|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Deism in the Dock | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. Your failure to understand is your problem, not Deists. It should be enough that there are many Deists in the world to show that your personal perceptions on what are valid reasons to believe, and your personal problem with understanding Deists, is purely your problem. Personally I don't understand how anyone can keep posting false information after it has been shown to be false, and yet this doesn't stop you from doing so. I just put it down to an inability to learn. I've posted to you before on this and you failed to learn from that experience too.
How then have they surmised that a God exists then? Because it is a personal choice - just as your faith is, I just chose not to delude myself about it. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : . 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I have recently found myself flirting with aspects of deism. This has come as quite a shock. Enjoy the journey.
If any of the following offends you, ... Not a problem - it's hard not to offend people when you call them out on the logic of their position. Essentially the question comes down to "is there a god of any kind or not?" The atheist decides that there is not, in spite of this being a logically invalid conclusion. The deist decides that there is, in spite of this being a logically invalid conclusion. The agnostic makes no decision -- in essence concluding that the jury is still out on the question. This is the only logically valid conclusion (which should answer your question why they exist). The theist decides that there is, in spite of this being a logically invalid conclusion, but they also feel they need to reinforce this by adopting a convenient religion, as this frees them from facing the fact it is a just a choice.
C’mon, what the fuck actually is deism? It's a personal choice after evaluation of the alternatives and taking into account personal perspective.
Is deism at root just a belief in a glorified gOD of the ultimate gaps? No because it is not concerned with any "gaps" in understanding, nor is it interested in justifying itself to others. If you want someone arguing the gaps, try atheists when they assert that absence of evidence (gaps) is evidence of absence. Logically the best they can say is that in their opinion, and based on their understanding of the evidence that the evidence to date is not conclusive yet for a "god of any kind" conclusion. Logically that does not rule out the existence of one or more gods, especially any that are not interested in proving their existence. It's a choice, and everyone makes a choice. Some are better than others, but all are personal choices. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I neither said or made allusions either way, which is why I asked a simple question. I appreciate your reply. You set up three straw man arguments to show why you think nobody could logically believe in deism. The fact is you care little for truth, as you frequently misrepresent the posts of others and make whopper statements where you could easily check the facts, such as: There are many examples. Many. But beyond that, you repeat these even when you have been shown to be in error: you do not learn. Ergo you are not interested in learning the truth.
Hypothetically, would your failure to grasp Christianity bear any reflection upon you by the same rationale? (1) That still does not lessen your ability to understand being your problem in any way (2) You assume I don't (3) This is an attack instead of a response. One of your favorite moves.
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. Ah, the arrogance of blind faith in ones own belief being more than just belief. In the words of Bill Cosby: Riiiiiiight. You still don't understand. You'll pardon me if you find I am not interested in discussing things with you until you show some learning. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Is there a rational basis for it? It is a spiritual journey. I believe that everyone has their own path to walk, their own spiritual truth to find. What works for me may not work for you and vice versa. Thus to tell you why I've made certain choices won't help you. This too is why I reject formal religions as they are all someone else's truth (and those are obviously contradictory).
Why exactly is it a superior conclusion to atheism? It's no less logical. As I said before the logical position is agnosticism: if the logical conclusion were compelling to either side of that position there would be no agnostics. The usual argument put forward by atheists that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is a "godless in the gaps" argument that I consider as invalid as the theist "argument from design" that we have just been all over with the 'Best evidence for creation' thread.
Why does nature ultimately obey physical laws and where do these come from? 42. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I completely agree. Thats why I became an agnostic after years of being a YEC. ... but i must admit i am in a process of finding some answers so I came here to learn. Welcome back and enjoy the journey. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thirdly, they aren't strawmen. 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.
I suspect you did so because my question struck a chord in you. Hardly, it's your stunning arrogance to think you know more about what I believe than I do.
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. Are you going to cede that your philosophies contain irreconcilable differences and contradictions? 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. See what I mean? You think you know all the definitions and all the possible philosophical positions. This from someone who posted that the US border is 98% land, and then tried to dodge when it was pointed out that it isn't even close. 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. You couldn't even acknowledge that you were blatantly absurdly unmistakably pathetically wrong on the US border.
Well, lets look at the truth concerning deism. You can't handle the truth, you're too busy building artificial barriers to understanding it.
You assert there is NO evidence for God. Deists believe in God because of the argument from design, something you lambaste incessantly. No, nem. 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.
But I never want to hear you bombastically flame anyone on EvC for ascribing to what you might refer to as blind faith. A faith chosen by conscious intent with full understanding that it is a choice is not blind. Assuming your faith is absolutely true is. Especially when you cling to any beliefs that are contradicted by evidence.
Then make sense. I do. Your inability to understand it is not my problem. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This may get long, and it may be the last I post on this thread.
I think had a known creationist made the same comment, or an agnostic, or a less respected deist, the atheistic mercilessly unforgiving floodgates would have been opened. Actually I expected some "piling" for this and the "godless in the gaps" comments, but I have also been over similar ground before with PaulK and Crash and others on other threads. I don't think a creationist would make the argument - for (most of) them anything not smacking of their version of theology is atheist in their eyes, even other christians (they aren't "real" christians). But the argument on agnostics is also compelling: if there is sufficient evidence to validate either theism or atheism then there should be no agnostics. Agnostics would have no philosophical "axe to grind" on whether god(s) existed or not, no commitment to anything but logical evaluation of the evidence. The best you have on the atheist side is the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" -- the "godless in the gaps" argument. The best you have on the theist side is the "argument from design" -- along with all the problems of apparent design versus distinguishing what just happens due to natural processes and the (open) question of whether those processes were designed.
Therefore I must ask the most basic questions of you as a deist - 1) If there is a creator who or what created them?2) Is eternity a satisfactory answer given that we have no reason to suppose eternity or the eternal exists? 3) Is the deistic creator more complex than the creation which it produced? Given that a basic tenet of deism is that god(s) is (are) essentially unknowable - per definition below (that is closest to my personal philosophy\belief): Deism Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comAmerican Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition quote: This means your questions are not answerable at this time (although we may grow into them). Note also that by this definition there would necessarily be an "absence of evidence" ... (so much for that argument). Philosophically we can make many hypothesis, but none of them are testable or verifiable, and so they all remain just philosophical concepts. One of my personal favorites is where a singularity expands and turns into a seething bundle of plasmic energy that becomes conscious, attains enlightenment, and also perceives that it's time is limited due to continued expansion; it organizes things to create maximum chaos with laws that create natural organization (strange attractors) to provide the maximum diversity of worlds possible and potential for existence, then it expands to the point when it loses consciousness with the final words "surprise me" ... as it becomes the universe. Spontaneous generation of a limited "window of opportunity" deity. But I could be wrong eh?
How does deism explain these most fundamental of questions and how are these answers different or superior to the standard theistic responses that are so widely rejected by the sort of atheistic arguments found at EvC? You mean like "why are there Brigadier Generals but no Brigadier Specifics?" Deism is a way of looking at "life, the universe and everything" - one that uses science to best understand the universe that is understandable with science, and that uses philosophy to build on that foundation. Many of those philosophical understandings are personal conclusions. Many of these have to do with the place and role of spirituality in our understanding of "life, the universe and everything" and behavior, and with the definition of moral behavior based on logical evaluations. Science and philosophy are tools used to understand. Why I am a deist is part of this larger question. I am inspired by the thinking and effect of enlightened thinkers like Gandhi, Thoreau, and the founding fathers and the power of such spiritual\philosophical thinking to make ethical and moral change in the world. Deism doesn't need to be "superior" to other faiths\philosophies, it just needs to be personally consistent (and not contradicted by evidence). But the biggest problem is that deism is a personal journey with no dogma, no "hand" to hold: each deist will have a different take on all these issues, so asking me to define what all deists think is not going to get a valid answer - I can't speak for anyone else. I've said my "peace" -- take it or leave it. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Then by all means, present some other possibilities. I'm certainly open to that. What other options exist? I have said what is sufficient, I have also said that beyond that it is personal. I don't need to lay it all out for you to drool over -- or do you want details of my sex life next? Send you pictures? A video with sound? Live internet link? Alternatively you could actually look for other possibilities yourself. It's not like I have exclusive rights to them.
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. I think its evident at this point that perhaps you've reached some epiphany and you're just lashing out in frustration. 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. If that's what you need to believe to feel safe in your faith and your limited myopic world view then go for it. Of course it could just be another of the numerous examples of your amazingly limited ability to see other possibilities. Your need to define the situation this way could just be your way of dealing with your basic inability to consider other possibilities, other answers, reality. Obviously you have a sever (need I say neurotic?) need to feel superior to others on the matter of faith and belief, and this is just one way to feed that kind of neurosis.
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. You think??? It's on topic about your inability to ground-check facts and to look into the truth of what you are posting, and to check all the possibilities. Now you are equivocating to wiggle around the blatant error of your post.
Message 93 Bridges are generally built over water, not dry land, which 98% of the border consists of. We were discussing all the borders of the US, the length of the border with Canada that needed no walls, and the practicality of building walls instead of bridges (metaphorically btw, just in case you missed that small element of the discussion). That would be why Anglagard replied
Message 99 Please allow me to elaborate upon what RAZD has pointed out, perhaps too subtly. On the southern border of the US there is a river called the Rio Grande that goes from one end of Texas to the other, from El Paso to Brownsville. Why would Anglagard talk about Texas if you were clearly and unmistakable and unequivocally talking only about California? You also said nothing to my reply referred to above:
You had an opportunity then to clear the issue up by clarifying what you meant. You did not take it. You dodged. The fact that you have this very same problem with other posters - continually - should show you that the problem does not lie with me.
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? Not disconcerting at all nem, because your (many) assumptions are false. It's really quite simple. See if you can figure it out -- without needing to hold someone's hand to get there. Consider this an exercise in 'getting it right' before making unfounded conclusions. Homework.
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. Freaking unbelievable. You get free reign to make all kinds of disparaging, offensive and frankly insulting remarks about my "inadequacies" and my beliefs, and I don't get to talk about your inability to look at the facts and your failure to review available information. At least you admit you are attacking me and not my arguments. You think you have put deism in a box, nem, but I am not in that box. Enjoy. Now maybe we can get back to Archer 'bitch-slapping' you on some other logical falsehoods of your thinking ... Hey, here's a thought: if it's not just me who could it be? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Sigh.
{offtopic}
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. Being "undecided" is a cop-out when there is real evidence of extreme age. The real question is whether or not you can deny that evidence, and how that reflects on your view of other scientific evidence of the reality of the world.{/offtopic} The deistic view of the world is based on the evidence of reality.
And I have to ask Razd, 'how is my question off topic when you are the one who brought it up'? One phrase from a long post discussing "Deism, reality and responses" ... and all phrases in a post are supposed to be strictly on topic? Obviously not.
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. If we did not already cover this on Perceptions of Reality, then that would be the place eh? Start at the beginning post ... Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Totally different views like... what? Like this? God is one. God is three. 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. No gods, many gods. That's a contradiction that either will cancel one or both out. There is some unfinished business with this matter of being able to accommodate contradictions within religious beliefs, one that has to do with the definition of "god" ...
Thus a god is "2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes," -- or rather than any being of supernatural powers is a god, by definition. This is the definition used for all the vast and numerous pantheons of gods, such as Greek, Roman, Norse, etcetera. According to the strict interpretation of the bible all angels and demons have supernatural powers: thus they are all gods by definition, and literalist Christianity is faaaaar from being a "monotheistic" religion ...
So I can repeat what Archer said before:
Message 33 Both can. Much depends on what one understands by deity. God is one. God is three. All in the definition, you see. God is one. God is three. God is ten thousand. All in the definition, you see, and with the definition of god used in other pantheistic religions to unmask the pantheonic element in Christianity we now see belief in thousands of gods --- or are they all one? Conversely if one can believe in all these christian gods with no qualms, then what is the difference adding a few others into the mix? Perhaps they are just the same gods by different names. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : subtitle to differentiate it from the "Gospel of Rob" posts Edited by RAZD, : pantheonic in place of pantheistic per Mod. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
That is a bit sloppy, you might as well have said 'All fast cars are red therefore all red cars are fast'. All gods are beings of supernatural powers/attributes, but not all beings of supernatural powers are gods. Shorthand. The full definition can be used if you wish ... the result is the same.
quote: Although certainly the specification for maleness does not apply within other pantheons, so we don't need to specify that, so ... angels in particular are also believed in and worshiped by those of a literalist bent, and the belief is clearly that they can control nature .... etc etc ... so we still end up with the same result. When applied to the abilities and powers of angels, demons and devils, the characteristics fit the requirements of the definition for gods that is applied to all other pantheons, particularly when compared to the lesser gods of those pantheons.
And a quick correction of nomenclature: you mean something closer to pantheonic here - pantheistic means something else. Corrected.
That clearly isn't true otherwise there wouldn't be half-gods, fantastical monsters, heroes, satyrs, spirits of the dead...or rather they'd exist but they'd also be under the umbrella of 'gods'. Which would make half-gods a bit confusing. Clearly as well these categories do not represent the angels, demons and devils of literal christian belief, nor necessarily beings of supernatural ability. Demigod - Wikipedia
quote: Color mine for empHASis. Could you explain how you can get a demi-god offspring of angels without them being gods? Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. I guess you really are totally clueless to how insensitive and insulting your comments in Message 5 are (even though this is the SECOND time this has been discussed between us). Curious that discussions with other posters on this thread about deism doesn't result in 'venemous responses' from me -- care to venture what the difference is?
You said that you couldn't really explain it, Stop making up your version of reality nem and then try to foist if off as the real thing: I never said I couldn't explain it - I said the explanation was personal. You shouldn't need to make up reality if you had an inkling of the truth eh?
There are no other alternatives logically speaking. If by chance I have failed to consider another possibility, feel free to clue me in. Admit the full truth here nem -- YOU are unable to see any other alternatives. Which is ALL that I have accused you of - a stunning inability to see other possibilities.
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. Are you sure those are the only valid definitions nem? There is no dogma or "gospel" of deism, no requirement for one deist to believe what another believes (and believe me there are a wide variety of beliefs under the "deist umbrella"), just a general "now you see it now you don't" deity. But if it helps you out, I am a deist -- you are the one that claimed I wasn't (yeah no insult there eh nem?):
Message 141 Your current beliefs are totally incompatible with it,... See if you can figure out where you went wrong reaching that conclusion (not that you haven't ever reached false conclusions before ...). If it helps you further this definition I prefer to yours:
I did post this in another response on this thread, so you should be aware of it and make some adjustment to your (now documented above) limited thinking on this issue. Ask yourself why I would post that definition if I didn't think it applied, nem. Any conclusion come to mind?
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. You don't threaten me or my beliefs, you - your approach - offends me and insults my belief. Only your inability to see other possibilities leaves you with this false impression of reality (not that this has ever happened before either). You reach your conclusions based on your need to feel superior, nem. It's not just here it's all over this forum.
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. Deism is not in your box either nem. I am a deist: you do not get to decide my faith, nor it's limitations. That is the height of arrogance, typical of one in a desperate need to feel superior. Do you have a clue yet? or do you need your hand held some more? Enjoy. ps -- let me know when you are ready to apologize. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
No we don't. Since the 'red car fallacy' still applies. All gods in this definition are supernatural and worshipped and generally control some part of reality. The definition does not say 'Any being of supernatural powers...', Sorry the way definitions work is WORD = DEFINITION, Not WORD < DEFINITION. Words and their definitions can be used interchangeably.
Don't get me wrong - angels are often seen with roles similar to the lesser gods of many pantheons. Angel of Death, Horsemen of the Apocolypse spring to mind as being on a par with 'Gods of X', and Yahweh is on a par with (though generally considered more powerful than) many sky or sun gods who was often the head of such pantheons. And this is also evidence that judaism evolved from a pantheonic faith.
However, the Christian mythology clearly states that angels are not gods - so when considering Christian mythology that's all that really counts as far as making sense is concerned. Revisionist coverup. Denial doesn't make the definition invalid. The question is NOT what the faith claims, as people can believe whatever they choose, but how it compares to other faiths and the definitions of gods. That is objective eh? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : interchangable 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Perhaps they haven't offered anything as remotely problematic to your position as I have. What you have posted is not problematic, nem, not remotely: that is a figment of your imagination and your inability to see any other reality. It's your excuse to yourself for why I am offended by what you claim about me, because gosh, you couldn't be offensive eh?
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. You don't think it through nem. Not really. You don't know my version, you don't have a clue about my version, but that is not material to your failure to understand deism.
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). Answer: there is no paradox, your reasoning is faulty. Go back and check your premises and your assumptions. It's not just me, it's the existence of all other deists that make your "paradox" conclusion invalid.
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? 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. You are wrong. Go back and check your premises and your assumptions.
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. This continuing tone of insult and the rest of your post are not worthy of reply. Garbage in garbage out. What I find most humorous in your deist bashing is that you want to be a deist: you claim you are a believer in Intelligent Design, and yet when you take ID to it's logical conclusion you end up with deism. There is no escape from it. Perhaps it's your fear of deism being more logical than your faith that is coming out in your posts (seeing as you like armchair psychology)? Enjoy 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024