Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deism in the Dock
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 136 of 270 (415891)
08-12-2007 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by RAZD
08-12-2007 3:51 PM


Re: Deism is personal
Razd:
Philosophically we can make many hypothesis, but none of them are testable or verifiable, and so they all remain just philosophical concepts.
Are you speaking of Deism, or philosophical constructs of any kind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 08-12-2007 3:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 08-12-2007 9:18 PM Rob has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 137 of 270 (415892)
08-12-2007 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Rob
08-12-2007 7:45 PM


.
Rob writes:
Well, at least you acknowledge the exclusivity of truth.
No. I said "answers", not "truth".
But you're losing the plot. We were discussing how deists, atheists, agnostics, etc. - anybody who thinks for themselves - take far more responsibility for their own actions than those who inherit their morality/accountability from an outside source.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Rob, posted 08-12-2007 7:45 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Rob, posted 08-12-2007 8:03 PM ringo has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 138 of 270 (415894)
08-12-2007 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by ringo
08-12-2007 8:01 PM


Re: .
Ringo:
No. I said "answers", not "truth".
Well then, any answer will do... I don;t know why you'd expect them to be the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by ringo, posted 08-12-2007 8:01 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by ringo, posted 08-12-2007 8:15 PM Rob has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 139 of 270 (415896)
08-12-2007 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Rob
08-12-2007 8:03 PM


Rob writes:
Well then, any answer will do... I don;t know why you'd expect them to be the same.
You're not paying attention. I didn't say I "expected" them to be the same.
If a Muslim and a Christian and a deist and a Hindu and an atheist and an agnostic can get the same answer when examining a real-world question, we can be confident that that answer accurately reflects the real world.
On the other hand, if some bozo says his dusty book gives a different answer, we have no reason to take him (or it) seriously.
But I think Straggler was more interested in the differences between deism and atheism. Dusty-book theism is pretty much a non-starter for this topic.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Rob, posted 08-12-2007 8:03 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 1:13 AM ringo has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 140 of 270 (415903)
08-12-2007 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Rob
08-12-2007 7:59 PM


Deism, reality and responses.
That's off topic, and I'm not going to play. If you want me to take you seriously on a discussion of relative reality, then you will deal with the issue of the age of the earth honestly instead of avoiding it in abject fear as you have every time you've been confronted by it so far.
See Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) age correlations 1.3
Denial of reality is delusion.
Enjoy.
ps - no further responses needed on this thread.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Rob, posted 08-12-2007 7:59 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 12:56 AM RAZD has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 270 (415928)
08-12-2007 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by RAZD
08-12-2007 2:53 PM


Re: as usual ... lack of understanding is yours
What makes them straw men is that you set them up as the only possibilities, and then conclude from your argument that deism does not make any sense. Your inability to see other possibilities is your shortcoming and your failure to understand.
Then by all means, present some other possibilities. I'm certainly open to that. What other options exist?
it's your stunning arrogance to think you know more about what I believe than I do.
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.
See what I mean? You think you know all the definitions and all the possible philosophical positions.
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.
This from someone who posted that the US border is 98% land
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.
Someone who regularly misrepresents what others are saying in debates to the point where there are constant comments from many different posters about this problem -- it's not them, nem, it's you. You don't "ground-truth" the arguments you use.
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 handle the truth, you're too busy building artificial barriers to understanding it.
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.
What I lambaste is the mindless equation of the appearance of design with actual design and the lazy assumption that this is sufficient. What I lambaste is lazy thinking, thinking that is superficial and not based on "ground-truthed" arguments.
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?
Assuming your faith is absolutely true is. Especially when you cling to any beliefs that are contradicted by evidence.
*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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 08-12-2007 2:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2007 9:00 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 142 of 270 (415943)
08-13-2007 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by RAZD
08-12-2007 9:18 PM


Re: Deism, reality and responses.
Razd:
If you want me to take you seriously on a discussion of relative reality, then you will deal with the issue of the age of the earth honestly instead of avoiding it in abject fear as you have every time you've been confronted by it so far.
Am I not allowed the curtiousy of backing away from a position?
I confess that I do not know. I thought you'd be pleased to have noticed that that was clear. But you seem to have a need to push me into the ground to boot...
I am undecided since having not looked at all of the debate in that arena. I interpret the Bible literally, but many of those interpretations have a deeper literal message than what appears on the surface.
Why you need to call it 'avoiding it in abject fear' is a bit strange. I thought we had all grown past some of these really petty games. I could just as easily say that you avoided whole threads that were basedupon some of your comments. It simply isn't necessary. I expect that yours is also a position in relative flux. There are bigger fish to fry than the age of the earth. I let it go, won't you?
The fact is, I dramatically underestimated the subject and decided it best (wise not fearful) to let it alone untill I brought myself up to speed. There is a time to shut one's mouth, and I must say that that was a particularly hard lesson for me, and I do not expect that I am completely over it, since even now, I suspect I am saying more than needs to be said.
Btw, a further suprise came to me when discussing the subject with my pastor of the foursquare church I attend (foursquare pastors are nut-jobs as everyone knows) and he said to me that he is undecided on the issue of the age of the earth. We agreed that it is not fundamental to the faith. We also agreed that what we can know for sure, is that there was a specific time period inwhich the universe was made. The six days may be taken to be symbolic of that. We make this observation based upon the fact that many other biblical passages are in fact expressing the concept of specific times or numerical representation without necessarily giving the exact figures. By focusing on the number, the actual point can be missed. God is the master of parables for a very specific reason that may be worthy of discussion in another thread. Buyt that is my current position.
So don't lump me in with the YEC's so quickly, I have an open mind...
As my pastor put it... God is not in a hurry. Unfortuantely, I have been many times. I intend to change that by conceding to His patience, wisdom, and grace as he enables me.
And I have to ask Razd, 'how is my question off topic when you are the one who brought it up'? I am only trying to clarify what it is you intended to say. I could have just made an assumption and ran with it as I have done in the past. But some of us are growing. Care to join me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 08-12-2007 9:18 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2007 9:25 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 143 of 270 (415945)
08-13-2007 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by ringo
08-12-2007 8:15 PM


Take 1. Ringo:
No. I said "answers", not "truth".
Take 2. Ringo:
If a Muslim and a Christian and a deist and a Hindu and an atheist and an agnostic can get the same answer when examining a real-world question, we can be confident that that answer accurately reflects the real world.
Ringo, c'mon man... that is precisely what the definition of truth is.
Merriam-Websters:
Main Entry: truth
Pronunciation: 'trth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural truths /'tr[th]z, 'trths/
Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trEowth fidelity; akin to Old English trEowe faithful -- more at TRUE
1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
- in truth : in accordance with fact
What's the deal Ringo? Do you want a 'true answer' that reflects reality, or just any answer?
Call it emperical if you want (you'll get no argument from me) but you are excluding that which is not reality to be untrue. Reality (ie. truth) is exclusive by definition... if it were not, then you wouldn't bother arguing against my case because we would both be right.
Such is the ultimate nature of reality (see definition).
If the truth is not one way, then you must stop arguing that it is. Because as soon as you imply or infer that I am wrong and you are right, you only end up showing that truth is exclusive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by ringo, posted 08-12-2007 8:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by ringo, posted 08-13-2007 1:25 AM Rob has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 144 of 270 (415947)
08-13-2007 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Rob
08-13-2007 1:13 AM


Rob writes:
... we can be confident that that answer accurately reflects the real world.
Ringo, c'mon man... that is precisely what the definition of truth is.
If you're going to define "truth" as the best answer we can obtain by empirical methods, you're automatically eliminating theism and embracing deism.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 1:13 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 1:45 AM ringo has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 145 of 270 (415948)
08-13-2007 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-08-2007 8:13 PM


playing God's advocate for you...
Straggler:
Aren’t all those difficult theological questions about pain, death, suffering and evil much better answered by an uncaring and indifferent creator?
No, quite the contrary...
Try C.S. Lewis on 'The Problem of Pain'.
I'll reiterate, in my own words, one of Lewis' arguments which is deceptively simple:
If God did not allow your neighbor to injure you in any way, your neighbor would not be alive and free, he would be chained and a mere automaton. It is not possible to make a perfect world without taking away choice, unless you give your creatures the choice to choose perfection willingly.
So... what we must do, is use our choice to choose perfection. Let Him be our guide. He is what we must worship and hold up as the real and actual standard.
A deist must act as though God is absent... but we are the one's who refuse His hand. We don't ask for His help, therefore we get none. Try asking Him to show Himself to you.
What would you have Him do... force Himself upon us?
He will not force Himself, nor (and more importantly) will he allow us to force our own visions of what reality should be upon Him. He gives us what we want. It is we who do not know what we ask. He does... and that is why He commands us to worship only Him. Not for His sick pleasure, but for everyone's benefit.
We have choice, so we must learn to accept that we make the wrong choices based upon wrong motives, and that results in pain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 8:13 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2007 1:44 AM Rob has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 146 of 270 (415949)
08-13-2007 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Rob
08-13-2007 1:35 AM


Re: playing God's advocate for you...
If God did not allow your neighbor to injure you in any way, your neighbor would not be alive and free, he would be chained and a mere automaton. It is not possible to make a perfect world without taking away choice, unless you give your creatures the choice to choose perfection willingly.
But that's just nonsense. (You shouldn't rely on C.S. Lewis for good theology; his work is pablum. He's probably the single worst theologian in English history.)
We're already constrained by the laws of physics. If you contend that we have free will and choice now - even though I can't, for instance, choose to flap my arms and fly like a bird - then restricting our options even further could hardly be detrimental to our free will.
There's already an infinite number of ways to do the right thing. Eliminating all the ways to do evil would hardly represent the elimination of choice.
If the laws of physics don't eliminate free will, then a few more laws of physics - like a physical law that would prevent someone from murdering, for instance - don't eliminate free will. Our choices are already restricted all the time. A few more wouldn't hurt anything.
Try asking Him to show Himself to you.
I attempted your experiment and was unable to replicate your results. Asking God results in nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 1:35 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 2:03 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 147 of 270 (415950)
08-13-2007 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by ringo
08-13-2007 1:25 AM


Ringo:
If you're going to define "truth" as the best answer we can obtain by empirical methods, you're automatically eliminating theism and embracing deism.
That was your inference not mine.
I was only agreeing to the fact that emperical evidence is valid. And that is why I no longer believe in evolution btw (short on hard evidence, and long on theo; a lot of conflating 'natural selection' with 'evolution'). There's more than one way to look at it, but only one of them is right.
I did not say that 'emperical evidence' is the definition of truth.
I gave the definition straight out of Websters for God's sake.
Seriously... what's the matter with you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ringo, posted 08-13-2007 1:25 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by ringo, posted 08-13-2007 1:56 AM Rob has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 148 of 270 (415951)
08-13-2007 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Rob
08-13-2007 1:45 AM


Rob writes:
I did not say that 'emperical evidence' is the definition of truth.
I know you didn't say it, but it's the logical result of what you did say. Answers come from evidence. You equated answers with truth. So truth comes from evidence, according to you.
Since empirical evidence is the only kind of evidence we're talking about, you are implicitly saying that empirical evidence equates with truth.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 1:45 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 2:14 AM ringo has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 149 of 270 (415952)
08-13-2007 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by crashfrog
08-13-2007 1:44 AM


Re: playing God's advocate for you...
Crash:
I attempted your experiment and was unable to replicate your results. Asking God results in nothing.
You seem angry with Him for that. Perhaps you wanted a response on your terms? He will show Himself if we are genuine. I suspect you wanted Him to be your genie in some way.
Crash:
We're already constrained by the laws of physics. If you contend that we have free will and choice now - even though I can't, for instance, choose to flap my arms and fly like a bird - then restricting our options even further could hardly be detrimental to our free will.
Gee wiz Crash... have you not heard of the Space shuttle, and the pain that resulted from the crash?
God restrains us yes, but not totally. We always find a way to beat Him. Our problem is that we try:
Genesis 11:6 The Lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.
We are potentially more powerul than you realize. But God will not allow us to win ultimately. If He did, He wouldn't be God, He'd be us. And that is the real anthropomorphic god.
We want God to take care of only part of our lives by our direction and will (my will be done). He will not settle for giving us less than the full treatment (His will be done).
If you're willing to give up 'all of your riches and wealth' (not just the money), then He will respond, and you'll have the greatest supernatural experince possible. But you'll never get to the point of actually asking for that, without first needing Him desperately. As long as you think you're in control, you don't really believe you need Him and cannot really ask.
And just so you know, that applies to me as well... and there is nothing harder to do than be vulnerable and be in need when we are bred in a world that worships control and despises weakness. A baby in a manger makes no sense to the proud.
You're proud of who you are... and with that mindset, you cannot see God. Not because He won't show Himself, but because you demand that He be, what He is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2007 1:44 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2007 11:42 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 150 of 270 (415953)
08-13-2007 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by ringo
08-13-2007 1:56 AM


Ringo:
Since empirical evidence is the only kind of evidence we're talking about, you are implicitly saying that empirical evidence equates with truth.
Not so fast.. we're also couching it all in philosophical terms. And we assume (by faith) that the universe is logical. Therefore logical consistency is also a test for truth (reality) which must be married with emperical evidence. Another factor is experiential relevance.
If I experience something, and it is married with emperical evidence, and... is logically consistent, then I have much more than emperical evidence. None of them alone is ultimately very powerful.
You were the one talking about evidence (answers) and not truth. But your own definition of answers (which is also the definition of truth) does not pertain only to the emperical world as you thought, it also pertains to the orderly nature of reality in general, and that means that philsophical constructs must be logical if they are to be true.
Your philosophical construst (or miniature tower of Babel if you like) fell several posts ago when you were divided against yourself in a violent storm of contradiction.
You may be confused (or even trying to confuse me), but I am not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ringo, posted 08-13-2007 1:56 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 08-13-2007 2:30 AM Rob 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