Jayhawker Soule

Exactly.

capnkirk

But some of them aren't. That's what I thought this thread was about.:banghead:

Jayhawker Soule

This thread is about "Debating Deists". If and when I choose to engage in such a debate, the last thing I wish to do is allow them to falsely distance themselves from theism in general. It seems to me that, from the perspective of philosophical naturalism, one Genie is pretty much the same as the next.

[ In fact, "if you weren't so defensive", you might even come to acknowledge this as a viable stance.. ]

Keith Russell

I, too, see no reason to debate deists and differently than one would debate any other theist.

'God' is 'God', whether 'God' is supposed to be entirely separate from the universe, or whether the universe is supposed to be a subset of 'God', or whether one of the attributes of the universe is supposed to be 'God'.

To believe in any 'God', or in any type of 'God'--without evidence--is still irrational.

Keith.

capnkirk

Einstein said: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Here is an example of someone who holds that there was/is a creator who set the universe in motion (i.e. created the natural laws of the universe), but has NOT made him his master, has not submitted to him in any way that you and I as athiests do not submit to the laws of nature.

So how would you debate Einstein on the content of his quote? Would you acknowledge the many conclusions you have in common? Or would you simply dismiss his views as irrational because he believes an any god at all.

My point all through this thread is that the beginning of debate with persons who hold similarly to Einstein and Spinoza is to establish how similar our views are before we launch full bore into our singular difference of opinion.

capnkirk

I would really love to watch you take that stance (face to face) with Einstein or Spinoza (RE: Einstein's quote: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the oderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.") (see preceding post)

Jayhawker Soule

He and I might well have begun with the recognition that Spinoza was a Pantheist, not a Deist, and, therefore, of little relevance to a thread about "Debating Deists". We might then have attributed both your oversight, and your appeal to authority, to an unfortunate defensiveness. But who really knows.

Parenthetically, it's my understanding that Einstein's remark was directed at a forceful New York Rabbi. I wonder if he was intentionally baiting the poor guy with Spinoza, an excommunicated Jew.

Keith Russell

capn asked:
"So how would you debate Einstein on the content of his quote? Would you acknowledge the many conclusions you have in common? Or would you simply dismiss his views as irrational because he believes an any god at all."

There is no evidence that suggests (and thus no reason to believe) that the universe is in any way, shape, or form more than it is. To say that the universe is also 'God' is to deny the law of identity. [i]Since the law of identity is the basis of reason, any claim that contradicts this law is--by definition--irrational.

(In other words, to answer your question, capn...yes!)

Keith.

capnkirk

Keith,

First of all, I have ABSOLUTELY NO QUARREL with your logic as stated above; we are on the same side here!

Our difference seemingly lies in what the term "debating" as used in the thread-title embodies. Our perspectives are essentially in agreement here about the debated "points"; where they diverge is that I am also exploring the "process" of the debate. Implicit in this exploration is a parenthetical "successfully" prefix to the thread-title. In other words, how to "prep" the deist for the SALIENT point(s). The simplest (and probably unnecessary)example I can think of to illustrate this point is: Starting with a syllogism (that you have not shared with your opponent), you carefully secure his agreement to the truth of each of the first two postulations of the syllogism, then when you pose the dictated conclusion, the trap is sprung. The power of the trap is that your opponent already "owns" both jaws of the trap and is thereby obliged to own the dictated conclusion.
In cataloging or verifying the things that you already agree on, the deist will often with his own words provide you with the specific tools to burst "his" particular bubble. The (admittedly few) deists I have known directly were much more analytical and logical than the theists I have known, so they are more vulnerable to logical argument. For them, as for me (and I suspect, for you), nothing will cause us to reexamine and reevaluate our conclusions more reliably than having it demonstrated to us that two or more of our "truths" are in conflict with each other. I am searching not only for arguments for debating deists, but also tools that help those arguments succeed.

Keith Russell

capn:

Agreed.

Thanks for taking the time to post, and explain your views.

Keith.