Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deism in the Dock
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 168 of 270 (416140)
08-14-2007 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Rob
08-12-2007 7:22 PM


Re: The Four (or more) Directions
In the sciences, it is known as consistency and confirmation of a theory (theo).
You know better Rob. Just because you put parantheses after a word with a second word does not redefine it.
And if you're trying to play your old, tired game of "theory is theo", you're dead wrong there. Need I show you all the evidence again that says that theory is "thea + horan"? Where is your evidence that "theo" is part of the root of "theory"?
Repeat after me: "Theory is not theo. Theory is not theo. Theory is not theo."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Rob, posted 08-12-2007 7:22 PM Rob has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 219 of 270 (416448)
08-15-2007 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Hyroglyphx
08-15-2007 7:45 PM


Re: "inadequacies"
Mind telling us how Spinoza and Einstein are deists?
Hint: there's quite a bit of difference between the god of spinoza and the god of a deist.
NJ: if jar is totally against intelligent design (which is apparent--just ask him), and yet he believes in god, how does your statement
I'm saying that you can't be completely against intelligent design and also be a deist.
make any sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-15-2007 7:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-15-2007 9:01 PM kuresu has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 226 of 270 (416466)
08-15-2007 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Hyroglyphx
08-15-2007 9:01 PM


Re: "inadequacies"
you don't get it, huh?
With Spinoza, god essentially is nature. In deism, god is a separate entity.
Here's wiki on Spinoza's brand of religions:
Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect are only understood in part
Here's wiki on Deism:
Deism differs from theism in that according to Deism God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe.
Deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being.
See the difference? Spinoza is not a deist.
Hence, these men see God within nature, but do not attribute such to divine inspiration.
No. They (E & S) do not see God within nature. God, rather, is nature.
Spinoza and Einstein are not deists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-15-2007 9:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-15-2007 9:36 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024