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:
deism -noun
The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct. In the eighteenth century, numerous important thinkers held deist beliefs.
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 92But 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 5They 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 mistake
I 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
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.
™ Version 4.2
