Godot

To play Devil's Advocate here, the deist "sees" proof of god everywhere. The sky, the birds, even the littlest stone attest to the glory of the kingdom that is his. With this in mind, to ask for proof of his existence is incredulous to a deist. It's akin to demanding to see air; its existence is self-evident if only you're willing to have a look.

Darkblade

I am glad that you were only playing devil's advocate. Firstly, neither was the person I was arguing against a deist, nor the story of the christian god-concept interacting with Moses a deist story. Besides the fact that the deist's "proof" is really only an unsubstantiated, arbitrary opinion, I believe that deism is, by its definition, a meaningless belief. It entails no afterlife, no morals or ethics, and no additional knowledge whatsoever. Deism can not be redefined to include any of these things without subjecting it to the fact that there is no evidence supporting those beliefs, and that any opinions about their "god" are meaningless, as it, by definition, does nothing anymore (at least in our world).

Other than those things, yeah, deism makes sense.

the_cave

But you might as well disprove the existence of, say love, by the same argument. Indeed, how vague is love? If different people give wildly different explanations of it, does that mean it doesn't exist?

the_cave

Sure, I agree--and if everyone truly understood the definition of "good", there would be a lot less disagreement about what things actually are good.



Well, there's another sense of creation--my parents were not only my biological parents, but they created me by raising me and educating me, and caring for me, thus helping to bring the present "me" about. That's quite a favor, and I feel I owe my parents something or other at least for it. I myself like to go further and give respect to whatever the ultimate forces are behind that process of creation.



What I mean is, that is true because of the laws of biochemistry...which are true because of the laws of physics...which are true because [Here There Be Dragons--or, in my case, God].



I was sure that was what you meant, but I couldn't find it. I really did look, honest!



Sorry, "b" is the clause that begins with "but".



? This is crazy--I can hate someone's actions without hating them. Are you saying parents should never punish their children? Or that they hate them while they are punishing them, but stop hating them once the punishment stops?

I wholeheartedly agree that acting on hope is better than hoping. Many people I've encountered do not wish to do more than hope--they're content with (it seems to me) absolutely hating someone for the rest of their lives. I doubt I'm going to get them to act differently, & often I'm not sure I wish to, so I settle for getting them to at least hope, in some sort of vague manner. If you want to act on the conviction that individuals can change their character, by all means, please do so! I encourage it.



But it's those split seconds that make all the difference, isn't it? Where did the split seconds come from? Why are they there? Are you saying the universe had its ultimate origin in the laws of quantum physics? If so, why were the laws there? If the laws are eternal, and simply always were, don't you find that somewhat striking? Doesn't it make you at least pause for thought? It makes me pause for thought, even without an idea of god. But I'm finding that this might simply make me different from others...it seems that some simply don't find existence remarkable, and are unwilling to take an emotional attitude towards that fact. I also find this remarkable.

What I'm saying is, I'm becoming less inclined to require the existence of consiousness before applying the label "purpose". (Furthermore, if panpsychism is correct, it seems this would give quite adequate ground for attributing "purpose" to objects as small as subatomic particles.)

Hawkingfan

I think that is ad hoc. Besides, you still do not owe your parents anything. If you feel you do, fine.
This is very circumstantial. It depends on what the punishment is, doesn't it? Beating a child nearly to death as punishment is deserving of a lot more than just hate. That goes for anyone who lays a hand on a child in order to punish them.
This is the classic God of the Gaps argument. Throughout history, God has been the "answer" for any lack of scientific knowledge, everything from fire, to the rising of the sun, to rainbows, to physical ailments, to mental retardation, mental problems, etc... Then once a scientific explanation comes along, the gap closes. This will happen once again whenever the evidence comes along that will answer the question of what happened precisely at the big bang. Then God will have to fill in the gap prior to that. And the cycle will continue, but eventually there will not be a gap to fill.
Try attributing a "purpose" to the appendix first, then try subatomic particles.

Pyrrho

Why, it is perfectly obvious what the purpose of the appendix is: It is to kill off some people, and add pain and suffering to the world, and to put extra money into the hands of doctors! You wouldn't want doctors to have to settle for an E-Class Mercedes-Benz when there is a more luxurious S-Class Mercedes-Benz that they could own for several thousand dollars more, would you?

This proves God's benevolent plan and magnificent design!

the_cave

Why is it ad hoc? I'm merely trying to explain my larger sense of "to create". It's not like once my genes were in place, everything else was taken care of.

Probably this is not the place to decide whether we owe our parents anything. But suffice it to say that I feel inclined to give them love in return for the love they've given me--and so for anyone who has given me such things. So might I, as a theist, be inclined to return gratitude to the ultimate source of my being, whether I'm obligated to or not (and even whether it's a person in the same way my parents are or not.)

Sure it's circumstantial--this is not a nuance you noted in your original statement, but I'm glad you're making it now.

I am not making a "God of the gaps" argument. I'm after an understanding of the nature of being itself. The more science comes up with to explain things materially, there more there needs to be explained in an existential manner.

If there should ever come a day when "what happened precisely at the big bang" is explained in a philosophically satisfactory matter, I feel confident that I will be able to recognize a part of that explanation as something deserving of the label "god", simply because it will be a philosophical argument of the existential nature I just mentioned. It will explain the nature of being itself, why there are laws at all, why there is something rather than nothing, why sentient experience exists, and so forth. Barring that sort of explanation, I wouldn't be willing to call it a philosophically satisfactory explanation.

What I'm saying is that, if science indeed describes the entire domain of possible human knowledge (does it describe poetry?), then at some point it will talk about matters which I would call "religious". It will do this once it's able to talk about the fabric of reality itself--its matter and form (existence vs. nonexistence, and the existence of governing laws.) If it keeps going in some of the directions it's going in cosmology and philosophy of mind, it should either begin speaking of such matters, or realize it can't speak of such matters. But even if that were to be the case, we could still talk about mysteries like the mystery of existence in meaningful language, just as we do now.

I would say its purpose is to be an appendix.

Hawkingfan

So are you agreeing or disagreeing? My statement is that it is unnatural to love your enemies.
Well, that's your opinion. There is no need, IMO, to explain an existential manner of something as say, a rainbow.
But I feel confident that this kind of reasoning will die out. It's already decreasing in numbers. A long time ago, the answer to everything was "god did it". Why does the sun rise? Where do rainbows come from? Why is this person convulsing on the ground and foaming at the mouth?
Nowadays, many people know better. And we are spreading the word. There is no need to exorcize a demon for every time someone is convulsing on the ground and foaming at the mouth (I don't know, maybe you do think the devil would need to be cast out in that case).
Yeah, it's probably along the lines that poetry is a form of communication through language whose intent is to express deep feelings and emotions.
And the "purpose" of the universe is to be a universe. The "purpose" of a man is to be a man. And the "purpose"....

Eric H

Hello Cipher Girl

quoter Cipher Girl
Human language can be very ambigious, unlike a language such as mathematics, computer code, or blueprints. But a lot of people don't realize how ambigious a verbal language can really be. I'm so used to math, computer code, and specified software requirements that I know I sometimes irritate people who aren't so picky about their language.

I guess when a lot of people talk about their god, they assume everybody thinks exactly like them. In a way it's very sad. I enjoy discussing things with a group of people vith a very diverse set of viewpoints. It seems that religion forces a sort of conformity of thought on its followers. They are largely unaware of it and tend to assume that others also conform to the same viewpoint.
----------------------------------------------------



I agree with you again, us Christians can disagree about the nature of God, but at the same time seem to want a conformity of beliefs with each other.

At times I seem as confused as you are about the aims of Christianity.

A little while ago I came across a questionnaire on the net, which asked various questions about Christianity.
The idea was to find a Christian denomination which best suited the answers you gave.
By the way I answered the questions I should have been a Lutheran, but I have never been to a Lutheran service in my life. I am a Catholic and when I looked down the list, the Catholic Church was the eighteenth best-suited church according to the way I answered the questions.

We are all individuals; I do not see how it is possible to conform to any one way of believing, even if any church should desire this to happen.
We recite the creed week after week, and we are still left with questions about beliefs.
Sadly despite any best efforts from a Christian, or any other believer I feel that beliefs will always remain a bit on the muddy and murky side and open to interpretation.

To me it seems that we find God in many different ways.


Peace

Eric

Cipher Girl

[b]I agree with you again, us Christians can disagree about the nature of God, but at the same time seem to want a conformity of beliefs with each other.

At times I seem as confused as you are about the aims of Christianity. [b]

Eric_H, christians have long confused me. As I was growing up in the deep south, the people around me tried as hard as they could to make me conform. Luckily for me, they utterly failed. I remained the same unreligious person I always was. When I was young, I sort of was a deist, but have come to realize that I don't need a god to explain the world around me.

A little while ago I came across a questionnaire on the net, which asked various questions about Christianity.
The idea was to find a Christian denomination which best suited the answers you gave.

I wonder what denomination "atheist" falls into?

To me it seems that we find God in many different ways.

Or don't.

Sadly despite any best efforts from a Christian, or any other believer I feel that beliefs will always remain a bit on the muddy and murky side and open to interpretation.

That's why I feel that a lot of people simply prefer to let other do their thinking for them. My sister, a minimal christian, absolutely thinks that it is inappropriate at any time to discuss one's philosophy. Many people are content to leave their beliefs vague and unexamined. This spares them the effort of further exploring their beliefs. Apparently they feel it's too hard to change existing beliefs, especially if they find a mistake or illogic in them.