|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Deism in the Dock | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Except you're NOT offering any significant support for your claims. Christianity is an exclusivist religion (although that hasn't stopped all Christians embracing inclusivist ideas). You can't prove a universal by cherrypicking "examples".
quote: That's certainly not true. In fact I answered every point you raised in your previous post. You only have to read them to see that. Please spare us the false accusatiosn creationists seem to like so much.
quote: In fact I said that a religion that is not about gods is compatible with differing views on gods. And you keep ignoring the examples of religions that do work together and obviously can't be teaching exclusivity.
quote: For which sage to have mentioned what ? And you're still only making assertions.
quote: That's pretty much the opposite of what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that Buddhism can coexist with other religions not because they share a core teaching but because their core teachings do not interact (or do not to any great extent).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, jar.
I should also point out that most of the traditional denominations (including, I suspect, nj's, although I don't know which one he belongs to) admit that the concept of the Trinity is a mystery that appears to be logically incoherent to finite human minds. So Archer's example is apt -- Christianity itself isn't free from the coherency problem nj is trying to associate with the non-exclusive religions. I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
You accommodate borrowings and compromises all the time. Christianity borrows heavily from Judaism. Christians believe that it is an extension of Judaism, just as Mormons believe its an extension of Christianity.
Note that in presenting the propositions God is one/God is three I mentioned neither the Trinity nor Christianity. If the Trinity doctrine is nothing like that, why did you think of it? Oh, I don't know... maybe that its a common objection that opponents make all the time concerning Christianity. Its very obvious you wanted to convey that point.
quote: Not necessarily. As I said, much depends on what one understands by god (deity). So as long as we can butcher language and coherence, we all will be copacetic because we can simply invent whatever we want in such a way that we'll never actually be wrong about anything.
quote: Anyone who can reconcile the first two statements can accommodate the third. Sure, anyone can say whatever they want and invent anything to absolve themselves. But it will be meaningless.
You ignored this. Answering you directly is ignoring you????
It's just a matter of multiplying the plural nature of God after that. Instead of talking about H2O and three-dimensionality, you could talk about stars and galaxies or component parts in a motherboard or something. Its really quite simple. You keep saying God, which is singular, and then you are trying to say that God is one, three, and ten thousand. You are fallaciously spinning it in what ever you want to justify yourself. You yourself said God. I'm merely telling you that having different characteristics does not equal a separate god for each one. Kabbalah uses 12 characteristics for one God. But you have no problem turning around and saying that multiple gods and no gods could actually be considered the same thing. LOL! Well, which is it?!?!? You're a walking contradiction.
quote: You went so far as to provide rationales for human beings being both good and evil and God being both knowable and unknowable. Seemingly contradictory propositions, again, that people find ways to reconcile. No, sir, not at all. I was merely pointing out that your phrasing of the statement was fallacious. You are conflating things and then muddling terms.
Your 'fact of exclusivity' did not refer simply to a property of language, as you seem to say here. You used it to assert a property of religion whereby it is not possible for people rationally to accommodate multiple beliefs, including seemingly contradictory ideas, within a single belief system. I still maintain that. I'm not seeing your objection. "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3627 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
NJ: [On the number of hells:] Then what is the purpose for the sage to have mentioned it? Are you saying a religious proposition has to be exclusively applied to be worth even mentioning?
People generally take well to the idea of pluralism, but its only a matter of time before the disagreements are insurmountable to champion in the irrational belief that religions are fundamentally the same, and therefore are compatible. It appears you are. Wow. OK. Buckle up.
Mutually exclusive propositions all. Otherwise, why mention any of them? So which one is right? No fair trying to have them all. 'A house divided against itself.' You know. ____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : html Edited by Archer Opterix, : html. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Surely all faith has to be irrational at root?
Thats what makes it faith and not knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3957 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
you used the word rational; i simply stated that i am not what you defined as a "rational theist".
i guess i just wanted you to know that there are theists who have considered their own small place in the world. i'd imagine your idea of a theist is a bit limited. but then you don't seem to appreciate anyone's position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Only if you think that a (slightly drunken) rant counts as "ultimate evidence". I don't. At all. I wanted to ask about deism and wanted to know what made atheists atheists rather than deists.If anything I didn't do a very good job at asking very challenging questions because A) I was a bit beered up and B) I am an atheist and essentially agree with the gist of your answers. They are the sort of questions that deists and theists might ask atheists in order to justify their position against deism. So I asked them.
Maybe for the New Age woo-woo junkies. The rest of us realize there isn't a "role" for conscious observers in quantum mechanics. There is indeed a lot of woo woo BS regards this subject around. But I think you dismiss the question as completely irrelevant too easily It is interesting to be treated as someone on the other side of the fence for a change....... You guys don't take any prisoners.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
i guess i just wanted you to know that there are theists who have considered their own small place in the world. i'd imagine your idea of a theist is a bit limited. but then you don't seem to appreciate anyone's position. My idea of theists has been changed quite significantly by my participation at EvC. In the case of many, such as yourself, definitely positively. You really shouldn't take my opening post too seriously.Having a go at everyone indiscriminately seemed like a fun idea at the time. It seems like less fun now I am dealing with the responses!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3957 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
that's what you get.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Well, before you decide that the issue is settled, do you think you could be bothered to present some of it? I have no evidence whatsoever My post was not intended to be taken too seriously.I was proposing nothing and dismissing everything so I suppose I should expect abuse back from all denominations. If I thought the question was completely settled in favour of theism or deism I wouldn't have asked equally dumbass questions to deists and theists. However I do think the question is largely settled. I am an atheist. But I do think that there are some interesting questions about reality, consciousness and the origins of everything that are worth asking even if ultimately they cannot be answered.
And doesn't that mean, therefore, that there's actually not a God who's out there observing everything at once, all the time? Since we've just proven that there are some things (many, in fact) that are not being observed by anybody at all? Including God? Absolutely. But there are intersting questions that arise if you apply the same principle of eigenstates to the universe (or multiverse or whatever) as a whole.Imagine the universe (or the multiverse or whatever) as the cat in the box. Nobody has to observe all the particles that make up the cat for the thought experiemnt to apply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Since you address us atheists, I would generally class my position as pretty strongly atheistic too for the record. My OP was never really meant to be a serious critique of atheism (or any of the other points of view I ranted against for that matter). I am slightly stunned that my fellow atheists treated it as such and all started vigorously defending their position against what was a pretty shambolic attack at best. I can only conclude that there are not enough creationists around to vent our frustrations out on
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I agree with your comments on deism
Quantum theory doesn't require any special role for consciousness. That's just a rather dubious interpretation (and one that I don't believe). But if it did it'd be more of a problem for the monotheists - an omniscient and omnipresent being observes EVERYTHING so there's no room for the quantum weirdness that we actually observe. And maybe it would explain why we are here -perhaps, as soon as the wavefunction includes a possible state where conscious observers exist it is forced to collapse into that state. So even if it were true it could be quite convenient for atheists It does indeed pose a problem for monotheists. I think the question of where the rules that govern nature come from is an interesting one.Even if we are one of many universes in a vast multiverse all with different physical constants and different natural laws being played out, the question of what laws this 'multiverse' is obeying such that all the differnt universe can come into existence remains unanswered. I don't really think deism is a realistic answer but the questions it causes us to pose are interesting ones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You are the only actual deist to reply.
From your science posts I must admit that I had always assumed you to be an atheist (until recently where in the 'Best evidence for creation' thread your deism did shine through) As such I would be interested to know how you made the personal choice you did in a bit more detail Is there a rational basis for it? Why exactly is it a superior conclusion to atheism? My own interest is in why the universe should obey any laws at all. Even if we regress the physical laws of the universe back to notions of a multiverse with countless universes each with different physical laws then we still have the question of the laws that govern the creation of those multiple universes. Why does nature ultimately obey physical laws and where do these come from? I don't actually think deism is necessarily the answer despite the misrepresentation I seem to have given in my OP. But it does give rise to some interesting questions
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3627 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
NJ: Christians believe that it is an extension of Judaism, just as Mormons believe its an extension of Christianity. How does 'extension' negate the idea of 'borrowing'? Christians incorporated over thirty books from Judaism into their canon. You want to think of those books as 'extended' instead of 'borrowed'? Well, OK. You may as well know that many people around the world view religious ideas as extensions of each other. Not always in a chronological/historical sense, but in the most important elements. The ideas extend each other. That's it, really. You can understand others, if you want to. You view Judaism as valid (much as an orthodox Jew would) but leaving more to be said (much as an orthodox Jew wouldn't). You view Christianity as filling in the picture more completely. Other people do the same. They see this or that belief system having some insight to offer, and this or that other religion filling in some area of the picture a bit better.
So as long as we can butcher language and coherence, we all will be copacetic because we can simply invent whatever we want in such a way that we'll never actually be wrong about anything. Fallacy of Catastrophic Threat: I win, or the world descends into chaos. The catastrophe doesn't happen. Where I live, millions of happy polytheists drive to work, get married, raise children, operate computer programs, eat stinky tofu, and keep their streets more free of crime than in any metropolis you've probably ever lived in--without caring one whit whether you think they butcher their language you never learned. You are overlooking something important about the way religious language,in every tongue, works. You can catch it yourself, I think. It would be better for the discussion if you did. You got a hint from Straggler...
You keep saying God, which is singular, and then you are trying to say that God is one, three, and ten thousand. You are fallaciously spinning it in what ever you want to justify yourself. Not at all. I just laid out the propositions. If a fallacy exists, it's your own. Don't you say God is singular--and three? If that's a fallacy, so be it. The same holds true of a singular God equalling any other number. If it makes sense, it makes sense. The same holds true, again, with any other number. I'm not taking a side. I don't have a god in this fight. (haha) I'm just showing you how these things are done. They're done the way you already do them.
You are conflating things and then muddling terms. On the contrary. I set down distinct, concise propositions: God is knowable / God is unknowable. The terms were simple. You immediately started explaining things so that you could make a place for both seeming contradictory propositions. Are you 'conflating things and muddling terms'? Having it both ways? Well, some might view it that way. You're certainly making matters more complex. But that's the point. All religions do this. Yours and everyone else's. ____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : html. Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But I do think that there are some interesting questions about reality, consciousness and the origins of everything that are worth asking even if ultimately they cannot be answered. See, I'm largely of the opinion that questions that can't be answered aren't interesting, and simply aren't worth asking. They're a waste of time. The really interesting questions are the ones with answers that are hard, but not impossible, to get to. The ones that can't ever be answered - why bother? What on Earth do you gain when you ask such a question? Nothing, that I can see.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024