Deism in the Dock

Then what the hell does he do all day? Why keep the old boy around if he doesn't do anything?What's the purpose of the deistic God? What's the point? Available to do what, exactly?Deism just sounds like atheism for people who don't even have the courage to call themselves "agnostic" (which is the next weeniest position.)

Anglagard:That is one way... to look at it... But it's still one way.Is it the truth?
If it is, then Jesus was wrong about being the narrow gate and the only path.Of course you'll likely say that He was misquoted or wrongly interpreted. But that really only goes to show that the truth is one way and not both.Anglagard: We find ourselves in agreement on another point... but... don't forget that it is precisely people's customs and birthplace that they most often refuse to give up, and thereby reject God (be it money, sexuality, power, etc...)God will very actively work in our lives if we want Him to... but we don't.I really want to drive this point home, so how shall I put it?When we speak of the anthropomorphic santa claus, what we really mean is the god that so many already worship. A god who will overlook all sin and selfish ambition, and simply welcome with open arms, all whom he has created without cost.We won't believe in Him, unless he is like us, and willing to compromise convictions, law and order, for the sake of peace.But can we accept hell, for the sake of heaven?
Whould it remain heaven at that point?I think that to really understand God, we must realize that 'heaven' is His domain, in eternity, not ours. We rule this world, in time, posessed by ourselves; He rules His, posessed by Himself. If we want to live in His reality, then we must be posessed by Him also. We must be caught up into the eternal life, and forsake the temporal.He does not condemn us... we condemn ourselves by rejecting Him.If we reject Him, in exchange for our own culture and metaphysical concepts created by our customs, then it is we who create God in our own image and worship this 'image of the beast' known counter-intuitively as the 'anthropomorphic God'.This constant transposing of reality is bad theology, and is what happens when we try to think in our terms instead of His.The God that I worship is not like me at all. And you should thank Him for that... He is very much anti-me (or, perhaps it is more accurate to say that apart from Him, I am, anti-God [christ]), in the sense that He demands that I give up my own culture and customs and be molded and trained by Him if I am to live in His reality.Can I demand that God change His reality to suit my desires and limited understanding? Of course I can! But because He is God, He will not do so. He'll give me my way if I insist. And that is hell. But He will not allow me to blackmail Him into forcing my reality onto Him. It works both ways. So there is a proper role for both, but they cannot be reconciled; hence heaven and hell. They are at odds. If God were insecure like us, He would not allow such a place. And then you and I would not be free creatures, but slaves to His will. We would go to heaven whther we liked it or not. Makes me wonder if, at that rate, we would even truely be 'alive'. We would be more like automatons than humans.Many do not like the concept of hell, and neither do I. But what are we asking God to do?C.S. Lewis addressed this question better than anyone I know of: ( C.S.Lewis / 'The Problem of Pain' / Chapter 8, Hell, pg. 130.)God does not impose Himself on me, and He will not allow me to impose myself on Him (that's the real point I wanted to make with this reply). Like a lover chasing his mate, He knocks on the door of our hearts and minds, and asks us to trust Him and let Him explain Himself. But it is the thought of Him that repels us. We constantly tend toward anarchic freedom and temporal pleasures; not real freedom, commitment, and relationship.We don't disagree on everything Anglagard, but I think you disregard some important implications that follow logically from your premises. The exclusivity of truth and it's emphatic 'one way' nature, is certainly tops on the list, and the easiest problem to see within a pantheistic worldview. Consider it...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

I was hoping you were in the neighbourhood, anglagard. Thank you for an informative and gracefully written post.Do I understand correctly then that the word Deism, in your view, can properly be applied to all four of these directions?____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Your post really has nothing to do with the post it was replying to. I simply pointed out that the arrogant attitude you jokingly assumed was something that could be found in some agnostics.However the position IS self-refuting because it assumes knowledge that the agnostic could not have. He would have to know that all atheists took a hardline stance that GOd absolutely does not exist. But how could he know that ? The answer is that he cannot and thus his alleged superiority vanishes. He is the real fanatic, since he is taking a hardline position without knowledge - or even as good a case as the atheist could make.It goes way beyond taking people at their word. If someone says that he is an atheist and no more you could not rationally conclude that he took a hardline position on that basis. IF you did you would be irrationally jumping to conclusions.So I really have to ask why you introduce the idea of lying. If someone believes that no God exists but does not take the hardline position of saying that there is absolutely definitely no God then they could still truthfully claim to be an atheist. But their mere existence would refute the idea that all atheists claim that there is absolutely definitely no God. So how could you honestly claim to know that no such people existed ?

​

Blessed are the premature ejaculators, for they shall not waste time.

​

Blessed are the suicides, for they shall cut to the chase.

​

-- Crashfrog 3.16

Blessed are they who jump to conclusions, for they shall never lack for certainty.

​

-- Crashfrog 3.17

And face everlasting torture if we keep our options open.Such a romantic.

So the theory would not allow God, who we must assume created a particle, if we are to assume God, would not allow God to observe it? I doubt very highly that the theory would state sucha thing, with such limited information.Unless you have knowledge of supernatural transcendant capabilities, you can not infer anything ABOUT supernatural transcendant abilities. This logical law disallows your inference. For all we know - it is quite possible for a transcendant entity to gaze upon a particle within a system it is transcendant to.You only have knowledge of the particle, the theory, and a humans' observation.I have no knowledge of this matter. All I have is my wits, and the information you have gave me;1. There is a particle which changes when observed or detected by humans. (there is no evidence that another observer would have the same effect) (You have kept your cards close here, as to not give any extra information to me, so as to put me in the position of ignorance=wrong.)
2. Therefore God can't be observing the particle always.This is far from self evident to me.1. You can only calculate the "difference" when WE observe it.
2. You can not know as to A). God created it to not detect him. B). It can be observed by a transcendant entity.This is why "proof", is heavy terminology. You should have stayed with "evidence", but then, this a very weak evidence at best.This matter, is, at best, in regards to God - technical conjecture based on very limited information. There is no proof here that God can not observe this particle, because of the facts I shown you; that you can only calculate the difference from when it was discovered, whereas God could be the first thief, still observing it.Tell me how the theory could know that God hasn't always observed the particle, when the results can only give us something that came AFTER his un-ending gaze?For all we know, the change when we observe it, is evidence that God knows you're looking at him, hence the difference is evidence that God is detecting an observer.

Archer:It seems that you are the one flinging arrows of condemnation Archer...It's not 'marry me or I'll shoot'... it's, 'your dying. I can help you; your sinking, and I can walk on water; come and follow me'.The 'everlasting torture' is a state of being that we are already in. And that is something we must understand if we want the Bible to make sense; we are already condemned. God simply wants to save us from our current condition. we are the one's who refuse. And such refusal goes to show, more so than our sins, how depraved we actually are.Archer:In your opinion, what would God have to do to prove His love to you?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Archer:That's quite a sarcastic conclusion you've leveled against Crashfrog... and you seem rather certain about its accuracy Archer. At least Crash believes in something.Archer, why is it that your arrows so often end up being boomerangs?This whole type of contradiction, reminds me of the very funny comment by comedian Steven Wright who said, 'a conclusion is what happens when you stop thinking'. It also reminds me of a man who actually told me that he believes in 'nothing'.I asked him if he really believes that?The same man also said that, 'statements of fact are ninety percent rubbish'. AS for Deism, it's a nice way (like many others) to do away with personal accountability, responsibility, and morality.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

I'm not inferring anything. You're the one asserting a supernatural power, on the basis of no evidence or logic, that would allow God to be observing things without observing them. I'm not a physicist. I probably don't even know what I'm talking about. It would be better for you to get the information from a more knowledgeable source, otherwise it's the blind leading the blind, here.I'm not trying to pull a fast one on you. I'm trying to avoid misinforming you. Then he'd be the discoverer, obviously, and there would be no uncollapsed eigenstate to detect in the first place.

Crashfrog:When your right... your right!Couldn't help myself. Actually it's refreshing to see a semblance of humility, in this EVC tower of pride...

Archer: (bold emphasis added by Rob)Archer, if a religion is not exclusive, then you must take the word 'not' out. If a religion is not exclusive, then it is all things. but if that is true, then why are you telling us that it [b]is[/]b this... and not that?Boomerang...Archer, if a religion is Both this, and that, then why can't it be exclusive?By saying what is not in the absolute sense, you are being exclusive, and speaking in the very black and white terms you seek to refute.Besides Christ, I have Aristotle on my side... (Aristotle Metaphysics 1011b25)

On the contrary, it seems to me that deism requires us to be more accountable. There is no skydaddy waiting to rescue us when we get in trouble, or punish us when we get in trouble, depending on his whim.We're accountable to Us and to our fellow Creatures. We're responsible for Our actions in a one-to-one ratio on a case-by-case basis, not to some (infernal) judge who fails to make his exact wishes known. We're required to be more moral than those who are mere followers, to actually understand the consequences of our actions instead of blindly obeying.Specificity is the crutch.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Ringo,I agree with you on this concerning deism.What do you think about the level of personal accountability, responsibility, and morality of someone who after having done many bad things in their life tells you they are going to heaven because SOMEONE else died for their sins?Didn't Constantine wait till the later part of his life to get baptized to take avantage of this loophole?(along w/other early Christians)