Deism in the Dock

NJ writes:

quote:

---

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.

---

"what is less well known is that those two traits also combined to shape his spiritual journey and determine the nature of his faith. The rebellion part comes in at the beginning of his life: he rejected at first his parents' secularism and later the concepts of religious ritual and of a personal God who intercedes in the daily workings of the world. But the awe part comes in his 50s when he settled into a deism based on what he called the "spirit manifest in the laws of the universe" and a sincere belief in a "God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists." -TIMEEverybody knows that Einstein followed, in many respects, "Spinoza's God." Alright, well, not everyone. But among scientist and philosopher circles it is widely known.At the same time, I see what you are saying, and perhaps Antony Flew said it best, that "I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations... My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."Nontheless, it doesn't undercut my main point whatsoever, that in order to be a deist, one must first come to the conclusion based on rationality and/or design.I see a fundamental conflict between a few members of this boards' version of deism juxtaposed to the Dictionary's.But perhaps deism is so vague that virtually anyone can smuggle in whatever meaning that fancies them. Heck, it doesn't even have to conform to reality or cogency. There seems to be quite a bit of that going on anyhow.The question is: how? Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

​

"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 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?

---

No, I think Spinoza and Einstein were quite brilliant. Their beliefs are very well defined. Yours is the only one leaving looming questions for me. Then at least you can see how anyone would be reasonably confused by your beliefs next to, say, Einstein's. Can both be deists and still have meaning?

quote:

---

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.

---

RAZD, you're being melodramatic. I'm not saying, nor have I asserted that desist are freakin nuts. I want to know how you could know God by your standards because all other avenues have been exhausted. Clowns, abalone, and bologna. Why must the questioning of the tenability of a theory equate to fear of it? Can you explain that to me?

---

​

"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

Or you could tell us all what you believe. If you just say, "I'm a deist," then that's all I have do go on. I am then forced to rely on what is known about deism to understand your position. I then take this brief statement and compare it to other beliefs you've shared over the course of our time here at EvC and come to the obvious conclusion that the two are simply not compatible in any meaningful way.You may have some really unique definition of deism means to you, but until you explain that position, please don't sit here and chastise me when you appear totally incapable of explaining the simplest of questions.You have not defended your position one iota thus far, nor will you answer questions about causation that I've posed to you, presumably because everyone would begin to see that I'm not nearly as far off the mark as you claim I am.Something very profound is hitting home for you, RAZD. We don't need to be psychology majors to see that.I even gave you an easy out to stop the conversation out of respect to your elusive personal belief. But you seem absolutely bent on being made the fool, and in the process, trying to call me out as if I had assaulted you with a glance. My main problem is not so much with deism than it is with your version of it. It seems there is no compelling reason to believe in a God at all, and since you are unwilling to actually share why, I'm left with only what I do know about you. Its not so much them as it is you. I'm still left wondering by what avenue you have deduced God. I've been going over this with you from the beginning.1. Deists believe that God created, and then has since been an absent father.2. What event was it that inescapably led you to believe that such a God caused life? Was it the Big Bang?3. If God does not come to us by revelation, then you obviously would not know of God in that way.4. If God does not provide any special revelation, then you cannot know God in this way either.5. You see no intentional design within nature, so what led you to believe that God exists.I have removed-- better yet-- you have removed the teleological argument, you have removed the rational argument, you have removed the revelatory argument.You have repeatedly stated that I have not exhausted all options. When I ask you very plainly to provide some others, you neglect to do so, (presumably because you can't) and then hide in an postulate that I'm offending your delicate sensibilities (presumably to take the focus off of you, and to place it on to me). My argument has less to do with deists than it does you, since deists hold that the course of nature sufficiently demonstrates the existence of God. You apparently don't even have that. Or if you do, its been hidden from the lot of us. Supposing you did, I'd have to question why all these years your posts don't reflect that belief. Then what does that say about you, 1. that you are doing the very thing you accuse me of, and 2. you can't answer the alleged stupid questions? Why don't you focus more on answering the questions, than attacking me. Your position might not look as weak as it really is if you could just answer even the simplest of questions.I for one have grown annoyed with going over the same points you refuse to address. If you cannot answer my questions, I will assume, rightly, that you are incapable of doing so. I will not respond to you if you continue your tirade w/o anything to corroborate your claims.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Edit to add

---

​

"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

Not all Ana, this is a public forum. Your contribution is always welcome. Well, yes, which is why I have been asking him what kind of processes those were. Thus far he has not answered. The reasoning he gave me was that it was personal-- (as if I asked him if he has gonorrhea or something...) Believing in God is often uncomfortable for everyone. But I think I'm missing the deeper part of your question. What are you asking me? I think that it takes little contemplation. I'm curious how anyone deduces automatically some grand spiritual being without any actual corroboration. The fact that so many people sort of intrinsically know and understand God is one of the more surer ways that I, personally, know He exists.The problem is that deists, more than any other group, come to God on the basis of rationality and reason. So I'm asking very rational and reasonable questions. The answer that I've been getting back is quite shocking. I've covered a multitude of possible avenues in which to rationalize God. The interesting thing is, the naturalists-- the so-called pragmatists-- seem to have less reason to believe in God.I for one am fascinated by this and have correspondingly asked questions on why that it is. Thus far I've been met by virulent opposition. I think its by both, but surely that intimate connection is what sealed it for me. The problem is, again, that deists claim that there is no special revelation. That means God does not meet with them on a personal level, and therefore, can only begin to believe in God externally.Now, RAZD is certainly free to believe in whatever god he wants, for any reason he wishes. My issue is that he is not describing the very rational reason that he has come to God. And if God is impersonal, then how could the heart discern Him? No, of course not. Sure, people believe in deceiving spirits. Well, I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by this. If you mean that just living our lives is something tender to God, sure, there is much beauty in it. But everyone lives there lives differently. Some are given to vice and malevolence, whereas others seek the righteous things.

---

​

"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