|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Deism in the Dock | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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? Ah yes, we must all just be freaking nuts to believe something you cannot understand eh? OR ... perhaps it is your premises that are faulty.
Message 227 I see a fundamental conflict between a few members of this boards' version of deism juxtaposed to the Dictionary's. As already noted there are several dictionary definitions, and your continued citing of only one as if it was totally authoritarian is a false premise. Your understanding of others people's positions is also notoriously unreliable and prone to outright fabrication.
Message 225 NJ writes: quote: In other words you refuse to review your premises to see where your error lies, because it is easier to find comfort in your view that all deists are freaking nuts ... And you don't think your "opinion" is offensive in the slightest. What are you scared of nem, reality? Being wrong? Becoming a deist? All three? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : msg 227 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 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Everybody knows that Einstein followed, in many respects, "Spinoza's God." Alright, well, not everyone. But among scientist and philosopher circles it is widely known. You must have missed Spinoza Pantheism Defined ... 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 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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? Why not? You keep saying I don't add up in your mind. How about this -- you tell me what you - in your great wisdom - think I believe and I'll tell you that you are wrong. Again. But please put it out there, I can use a good bellylaugh. Do you think you MIGHT get a picture here?
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. Melodramatic? Tell me what you think deists are then if not freaking nuts? It's written all over the tone of your posts nem. Meanwhile you keep ignoring that I'm telling your that your "logic" is faulty.
Claim: there cannot be any deists.Evidence: there are deists. Conclusion: any claim that there cannot be deists is invalid. (or deists are freaking nuts ...). You come to this faulty claim as a conclusion to a supposedly logical argument, so that means that the conclusion of your 'argument' is false. NEXT STEPS (the one you keep avoiding):
Failure to take these steps means that your concept will remain invalidated simply by the evidence of the existence of deists. Continued assertion of your claim will just prove that you are unable to learn from simple errors, can't admit to being wrong, have trouble doing basic logic, and prefer to insult people with stupid remarks based on faulty thinking. Not that that is not your style anyway. If you have trouble identifying your premises, that might be an indication that you have a logically invalid structure (or that you don't know jack about logic), but it should be simple. Here are some generic examples to get you started: Premise #1: if A then BPremise #2: if B then C Conclusion: if A then C Premise #1: all A is BPremise #2: all B is C Conclusion: all A is C Let me know if you need your hand held.
Why must the questioning of the tenability of a theory equate to fear of it? Can you explain that to me? You haven't questioned it, nem, you've made a logically invalid conclusion and you refuse to see if you can find where you went wrong. Instead you just keep repeating your invalid assertion. You complain about your sister in law being "lazy" and yet you can't do the simple work to ground-truth your argument. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : nuts 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 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Not always RAZD. That is why definitions use 'a' and 'any' differently. If it had said a god is any supernatural being... you'd have a point, but it doesn't. It's an ambiguous definition that you have picked to suit your needs. It's not just me, Mod. We'll take a different tack at it:
Color for emphasis. There's your "any" qualifier. But this is getting off the track of the argument. This comes up because nemesis argued (Message 30) that it was impossible to consider two or more faiths (and accommodate the different gods) as valid without having an inherent contradiction. Archer made the argument (Message 33) that christianity already does consider multiple gods. At that point nemesis made the usual christian accommodation (Message 37) of having both one and three gods as if there was no contradiction. What we see with the issue of devils and angels is just another accommodation to fit other gods into the overall mythos while staunchly pretending to have only one god. Thus to argue that other people in other cultures cannot make the same kind of mental accommodation is false. 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 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
By this rationale Islam is not a monotheistic religion either. It was an angel (Gabriel) that communicated the Qur'an to Muhammed. It is my understanding that Muslims are pretty hard-core about being strictly monotheistic. I agree, but these are essentially the same faith, founded one after the other, and they share a common ancestor in their evolution. A major distinction I'd like to draw is that fundamentalist literalist believers (either faith) believe these angels and demons exist, while moderate believers can see them as allegorical elements. 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 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
By this definition, angels and demons are not gods. Actually it does not say that. That only applies to the head honcho god. It does not say there are no other gods, (and in fact your faith has a little something to say about other gods yes?), just that he is the big cheese.
...every faith has to utilize all of the definitions for God ... even when the word 'angel' appears in there as well? Actually to my mind every person has a different faith. Some people use broad support from existing religions as a basis, but individually no two people agree on the whole. You use the definitions that are comfortable for your faith. But I also note:
While the Trinity may be a strange belief, having three aspects of God does not make 3 gods. Whatever makes you happy. 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 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You may have some really unique definition of deism means to you, Nope. Otherwise I would not have posted that other definition. You are going off the deep end (again) based on your preconceptions. Some of which are false.
quote: Good enough to work with here.
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. Which statements and why are they incompatible? You can't make blanket statements nem, and you are known for misrepresenting other peoples positions, so I really need you to lay this out. Is it because I am an "evolutionist"? Is that your problem?
Message 92 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. Message 217If 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 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? 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. Message 101By 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. You are conflating several things here altogether, nem and you are obviously very very confused about the "nature" of deism. And the validity of current ID thought ... and evolution and ... etc etc As I said before some of your basic premises are just plain false and some of your conclusions are based on unspoken assumptions (hidden premises). This is the way to false conclusions. And there are LOTS of errors is just those brief statements above. (1) "nature" is not just evolution, evolution is a part of nature, and when you equivocate back and forth from one to the other (as you did above) you end up with a falsehood.(2) there is absolutely no contradiction between being a deist and being an evolutionist. None. Nature includes how evolution works. (2a) there is no inherent contradiction with being an honest IDologist and being an evolutionist either (as you can see in some of Dembski's writing). None. All science is just a tool to see what you can understand, and rejecting any part of science is also rejecting part of the truth that is being sought. This includes how evolution works. (3) deism is not a "check your brain at the door" religion, and thus it does not need to abide by any of the ill conceived half thought through (at best) concepts that are "popular" within IDology by people that have not rid themselves of preconceptions. Taken to it's logical conclusion ID becomes deism -- it is ID that needs to grow up. (4) I am a deist whether you like it or not. That's just for starters, but it shows without doubt or quandary that your ability to make a rational argument with logical conclusions is fraught with error after error. Let me throw you a bone for your search on the places where you went wrong: You reach an undocumented and false conclusion by conflation and equivocation ("every deist I've spoken to is a staunch evolutionist who argues that finding design in nature is a worthless, and moreover, impossible endeavor") and base part your argument on it:
Message 5 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. Because this conclusion is false, so is the "box" constructed with it, and it falls apart. It is not the only one. You also have false impressions of what deists need to know and what they don't in order to reach their conclusions. Your "argument" is a sieve with holes houses can fall through.
My argument has less to do with deists than it does you, Yeah, right, nothing personal eh? No, your argument has more to do with making false assumptions, using hidden premises and other logical fallacies, misrepresenting what people say, adding outright insults, and coming to false conclusions than it does with anything. Your failure, your inability to see where you went wrong is not my doing, but due solely to your stone-headed thinking. Enjoy. Now you can make a post for me:
future nem writes: I made a mistakeI was wrong to say the things I said I'm sorry Take it like a big boy eh? Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : bone 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 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Is it really necessary to deduce God externally? Did any of us go through such logical steps to get to our belief? Or did we just go with our hearts?
I think its by both, but surely that intimate connection is what sealed it for me. Your position is now officially a joke. You have been shown one logical error in your thinking that invalidates your "box" and now, when Ana gives you a completely reasonable alternative (one of several possible), you reject it -- not for any reason, but just because you don't think so. Your ready rejection speaks more to your unwillingness to consider options than to their viability. Special Pleading and Begging the Question are other logical fallacies in your arguments now. Congratulations - you live in a fantasy world nem. The box encloses you. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added 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