Deism in the Dock

I know the feeling. Believe it or not, I was supremely more akin to the cynics and skeptics than are with people of my current theological affiliations.The prospect is both terrifying and intriguing at the same time.To Atheists I'm secure in the knowledge that none of us know much of anything for 100% absolute certainty. There is always that element of faith in all of our lives. We just place out trust in different things, I suppose.To Deists I'm glad you made this post because I have been pining over making one myself but knew it would be long, so I dreaded it.My question to deists is this: If you believe in God.... Why? I ask why because I can't seem to understand a logical or faithful one to do so. Deists will say that God cannot be seen, heard, or felt by special revelation. So cross that avenue of knowing God out.They also allege that you can't see God working in nature, because He sort of lets the chips fall where they may (how they've logical deduced this is another good question). So cancel that avenue as well.And lastly, they say that there is no scriptural or revelatory basis for believing in God.How then have they surmised that a God exists then? Or as you alluded to, does it offer the best of both world's-- both of atheism and theism?To ”Rational’ Theists and Creationists A great question.Most people will say that all religion is basically the same, with minor variations as the only real difference between them. I contend that it is the exact opposite-- that they are all basically different, with a few threads of similarity running through them.Afterall, religions claim exclusivity, and indeed have to in order to remain coherent.As far as pain and suffering, the argument from evil is one of the greatest challenges facing apologists-- indeed, an enigma of sorts. I find that how reprehensible evil really is, its still the only way for 'good' to make a lick of sense. There is no light without darkness. There is no hot without cold. There is no good without bad. These contrasting elements are the only thing that distinguishes.To Agnostics I was an agnostic for many years, and even bear testimony to that fact immortalized underneath my integument.I think agnostics are really just glorified atheists who have chosen the safest path, relying on the illusion of open-mindedness. Or at worst, they are too lazy and indifferent to challenge their mind.For myself, I only opted for agnosticism because atheism seemed so definitive. And I couldn't very well deny a negative without coming to the inevitable conclusion that it is a lessen in futility.Great post.Hope my contribution makes it worth while.

---

​

"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

I'd really like to not spend too much time on this, but disproving a negative is trying to prove that something doesn't exist. How can anyone do that?Example: Person 1 posits that purple flying elephants exist in the fifth dimension. Person 2 says, "No they don't." Person 1 says, "prove it." Person 2 says, "No, you prove it."Then there will be this stalemate situation where neither can empirically prove the existance or non-existance of the purple, flying elephants. IOW, how can you prove that something doesn't exist, if it doesn't exist? Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

---

​

"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

quote:

---

Afterall, religions claim exclusivity, and indeed have to in order to remain coherent.

---

While I would agree that many of the eastern religions sort of borrowed from one another, the fact remains that if any of them teach a path of righteousness, or what have, while the other has a totally different view altogether, one or both are incorrect.As you said, Buddhists do not believe in deities, per say. But Hindu's believe in multiple deities. Both cannot both be right. They may be accepting and tolerant of different view points, but that does not negate the fact of exclusivity.

---

​

"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

quote:

---

My question to deists is this: If you believe in God.... Why? I ask why because I can't seem to understand a logical or faithful one to do so. Deists will say that God cannot be seen, heard, or felt by special revelation. So cross that avenue of knowing God out.

---

I neither said or made allusions either way, which is why I asked a simple question. I appreciate your reply. Hypothetically, would your failure to grasp Christianity bear any reflection upon you by the same rationale? I'm not denying that we've discussed this before, but I can't remember asking you that question before.

quote:

---

How then have they surmised that a God exists then?

---

Pardon the frankness, but it does sound as if you are deluding yourself if you are basing your belief upon belief itself. That is generally characterized as blind faith, which is, interestingly, slammed vehemently in most cases. I have an informed faith. There are very real reasons why I believe as I do. They weren't sort of whimsically formulated.I mean, I commend you on exercising your rights to express your faith. I was simply wondering the reasons why deists believe as they do. I do find it interesting, though, that you and Percy share similar sentiments on why you believe as you do.

---

​

"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

quote:

---

While I would agree that many of the eastern religions sort of borrowed from one another

---

Probably, given the nature of religion. But I can't be certain what constitutes [i]western religion[/b] (Shamanism, maybe?), being that all of the popular religions that reside in the west derive from the middle east.

quote:

---

the fact remains that if any of them teach a path of righteousness, or what have [you], while the other has a totally different view altogether, one or both are incorrect.

---

Sure, if that's what it was espousing. The Trinity, of course, is nothing like that. God is one. The one God has triune characteristics composing of a singular God.Ice, water, vapor.... Three different characteristics for the same thing... H₂O.

quote:

---

As you said, Buddhists do not believe in deities, per say. But Hindu's believe in multiple deities. Both cannot both be right.

---

No gods, many gods. That's a contradiction that either will cancel one or both out. Can you be a Hindu Christian with any cogency? God is one, with three characteristics. I assume you are more than one dimensional too. People are capable of good and evil, not that they are solely defined as either or. Its light, its dark. Its up, its down. Obviously in different times both can exist. They can't exist in the same time frame. They exist as a contrast, not as a similarity. You can't have one god, multiple gods anymore than you could be broke and rich at the same time. But you can be broke at one point in time and rich in the next. God is knowable dependent on both what He is willing to reveal and based on one's openness to receive. In keeping with the law of non-contradiction, there must be exclusivity in order to have any coherence in which to formulate an opinion one way or the other.

---

​

"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

I was just using the search for righteousness as an example. Insert another trait common to most religions if you'd like. I was just illustrating a point. You can merge all of the religions in the world and call yourself a Shintoist, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim if you wanted. But it would just be meaningless gobbledegook if you did.Think about it. Can you be a Muslim Hindu? Obviously not. Why? Because their foundational tenets differ radically to the point where they contradict each other. So the seven circles of hell found within Buddhist scripture is interchangeable with the one hell found in Christianity?The point I am trying to make is one of coherence. You can't ascribe to a multiplicity of things with religion without also being inherently duplicitous to one side or the other.

---

​

"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

All I'm saying is that a religion may offer inclusive ideals as part of the package deal, but as one goes deeper into both religions, the incompatibility becomes more clear.For instance, the whole debacle with Tom Cruise and his Scientology. Tom tells his wife that she can still be a Catholic while also being a Scientologist.But how is that really going to work, when Jesus that He is the Way and no other, and Hubbard says that all other religious ideas are the product of body-thetans which make people believe in religious figures?The two religions have irreconcilable differences. You completely avoided answering anything I actually said or asked. You have asserted that polytheism and monotheism really don't present a problem. I am very simply saying that religions, whether they outright say it or not, teach exclusivity because they have to in order to remain coherent.

quote:

---

So the seven circles of hell found within Buddhist scripture is interchangeable with the one hell found in Christianity?

---

Then what is the purpose for the sage to have mentioned it? Teachings like New Age and Baha'i like to glean from every religions aspects that it likes, while discarding others, and erecting a religion on the fly. They don't teach exclusivity, but it ends up being exclusive because it is not compatible with other religions.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. What do you identify as being the core teaching that runs a thread through all religions?

---

​

"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

Christians believe that it is an extension of Judaism, just as Mormons believe its an extension of Christianity. 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:

---

No gods, many gods. That's a contradiction that either will cancel one or both out.

---

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:

---

God is one. God is three. God is ten thousand.

---

Sure, anyone can say whatever they want and invent anything to absolve themselves. But it will be meaningless. Answering you directly is ignoring you???? 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:

---

Can you be a Hindu Christian with any cogency?

---

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. 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

Only if you are limiting descriptions of heaven. Who says that parables concerning heaven have to stop at one? If Jesus said in one instance, there is only one heaven, and then in the next, there are multiple heavens, I would say that you have a point. But it doesn't.But we digress, as the topic is about deism.

---

​

"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

quote:

---

Great post.

---

Well, I see that you intended for it be slightly humorous and intentionally smattered, so in that way, you are perhaps surprised by the turn out.But your objectivity in the matter caused a lot of people to think seriously about it. And so here we are. I was just sharing my own remembrance. Even if you were to become a full fledged deist, these beliefs would obviously be very impersonal for you. At the most, you might gain some newfangled appreciation for, as you said, the laws of nature. I don't know if that is by design or coincidence, but in either case, I think you are right. I've tried to understand deism many times. If they believed in God for teleological reasons, (such as Spinoza's God), I could at least understand the approach. But so far, every deist I've spoken to is a staunch evolutionist who argues that finding design in nature is a worthless, and moreover, impossible endeavor.I find this interesting because the definition of deism is as follows: [i]belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation[/qs]Well, this description falls short of our resident deists. They all claim that God cannot be seen in nature, nor have they reasoned why they believe in God. They just do, for some unknown personal reason. Yeah, well, being one of the most hated members on the board has only one redeeming quality-- I'm never in shortage of a conversation.

---

​

"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

Seriously RAZD, what's up with the hostilities??? I'm asking a very straight forward question. You gave me the answer, even though it is unsatisfactory, IMO. That's your answer. You can't explain it. Fine.Thirdly, they aren't strawmen. They are perfectly valid questions. You calling it a strawman, is a strawman. Well, lets look at the truth concerning deism.The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

​

A belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelationYou assert there is NO evidence for God. Deists believe in God because of the argument from design, something you lambaste incessantly.By all definitional rights, you aren't a deist, because you don't see this God in nature nor have you any actual logical reasons for coming to the conclusion.This is where my confusion lay which is why I asked the question. I'm not trying to offend you or your personal beliefs. I'm simply inquiring as to how they are logically consistent. Its an honest question that deserved an honest answer. Are you going to cede that your philosophies contain irreconcilable differences and contradictions? Will you stop asserting them? Or should I expect you not to be interested in learning?

quote:

---

Hypothetically, would your failure to grasp Christianity bear any reflection upon you by the same rationale?

---

? I didn't understand the sentence. Obviously not, being that its a hypothetical. I'm questioning your reasoning, not your actual ability to grasp Christianity. Excuse me, RAZD!!!! An attack on my part?!?! I asked a real simple question. You responded way beyond what was warranted with all sorts of fallacious allegations.In your defense, the internet is devoid of body language and voice inflections that help us all understand each others tone. Perhaps you assumed that I was "attacking" you. I wasn't. I just asked an honest question in response to the OP. You could have not responded.I suspect you did so because my question struck a chord in you. Presumably, you can't defend your belief, as evidenced by your inability to answer it. But I didn't force you in to an indefensible position. You did that to yourself, all on your own.Then you set up a strawman defense in order to avoid answering the very simple question by diverting everyone's attention away from the actual question. You did so by trying to turn it around on me, as you are still doing.

quote:

---

Pardon the frankness, but it does sound as if you are deluding yourself if you are basing your belief upon belief itself. That is generally characterized as blind faith, which is, interestingly, slammed vehemently in most cases. I have an informed faith. There are very real reasons why I believe as I do.

---

I have given a million and one reasons for why I believe the way I do, RAZD. Whether my reasons are true or not is a matter of debate. The point is, I have real reasons. If you don't-- cool. Whatever. But I never want to hear you bombastically flame anyone on EvC for ascribing to what you might refer to as blind faith. Then make sense. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

​

"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

Then by all means, present some other possibilities. I'm certainly open to that. What other options exist? You haven't really expressed what you believe. You've been very vague about the whole thing, which is fine. That's your business. But if I question what I do know about deism and ask questions about them, you don't need to be on the defensive.I mean, really! There wasn't anything that I directed towards you before you blew a gasket. And anyone with even a nominal familiarity with psychology knows that anyone that defensive about innocuous questions must have some underlying problem with the inquiry. RAZD, then please, give me some more. I have been asking questions, which is a sure sign that I'm seeking some kind of an answer. If you think that I have not covered all angles, then expand it. What? LOL! The person, (I think Anglagard) said that we needed to remove the walls and start building bridges in their place. I informed him that there is only one bridge, 90 miles long, and that's in California. The 2% difference was in the unlikely event that I was missing some small river in Southern California.But aside from all that, this is all wayyy off topic. RAZD, if you have some kind of problem with me on a personal level, place those complaints in a more appropriate thread. Deal with the issue or stop posting. You are just derailing the conversation to place the focus on me and to take the spotlight off of you. Deal with your own inadequacies. You can't answer the question, can you? Look, if this is making you uncomfortable, we can stop. I've never seen you this inane or flustered before. That's fine, RAZD. You can have problems with design inferences. We're all here to debate, not hold each others hands. But I assume you read the definition of deism. Your current beliefs are totally incompatible with it, unless of course you can give some examples of the descriptions that I'm allegedly not understanding. Don't you find all of this a little disconcerting? *sigh*I think its evident at this point that perhaps you've reached some epiphany and you're just lashing out in frustration. If you're having this much trouble with the thread, then lets not continue it any further. Perhaps you need some time to sort some things out. Take as long you'd like. We can pick this back up at your leisure.

---

​

"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

Then why have you responded, with venom no less, if it were personal? I was asking a generalized question. You said that you couldn't really explain it, I said fine, you then continued with your tirade, which has now grown even more hostile. There are no other alternatives logically speaking. If by chance I have failed to consider another possibility, feel free to clue me in. The belief you currently ascribe to is not synonymous with deism by any definitional standard. I merely pointed that out to you, to which you still are incapable of resolving. Matters of faith cannot be superior, so long as they make no rational sense. If I point out an inconsistency, that is my way of testing the veracity of the truth claim-- something every one does here. No need to feel martyred.

quote:

---

this is all wayyy off topic

---

THIS is OT too. Deal with issue RAZD, which is deism, and stop trying to childishly derail the thread because its not going well for you. If you would like to continue our conversation about immigration we could go back in that thread and discuss it there. Here is not the place.

quote:

---

But I assume you read the definition of deism. Your current beliefs are totally incompatible with it, unless of course you can give some examples of the descriptions that I'm allegedly not understanding. Don't you find all of this a little disconcerting?

---

1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
3. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.Where in here do you fit that would allow you to justifiably refer to yourself as a deist? I'm asking a serious question. Stop assuming that you're under attack. Its a simple question that deserves a simple answer. You do, and you have! Its usually in proportion to the topic, so that's totally fine with me. Its only now that you apparently feel truly threatened and seem to be speaking solely out of anger, so you feel the need to bring up totally irrelevant topics to take the spotlight off of you. Where have I admitted that I'm attacking you and not the argument? Deism is in a box. You may not be. You can believe in whatever you want. But you don't get to redefine something just so you can continue calling yourself something that you aren't.I don't see how your version of deism is compatible with everyone else's understanding of it. If you say that its personal and you don't want to discuss it, then fine. I won't prod you for information you don't feel comfortable sharing. But at the same time, don't come out swinging at innocuous questions and feel instantly martyred by them.

---

​

"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

Yes, this is true. I am totally and completely mystified as to how message 5 could have been construed as insensitive and insulting. You act as if I just hurled a brick at your head. Perhaps they haven't offered anything as remotely problematic to your position as I have.

quote:

---

You said that you couldn't really explain it

---

This could very easily be construed by some, as "a.k.a, I don't have a decent reason, so I'll just plead the fifth". Nonetheless, I said that I wouldn't pry and I intend to live up to that. So, okay, its personal. Done.

quote:

---

There are no other alternatives logically speaking. If by chance I have failed to consider another possibility, feel free to clue me in.

---

Its true, RAZD! It makes no sense to me. I admit that your version of deism completely, totally, and utterly does not make any sense to me. I admit it. I also admit that I can see no reconciliation with your version of deism compared to the prevailing understanding that everyone else does, because it scoffs at a logical conclusion. Since your version seems to maintain logical inconsistencies, I am unable to surmise anything substantive from it. Its true, I don't know what to make of the paradox. Which is probably why I'm asking you to help me understand (hint hint).But, as you know, I asked you to offer another solution. So far you have declined that offer simply by saying that its personal. That doesn't give me a lot to go on. If you want to redefine what deism means, or have some splinter cult of deism, you are entitled to that. I just want you to be aware that people who have come to deism, such as Spinoza, Einstein, Jefferson, etc, have all come to their conclusions based on teleology. Your view, as far as I can tell, is the very antithesis to that. I don't think you can really scorn me for pointing out the flaw, especially since it so fundamental to what deism is. I'm trying to get you to think about your position more carefully. If I said that I was an intelligent design/evolutionist, you might likely be inclined to inquire how I believe in two contradictory theories in the same breath. If I was incapable of explaining it, you would rightly say, whether you thought its insulting or not, that I can't refer to myself as such and remain coherent at the same time.

quote:

---

deism -noun
The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct. In the eighteenth century, numerous important thinkers held deist beliefs.

---

RAZD, try and understand the problem here. If you are an evolutionist, as we all know, how did you ever come to the conclusion that such a God exists if there is no avenue by which that God could have revelaed himself? Think deeply about it. The very reason why deists are deists is because of the teleological argument. Indeed, that is the avenue by which they came to their conclusions. You have no such avenue. So how can you be a deist?To add: I'm not saying that you can't be a deist and an evolutionist at the same time. I'm saying that you can't be completely against intelligent design and also be a deist.Another question I should ask is: Is the Big Bang the event instigated by God that started all life? If so, is that the moment that He stepped back to let nature do its thing w/o any intervention from Him? Well, so far it seems like you haven't really thought it through, and perhaps you are beginning to see the inconsistency. In other words, perhaps you didn't initially see how it was problematic. Honestly RAZD, I thought message 5 was incredibly tame. Never would I have guessed that that post, (of all the posts you could have indicted), was the one that truly offended you.Short of not saying anything at all, I don't see how that post could have been less offensive. I reach my conclusions based on my understanding of any given matter, RAZD. Why do you think I'm the only person on the planet that does that? Especially since you, still, have neglected to give me another possibility.Listen, RAZD, I am not being condescending here, as much as you to want me to. I am genuinely asking you to help me understand the position better. RAZD, I'm not trying to bash your faith or to limit it. I'm simply saying that if your beliefs were not garnered from some existential, transcendental, or rational reason, that it must be from blind faith that you believe.But I don't believe somebody as pragmatic as yourself could believe in just any old thing, for any old reason. I have asked for that reason. You say that it is personal. That's fine with me. I won't ask you any longer. Buyt just know that until that reason is shared, we will indefinitely be at an impasse.If that's the case, there is no point in continuing the discussion if we are only going to rehash talking points endlessly. Only if its you If I felt I needed to, I would. I'll let you know if I feel convicted to do so.

---

​

"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

Why don't I just let them tell you how:"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God." -Albert Einstein"Except God no substance can be granted or conceived. As God is a being absolutely infinite, to whom no attribute expressing the essence of substance can be denied, and as he necessarily exists, if any other substance than God be given, it must be explained by means of some attribute of God, and thus two substances would exist possessing the same attribute, which is absurd; and so no other substance than God can be granted, and consequently not even be conceived." -Baruch SpinozaHence, these men see God within nature, but do not attribute such to divine inspiration. Is there though? [i]1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.[/qs]We can also include newcomer, Antony Flew. Among his central arguments in assuming God comes directly from the teleological argument. However, like all deists, Flew claims that God is impersonal. Why not? Jar's beliefs in God seem to mirror that of RAZD's in many ways. My contention is that if they can't see God in nature, which all deists do by qualification, how then have they come to the conclusion that God in fact exists?

---

​

"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