(IFF) Deism is true (THEN) what?

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 178
Topic's author
#1
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Because our universe would have been created by a transcendent consciousness (not comprised of the physical universe itself) if deism is true. 
This is a logical non-sequitur.  "transcendent" and "consciousness" are terms relative to human experience.

The Deism hypothesis adds zero information to "The Big Bang".

It is merely an ontological choice to say, "The Big Bang" / "Noumenon" = god(s).

This implies that consciousness rather than matter is fundamental and is therefore in direct opposition to atheism.
Nobody except nobody believes "matter is fundamental".  Noumenon is fundamental.

In genetics, scientists have coined the term "junk DNA" for strands of DNA they believed had no functional role in sustaining the organism because it had been left over from evolving.
Terms like "chaos" "randomness" "dark energy" and "junk DNA" are merely scientific placeholder terms that mean "we have no flipping clue".

If a deity created the universe, this is an avenue for life to have been designed. 
This is another logical non-sequitur.  We have no idea if the human concept of "designed" either has or does not have any conceivable corollary to something like the Noumenon.  This hypothesis is beyond our epistemological limits.  And would seem to be a consequence of the anthropomorphic fallacy.

Rather than mindlessly compiled, DNA can be viewed from a design-first approach. And as it turns out, less and less DNA is discovered to be "junk."
Identifying complex patterns and or previously unidentified uses and or "purposes" of "junk DNA" does nothing to "prove" "design".

Such a development would be exactly like the hundreds of years of scientific progress where we discover knowledge that was previously unknown.

Before Democritus, people thought the weather was "fundamentally unpredictable" and when Democritus was able to predict the weather with some modicum of accuracy, the people began to worship him as a god.  To his credit, he did his best to explain to everyone that he was just a normal human being, just like the rest of them.



Deism is functionally identical to atheism.

#2
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
The social construct of the United States is predicated on deity, the consequence being the respect of truth.
#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Plisken
The United States is predicated on deity, the consequence being fear of deception.
#4
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Because developments are to go through consideration with respect to our relationship subject to natural law

Topic's author
#5
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
The social construct of the United States is predicated on deity, the consequence being the respect of truth.
Please explain how Deism = "respect of truth"?
#6
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Deism is the belief that God created the universe, but does not interact with it.

Naturally this denies the incarnation. It also denies God's omnipresence.


It's probably a dualistic heresy.

#7
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
How would the universe be observably different from our perspective if there were some omnipresent force or being as compared with if there was not? If there is no functional observable.difference then how do.we test for an omnipresence?
Topic's author
#8
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Deism is the belief that God created the universe, but does not interact with it.
I'd say a Deistic being "created" the universe with perfect planning and perfect execution so no further ad-hoc modification would be needed.

A perfect "god" is incapable of making "mistakes" that need to be "cleaned up" like Noah's flood and Sodom and Gomorrah (what a horrific mess!!).

Naturally this denies the incarnation. It also denies God's omnipresence.
Actually "god's" omnipresence (in a Deistic framework) is a logical necessity.  A Deistic being would necessarily "create" the universe out of itself and within itself.

It's probably a dualistic heresy.
Substance dualism is logically incoherent.

Deism is monism.
Topic's author
#9
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
Because developments are to go through consideration with respect to our relationship subject to natural law
There is no reason to codify "natural law".

Nobody can violate gravity.

We don't need any form of government or law enforcement to enforce "natural law".
#10
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
So like the free will discussion, this really has to do with moral culpability, because that is where this comes from.

Because if God did everything and there is no free will, that means I cannot be blamed for my actions.


There is a choice we all can make. To go with God or detach ourselves from God. God has given us the choice. God isn't going to force us. So lets be clear, God does not send people to hell. People choose to go to hell, and the door is locked from the inside.

#11
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
God doesn't make mistakes either.

#12
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
A perfect god is incapable of making mistakes like Noah and the floods. Sod and gom.
 
If god is omni ( whatever )  What about Asteroids and dinosaurs ?
God wouldn't of wasted 13.2 seconds  making a full set of dinosaurs.
Nor would he of wasted the required .2 of a second ( approximate meteorite building time ) 

Now I'm not sure if he built asteroids, and the time it takes to build one, 
I wouldn't even like to guess. 

And this deism thing sounds alright. Kind of. Half of it. 

I can go with a " god thing " creating the universe but , but . 
It then goes on to say.
( But god does not interfere directly )  how could i believe or not believe this added bit of nonsense ?


Topic's author
#13
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
So like the free will discussion, this really has to do with moral culpability, because that is where this comes from.
The question is how.  How exactly is moral-culpability detectable?

Because if God did everything and there is no free will, that means I cannot be blamed for my actions.
This is absolutely false.  A rabid dog does not have free-will and yet, that fact alone does not in any way impede our ability to handle the creature appropriately.  A broken fan belt does not have free-will and yet, that fact alone does not in any way impede our ability to handle the failure appropriately.

Belief in free-will is entirely incidental.

There is a choice we all can make.
Even an insect can make a "choice".

To go with God or detach ourselves from God.
Which god are you talking about and how do you know what it wants?

God has given us the choice.
How do you know this?

God isn't going to force us.
Either a god is omnipotent or not.  (IFF) a god is omnipotent (THEN) all actions and events are de facto acts of that god.

So lets be clear, God does not send people to hell.
Who made "satan"?  Did your hypothetical god know the full consequences of creating "satan"?  Does your hypothetical god have the ability to modify or delete "satan"?  If you know a crime is going to happen, and you know who is going to commit that crime and when, and you fail to stop that crime, then you are de facto responsible for that crime.  I'm just sayin.

People choose to go to hell, and the door is locked from the inside.
I'm pretty sure they "go to hell" based on their god-given instincts and god-given desires for wealth and pleasure.

If you allow a child play in the street, is the child itself-alone "responsible" for getting hit by a cement truck?
Topic's author
#14
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
God doesn't make mistakes either.
The Christian/Jewish god makes mistakes (if the ancient writings are true) and makes very clumsy and heavy handed attempts to "clean them up".
#15
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Why is it important to blame someone for something?

The only way you are going to stop drugs is to stop doing them. Are you going to blame the drugs? The people handing you the drugs? Stop taking them. You have a choice. Nobody ever said it would be easy all the time, but you still have a choice.


All the people telling you otherwise, no matter how impressive their credentials, are wrong. You want to be a slave? Listen to those people. 


This legalistic attitude you are expressing here is very alien to Orthodox thinking. This is a western thing. The excommunicated Roman Church thinks like this. The protestant churches that broke from them often think like this. The dehumanizing death cult of secularism thinks like this.

And like I said, this type of thinking is alien to orthodoxy.


#16
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
When it comes to scripture, you have to understand that it belongs to the church. It isn't really yours to interpret.

#17
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Isn't it so that the Bible is irrelevant as to whether gods exist?

#18
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
When it comes to scripture, you have to understand that it belongs to the church. It isn't really yours to interpret.

It isn't yours either then, but it hasn't and doesn't stop people changing verses, and re interpreting words until they become totally unrecognisable.
#19
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
Look, I understand it is arbitrary to you, but to the church it isn't.  The church doesn't do this. We have Church Tradition which means that these sort of things you speak of don't fly.

So rest assured, The Orthodox Church has the truth concerning scripture.


You can breathe a sigh of relief that it isn't these wingnut protestant anarchists.

#20
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I think that non-interference should be taken as an inferior definition, should be noted only for connotative purpose or just held as a subset of deism.

Topic's author
#21
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Why is it important to blame someone for something?
Credit and blame are the same.  Without blame there is no credit.

Blame is not an essential concept and neither is credit.

The rabid dog and fan belt examples illustrate this point very clearly.

The only way you are going to stop drugs is to stop doing them.
This is a logically circular (meaningless) statement.

Are you going to blame the drugs?
Some people do and some people don't.  I'm just looking for the most logically coherent justification for either.

The people handing you the drugs?
Perhaps both?  Or all-of-the-above?

Stop taking them. You have a choice. Nobody ever said it would be easy all the time, but you still have a choice.
Are you related to Nancy Reagan?  The very definition of an "addiction" is some (impulsive) behavior you can't control (or have very limited or arbitrary control over).

All the people telling you otherwise, no matter how impressive their credentials, are wrong. You want to be a slave? Listen to those people. 
So if a child is given free access to a virtually unlimited supply of candy and their parents teach them about healthy food choices and dental hygiene, but the child continues to eat large portions of candy and refuses to brush their teeth, would you say this is the child's fault alone?

The parents tell the child repeatedly, "don't eat candy and brush your teeth" but the child compulsively eats more and more candy.

THE SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO DRUG AND ALCOHOL ADDICTION.

This legalistic attitude you are expressing here is very alien to Orthodox thinking.
Religion practically invented "legalistic".

This is a western thing. The excommunicated Roman Church thinks like this.
Thinks like what?  Blame the child?

The protestant churches that broke from them often think like this. The dehumanizing death cult of secularism thinks like this.
Please explain the logical inconsistencies of the one view as it contrasts with the logical inconsistencies of the alternative.

And like I said, this type of thinking is alien to orthodoxy.
Please explain the logical inconsistencies of the one view as it contrasts with the logical inconsistencies of the alternative.

Topic's author
#22
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
When it comes to scripture, you have to understand that it belongs to the church. It isn't really yours to interpret.
I'm pretty sure the copyright has expired on the original manuscripts.

Topic's author
#23
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Isn't it so that the Bible is irrelevant as to whether gods exist?
It informs people's opinions on the matter and is full of logical inconsistencies.

If your debate partner believes it is relevant, then it should be addressed.


#24
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL

Mopac: This legalistic attitude you are expressing here is very alien to Orthodox thinking. 
Religion practically invented "legalistic".

This is a western thing. The excommunicated Roman Church thinks like this. 
Thinks like what?  [...]

Why do you seem to understand in the first line of reply and then ask what it is in the second?

Plisken: Because developments are to go through consideration with respect to our relationship subject to natural law
There is no reason to codify "natural law".

Nobody can violate gravity.

We don't need any form of government or law enforcement to enforce "natural law".

This opens a can of worms for me.  Using the United States as an example requires quite a bit of depth that I might not have time to go into with you for awhile, but it's a discussion I look forward to.

Topic's author
#25
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
A perfect god is incapable of making mistakes like Noah and the floods. Sod and gom.
Well stated.
 
If god is omni ( whatever )  What about Asteroids and dinosaurs ?
God wouldn't of wasted 13.2 seconds  making a full set of dinosaurs.
Nor would he of wasted the required .2 of a second ( approximate meteorite building time ) 

Now I'm not sure if he built asteroids, and the time it takes to build one, 
I wouldn't even like to guess. 
We should be careful not to commit the anthropomorphic fallacy when considering a Deistic being's possible "motives".

And this deism thing sounds alright. Kind of. Half of it. 

I can go with a " god thing " creating the universe but , but . 
It then goes on to say.
( But god does not interfere directly )  how could i believe or not believe this added bit of nonsense ?
The inference is that a Deistic being controls the universe by immutable and eternal natural law.

There is no conceivable need for a Deistic being (noumenon) to make ad hoc or on the fly or improvisational adjustments and or modifications.
#26
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
You are thinking in a legalistic sense, which is not how we think.

Playing the blame game is fundamentally in opposition to a heart of forgiveness.

You who are corrupted by the excommunicated church see the church as a courthouse. That isn't the Orthodox view. We see the church as a hospital. And this legalistic mindset would be seen as a sickness to be cured.


Topic's author
#27
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
Why do you seem to understand in the first line of reply and then ask what it is in the second?
Your use of the term "legalistic" is as unclear as it is moot.

I don't understand why you would assert that one type of church is "legalistic" and some other is less so.

I also don't understand how any of this relates to the OP.

Deism is not "legalistic".

Deism is not "anti-legalistic".

Deism is not "orthodox".

Deism is not "unorthodox".
Topic's author
#28
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
You are thinking in a legalistic sense, which is not how we think.

Playing the blame game is fundamentally in opposition to a heart of forgiveness.

You who are corrupted by the excommunicated church see the church as a courthouse. That isn't the Orthodox view. We see the church as a hospital. And this legalistic mindset would be seen as a sickness to be cured.
Please build a logical connection between Deism and "the Orthodox view".
Topic's author
#29
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
This opens a can of worms for me.  Using the United States as an example requires quite a bit of depth that I might not have time to go into with you for awhile, but it's a discussion I look forward to.
This appears to be an appeal to ignorance.

I only need one example of a natural law that requires human enforcement.

Do you have time for one example?
#30
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Plisken: Why do you seem to understand in the first line of reply and then ask what it is in the second?

Your use of the term "legalistic" is as unclear as it is moot.


I don't understand why you would assert that one type of church is "legalistic" and some other is less so.


I also don't understand how any of this relates to the OP.


Deism is not "legalistic".


Deism is not "anti-legalistic".


Deism is not "orthodox".


Deism is not "unorthodox".


Mopac said, "This legalistic attitude you are expressing is very unorthodox"
You said, "Religion practically invented legalistic"

The source of my curiosity follows the assumption that you understood what you were saying or you couldn't tell us what "religion" invented.