-->
@3RU7AL
It isn't hair splitting, it is relevent.
Loving any god is not the same as loving the truth. I know you like fill in the blanks, but this is not a fill in a blank.
DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM
Posts
Total:
270
-->
@Outplayz
And what about the content you've read in textbooks, or read in papers? What about Da Vinci's notebooks? Would consider their being texts as diminishing to their effect as evidence?Well, it depends on what we are saying it stands as evidence for. It doesn't disqualify as a possibility. Everything we have ever imagined could be real in some possible world. I just don't think the text is evidence enough for me to say, become Christian and abandon what i believe.
I purposefully said as far as i know.
I know. "As far as I know" still suggests that you know something, it's particular extent notwithstanding. So, as far as you know, how do you know?
But as far as i know, it doesn't seem to be repeatable with our present day knowledge simply, bc if it were... i think we would have all heard about it by now. Minus things like conspiracies to withhold this information or fringe people with no desire to share... i would say there is no repeatable evidence the rest can show. I would add that bc i have experienced stuff and know i can't repeat it... that would also be a reason i suspect this, but i can't generalize with my experience vs. others... maybe they can. But that is sorta another reason i don't think it's repeatable. We can also add other things to this like human nature and a thirst for power. I would say all combined, i'm pretty confident there isn't repeatable evidence for "a particular deity."
What informs this confidence? Your statement is riddled with uncertainty (as it should be.) My point is that there's a distinction between making ontological claims (i.e. there is no evidence) and following epistemological form and stating, "I as an observer have yet to be made availed to said evidence." Though it's not as eloquent as the former, the latter is logically consistent. When one states that there's no evidence, one in essence states that the evidence can't be there, or that it does not exist. Of course, this would require proof in and of itself. The ontological claim also disregards the possibility or even the prospect that methodology, formula, or interpretation may be culpable.
Gauging your response, I presume your reasoning does follow epistemological form. It's just your conclusion ("there's no evidence") is at odds with it.
-->
@Athias
I'm sure Outplayz knows there is evidence, he makes the distinction between that and "repeatable" evidence and even "weak" evidence. In that sense he's correct, usually with spiritual or paranormal type evidences (or even scriptural texts) we are dealing with a "non-physical" based evidence, so coming from a scientific approach it's not really "repeatable" lol, even though demonstrable when we evaluate the numbers involved. How many people know that 1 out of 3 people have witnessed or what they thought they witnessed was a spirit or ghost? that's alarming evidence. But, not repeatable in the sense we can test it, it's just mounds of evidence involving testimonies.
On the other hand, I do think he supports the notion that no particular "God" can be proven within the religious arena, meaning that the interpretations man has is only a reflection of that reality, doesn't mean that's all that exists. The Creator is an eternal creative force, that cannot be limited to basically anything at all.
-->
@Athias
And what about the content you've read in textbooks, or read in papers? What about Da Vinci's notebooks? Would consider their being texts as diminishing to their effect as evidence?
I don't understand what you are asking me here bc there are many different types of text. I personally suspect all comic book characters are possible in some possible reality/world. I'm a fictional realist in that regard, but don't take that as an absolute... i'm largely agnostic bc i don't know anything for sure. So, sure... i can judge the contents of any text... some texts are just reality based therefore they give reality facts, conclusions, opinions, etc. It's all a work in progress, but as you can see... it gets really complicated if we start saying what about this text or this text... there's a lot. In regards to the Bible... let's just say the reality it portrays is at odds with who i am. But there are things in the text that are profound... like the parable of talents... that had a profound effect on my life when i read it. But just bc it helped me and let's say touched my "soul" in that moment... it gives no credit to the Bible being evidence of that particular god.
I know. "As far as I know" still suggests that you know something, it's particular extent notwithstanding. So, as far as you know, how do you know?
I told you the reasons in my last reply. Personal experience and not being able to repeat it, human nature, power, greed, psychology, some religions like Christians would like nothing more than to have proof to shut everyone up, etc... Factoring all of these scenarios and still seeing nothing i think is pretty damning evidence of no evidence of a particular god.
Gauging your response, I presume your reasoning does follow epistemological form. It's just your conclusion ("there's no evidence") is at odds with it.
That is not my conclusion. I personally think there is evidence. The way i phrase it is "there is sufficient evidence to at the very least suspect and/or take spirituality serious." Of course i have to define a lot there... but, i think there is evidence but i think it's only weak evidence as Etrnl points out. So anecdotal/personal experiences. For the reasons above, i don't think there is hard evidences which basically means proof of a "particular god." I said i'm on your side with the evidence claim Press made... the only thing i agree with press is the "proof of a particular god" part.
Why stop boiling it down to. ( i don't think there is any evidence for any particular God )
Of course there isn't.
Now we need to asks the theistic / Christians from any religion and religious group.
ARE YOU IN THE CORRECT RELIGIOUS GROUP?
You then start looking at the numbers and it hits you powwwwww, right in the kisser.
Them theistic lot are All in their correct religious group.
Billions of them ALLLLLLLLLL CORRECT .
So that goes back on the burner.
And it appears that there is proof of a specific God.
As They all picked one and it happened to be the correct one.
now Boiling it once more now and cooling it becomes," AS CLEAR AS DAY " .
IT'S PERFECTLY CLEAR.
( CHRISTIANS ARE GREAT RELIGIOUS GROUP PICKERS FULL STOP )
Why isn't this acknowledged?
-->
@3RU7AL
If you can not comprehend what is meant by the same old unresolvable argument then why do you continue to debate it?
-->
@Mopac
Loving any god is not the same as loving the truth. I know you like fill in the blanks, but this is not a fill in a blank.
If I love Krishna with all my heart and all my soul and all my mind, and I know that Krishna = The Truth and The Ultimate Reality, what could you tell me or show me to convince me that I might be following the "wrong" (not Eastern Orthodox) teachings?
-->
@zedvictor4
If you can not comprehend what is meant by the same old unresolvable argument then why do you continue to debate it?
I'm not convinced it's "unresolvable". You're categorization would seem to be somewhat premature (and beyond your epistemological limits).
-->
@3RU7AL
I couldn't tell you much based on this info alone. I don't know what you really mean by Krishna. I don't know the doctrine you believe.
I can say that when you say, "I love Krishna and I know Krishna is the Ultimate Reality" it sounds a lot like you might have a conception of God that you call the ultimate reality. The Ultimate Reality is not a conception, an idea, or any other created thing, be it of matter or mind.
What does loving Krishna look like?
It is plain as day what loving tbe truth above all else entails. It entails the purifying of the nous, the subduing of the passions, and the struggle to rid oneself of delusion.
-->
@Mopac
It looks exactly like loving The Truth and The Ultimate Reality.What does loving Krishna look like?
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, if Krishna is just another word for God, I say a rose called by any other name is still in essence a rose.
However, I have a feeling that maybe you don't really know much about this Krishna subject, and you are simply using another one of your fill in the blank arguments. You could easily replace Krishna with moldy onions and have the same argument.
-->
@3RU7AL
What do you think that an epistemological limit is? Given the philosophical and theoretical nature of epistemology.
-->
@zedvictor4
What do you think that an epistemological limit is? Given the philosophical and theoretical nature of epistemology.
An epistemological limit is quite literally the limit of what is knowable.
Can you present a syllogistic statement that makes a sound logical case for your assertion that "this discussion" is, in-fact, "unresolveable"?
(IFF) theism requires a set of holy rules from a god (AND) deism merely asserts (ontologically) that some (unknown/unknowable) god made everything, but did not provide a holy rule-book (AND) atheism asserts that any god concept is indistinguishable from no-god (or a purely imaginary god) (THEN) deism is functionally identical to atheism (neither endorses a holy-rule-book).
-->
@3RU7AL
Theism snd Deism mean the same thing.
I dispute that a holy rule book has anything to do with theism or deism, which are just Greek and Latin words respectively for the same concept.
Even if I were to grant your distinction, there is definitely a difference between someone who acknowledges a god, gods, or God and one who is in denial of God and all gods.
-->
@Mopac
Even if I were to grant your distinction, there is definitely a difference between someone who acknowledges a god, gods, or God and one who is in denial of God and all gods.
Please explain the functional difference between a DEIST (no-holy-rule-book) and an ATHEIST (no-holy-rule-book).
-->
@3RU7AL
One believes in God or gods.
One is in denial of God or gods.
They are opposite positions.
Do you deny belief as a function?
-->
@Mopac
One believes in God or gods with no practical implications (no holy rule book).
One is in denial of God or gods with no practical implications (no holy rule book).
They are not opposite positions.
Do you deny action as a function?
-->
@3RU7AL
Your position is entirely based on looking at this "no holy rule book" thing with tunnel vision. It is also making the claim that belief in God or lack thereof has no practical implications.
You don't need a holy rule book for your beliief in a god to have practical implicatons. You don't need to believe in a god for there to be a god that you in action show devotion to in spirit. Indeed, most atheists have gods, they are simply in denial of them. I would also wager that the vast majority of the different types of god believers who have existed didn't require a "holy rule book."
I would also like to point out that to refer to say, Orthodox Scriptures as a "Holy rule book" is a mischaracterization and grossly inaccurate. I can't speak for other traditions who have scripture, but I believe it would be the case that most of them are not "holy rule books" as you irreverently call them.
-->
@Mopac
Your position is entirely based on looking at this "no holy rule book" thing with tunnel vision. It is also making the claim that belief in God or lack thereof has no practical implications.You don't need a holy rule book for your beliief in a god to have practical implicatons. You don't need to believe in a god for there to be a god that you in action show devotion to in spirit. Indeed, most atheists have gods, they are simply in denial of them. I would also wager that the vast majority of the different types of god believers who have existed didn't require a "holy rule book."I would also like to point out that to refer to say, Orthodox Scriptures as a "Holy rule book" is a mischaracterization and grossly inaccurate. I can't speak for other traditions who have scripture, but I believe it would be the case that most of them are not "holy rule books" as you irreverently call them.
Let's imagine there is an atheist that becomes convinced that it is perfectly reasonable to call "the big bang" god (the ontological argument).
Now what? How does this ontological shift change what the converted atheist believes about ethics and or morality and or politics?
-->
@3RU7AL
As they believe in a dead god, probably not much.
Belief in God alone very rarely does much on its own. I know The Truth exists, but if I don't love The Truth, my belief in it is not going to have me see honesty as a virtue. Why be honest when I can just live in self imposed delusion while saying, "That's the way it is"? Maybe instead of loving The Truth over all things, I love myself and care more about what I can get out of The Truth. Maybe I love The Truth insomuch as I can profit. Is that really loving the truth or is it taking myself as an idol before the truth? The question is rhetorical, of course it is the later.
Perhaps the atheist that came to believe that the big bang as god might be inspired to become a physicist or something. Maybe they will be more charitable towards others who believe in gods or God. Maybe they find that they have trouble hanging around the same people. Who knows! There are so many variables that we can't account for, and faith is a living thing, not a casted image.
-->
@Mopac
That's all I'm sayin'.As they believe in a dead god, probably not much.
Perhaps the atheist that came to believe that the big bang as god might be inspired to become a physicist or something. Maybe they will be more charitable towards others who believe in gods or God. Maybe they find that they have trouble hanging around the same people. Who knows! There are so many variables that we can't account for, and faith is a living thing, not a casted image.
How can you know your church teaching doctrine theology is the one and only true church teaching doctrine theology?
-->
@3RU7AL
What do you mean by doctrine theology? Doctrine is simply what the church teaches.
-->
@Mopac
What do you mean by doctrine theology? Doctrine is simply what the church teaches.
Yes, how can you know your church teaching is the one and only true church teaching (and all others are false)?
-->
@3RU7AL
I know what the church teaches is true, I am a witness. I am certain that the Orthodox is the definitive Christian Church. Firstly because historically speaking it is the original church, and all schisms can be shown historically as deviations from the church. Secondly because it is clear to me after comparing doctrine and such that The Orthodox Church has a deeper and more enlightened understanding of theology.
These two facts alone rule out every other church that calls itself Christian.
There is no organization on the planet that had even come close to the longevity of the Apostolic Church. It is the oldest and longest running continuous institution on the planet.
And saying that, I would like to make clear that I am specifically talking about the aspect of the church that is apostolic, that is, the Holy Orders of the church. Our line of bishops that go back to the apostles ordained by Christ. Truly, the church is uncreated and has existed eternally. The Apostolic Church is a witness to the uncreated Church, and these two are one, just as Christ's divinity exists in eternity, and the man came into being.
-->
@3RU7AL
How can a limit be put on what is knowable?
As we can never be certain of everything that is knowable, unless we are certain that everything we know, is actually everything that there is to be known. And how could we know?
As I previously stated, epistemology is a vague philosophy.
-->
@zedvictor4
Can you present a sound logical case to support your assertion that "this discussion" is, in-fact, "unresolveable"?
-->
@3RU7AL
If the proposition refers to internal data processing, then one can not argue with that.
But as ever the ensuing conceptual dialogue, exceeds the limits of known factual data.
That is not to say that relevant data isn't available.
Nonetheless the ensuing argument currently remains unresolvable
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless the ensuing argument currently remains unresolvable
It's a very simple statement.
DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM (inasmuch as they BOTH require that each individual decide by themselves and for themselves what actions are moral).
I find your automatic gainsaying lacking substance. [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
The only thing that is functionally different between an atheist and a pagan is that the pagan isn't in denial of the fact that they bow to gods.
-->
@Mopac
The only thing that is functionally different between an atheist and a pagan is that the pagan isn't in denial of the fact that they bow to gods.
Please explain what gods a DEIST and or an ATHEIST bows to?