincing .

Things I can say I did right in this thread ,
Despite provocations and sarcastic comments I tried to keep it beneficial to me and advance and change .
I backed down from deism ( progress )
I acknowledged a misunderstanding of terms and actually asked someone over private massages and searched wiki
I tried to answer comments maybe that were not for me to answer .
I am sincerely trying to argument to my ability without being intimidated by the number of disagreement .
I am trying to incorporate things I watched from debates and lectures from people that most atheists accredit , like Krauss and Dawkins .

I might have been provoked to say something better not said . But I still struggle to see why this negative feeling when I try to cooperate . I see nothing left to do to please people than to say I completely agree with everything your saying , But why should I not say what I think is true , even if it is wrong . Honesty I expected people to say watch this and that , read this and that . But I feel it was more like people want to feel like a master teaching than a person helping .

For Example I still struggle to see how I can accept something that has not cause .

The fear thing I don't get Cider sorry .

Without a clear idea of just what you believe it is very difficult to know how to address it.

You have been vague and evasive defining your own beliefs throughout this thread.

I should think that if nothing else I have explained that although there are lots of things we don't know, calling our ignorance 'God' is one of the most pointlessly unproductive acts imaginable.

Sure you see it that way , I think there is a great chance that if it was someone else that would have backfired and the person would have actually let his emotions guide him to his mosque or church . It could have fed the image that how other people conspire against his faith and God . Just like Robert Wright says .

I wrote this on my fb page the day before I wrote this thread
"Don't test the water , Take your arguments and jump in the water . The more we challenge ourselves , the more experience we get , the more we can age our mind at a quicker rate . We are the product of our approach to the accumulated experience we have went through. So , lets have more experience , in a shorter amount of time ."

Wether its right or wrong it doesn't matter , but I think for someone not as prepared for something like this it might have backfired much more to the worse . I am lucky it is not my first time , I also go through sheer number of disagreements when I try to explain how Evolution is actually true to my Arabic friends not in a confrontational way . Sometimes you need an inside decorator ( for religious people ) like Bill Maher says.

I think it is what Robert Wright tries to say too , he also gets a sheer number of negative challenging responds , sometimes aggressive , and we are talking between atheists and atheists .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2014, 08:52 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 08:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-07-2014 08:19 PM)Mora Wrote:  For Example I still struggle to see how I can accept something that has not cause .

That's why you should watch Carroll/Craig.

"Causing" a universe is meaningless. Carroll explains why.
It also answers nothing. The problem is "Where does Causality (the principle) come from ?" How is Causality "caused" if REALITY and Causality is not already IN PLACE ?
Reality remains unexplained. The gods explain nothing.
Gods MUST participate in Reality. A god can't create that which it is REQUIRED, by definition, to participate in, for it's "existence". Existence ITSELF is a temporal concept, that requires time.

You might want to read this debate. : http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...l-Argument

Thank you very much , That should prove to be interesting .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2014, 11:16 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 07:35 PM)Mora Wrote:  What is there that I might be fearing .

Your own ignorance.
You don't know how to explain something and instead of just saying the intellectually brave and honest thing ("I don't know") your trying to jam a god in there for which you have no evidence for, no argument for, not even a bloody definition for, and no reason to think exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: