With Spinoza, god essentially is nature. In deism, god is a separate entity.
Here's wiki on Spinoza's brand of religions:
Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect are only understood in part
Here's wiki on Deism:
Deism differs from theism in that according to Deism God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe.
Deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being.
See the difference? Spinoza is not a deist.
Hence, these men see God within nature, but do not attribute such to divine inspiration.
No. They (E & S) do not see God within nature. God, rather, is nature.
"what is less well known is that those two traits also combined to shape his spiritual journey and determine the nature of his faith. The rebellion part comes in at the beginning of his life: he rejected at first his parents' secularism and later the concepts of religious ritual and of a personal God who intercedes in the daily workings of the world. But the awe part comes in his 50s when he settled into a deism based on what he called the "spirit manifest in the laws of the universe" and a sincere belief in a "God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists." -TIME
Everybody knows that Einstein followed, in many respects, "Spinoza's God." Alright, well, not everyone. But among scientist and philosopher circles it is widely known.
At the same time, I see what you are saying, and perhaps Antony Flew said it best, that "I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations... My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."
Nontheless, it doesn't undercut my main point whatsoever, that in order to be a deist, one must first come to the conclusion based on rationality and/or design.
I see a fundamental conflict between a few members of this boards' version of deism juxtaposed to the Dictionary's.
But perhaps deism is so vague that virtually anyone can smuggle in whatever meaning that fancies them. Heck, it doesn't even have to conform to reality or cogency. There seems to be quite a bit of that going on anyhow.
The question is: how?
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
My contention is that if they can't see God in nature, which all deists do by qualification, how then have they come to the conclusion that God in fact exists?
Ah yes, we must all just be freaking nuts to believe something you cannot understand eh?
OR ... perhaps it is your premises that are faulty.
Message 227 I see a fundamental conflict between a few members of this boards' version of deism juxtaposed to the Dictionary's.
As already noted there are several dictionary definitions, and your continued citing of only one as if it was totally authoritarian is a false premise.
Your understanding of others people's positions is also notoriously unreliable and prone to outright fabrication.
quote:until that reason is shared, we will indefinitely be at an impasse.
If that's the case, there is no point in continuing the discussion if we are only going to rehash talking points endlessly.
In other words you refuse to review your premises to see where your error lies, because it is easier to find comfort in your view that all deists are freaking nuts ...
And you don't think your "opinion" is offensive in the slightest.
What are you scared of nem, reality? Being wrong? Becoming a deist? All three?
Everybody knows that Einstein followed, in many respects, "Spinoza's God." Alright, well, not everyone. But among scientist and philosopher circles it is widely known.
Sorry the way definitions work is WORD = DEFINITION, Not WORD < DEFINITION. Words and their definitions can be used interchangeably.
Not always RAZD. That is why definitions use 'a' and 'any' differently. If it had said a god is any supernatural being... you'd have a point, but it doesn't. It's an ambiguous definition that you have picked to suit your needs.
The same dictionary defines a car as 'a vehicle running on rails, as a streetcar or railroad car.' thus - a train is a car. If you look at other definitions it specifically uses 'any' in places where it means any and 'a' when it does not.
And this is also evidence that judaism evolved from a pantheonic faith.
Indeed - but that's not what I'm arguing against.
Revisionist coverup. Denial doesn't make the definition invalid. The question is NOT what the faith claims, as people can believe whatever they choose, but how it compares to other faiths and the definitions of gods. That is objective eh?
Not necessarily. You are just comparing things - that's not objective. Other faiths would probably regard the Angels as being as gods, but what does that demonstrate? It doesn't demonstrate that Christianity is pantheonic, since whether something is pantheonic or not is a question of what the believers believe and the believers believe there is only one entity called god; all other entities that other faiths called gods are either demons, angels or fictional (according to Christianity et al).
That said, this seems to be far drifted from the topic - if you'd like to spend more time on an OP to explain your position I'd be happier to spend more time discussing it.
quote:My contention is that if they can't see God in nature, which all deists do by qualification, how then have they come to the conclusion that God in fact exists?
Ah yes, we must all just be freaking nuts to believe something you cannot understand eh?
No, I think Spinoza and Einstein were quite brilliant. Their beliefs are very well defined. Yours is the only one leaving looming questions for me.
As already noted there are several dictionary definitions, and your continued citing of only one as if it was totally authoritarian is a false premise.
Then at least you can see how anyone would be reasonably confused by your beliefs next to, say, Einstein's. Can both be deists and still have meaning?
quote:until that reason is shared, we will indefinitely be at an impasse. If that's the case, there is no point in continuing the discussion if we are only going to rehash talking points endlessly.
In other words you refuse to review your premises to see where your error lies, because it is easier to find comfort in your view that all deists are freaking nuts
RAZD, you're being melodramatic. I'm not saying, nor have I asserted that desist are freakin nuts. I want to know how you could know God by your standards because all other avenues have been exhausted.
What are you scared of nem?
Clowns, abalone, and bologna.
Being wrong? Becoming a deist? All three?
Why must the questioning of the tenability of a theory equate to fear of it? Can you explain that to me?
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
Then at least you can see how anyone would be reasonably confused by your beliefs next to, say, Einstein's. Can both be deists and still have meaning?
Why not?
You keep saying I don't add up in your mind. How about this -- you tell me what you - in your great wisdom - think I believe and I'll tell you that you are wrong. Again. But please put it out there, I can use a good bellylaugh.
Do you think you MIGHT get a picture here?
RAZD, you're being melodramatic. I'm not saying, nor have I asserted that desist are freakin nuts. I want to know how you could know God by your standards because all other avenues have been exhausted.
Melodramatic? Tell me what you think deists are then if not freaking nuts? It's written all over the tone of your posts nem.
Meanwhile you keep ignoring that I'm telling your that your "logic" is faulty.
Claim: there cannot be any deists. Evidence: there are deists. Conclusion: any claim that there cannot be deists is invalid.(or deists are freaking nuts ...).
You come to this faulty claim as a conclusion to a supposedly logical argument, so that means that the conclusion of your 'argument' is false.
NEXT STEPS (the one you keep avoiding):
If the conclusion is false then either the structure of the argument is invalid or one or more of the premises MUST be false: this is basic logic 101.
Check the structure to see that it is valid AND
Investigate each of those premises to see which are invalid.
Note: you also have some basic assumptions in your argument that you are using as premises without stating them -- a logical fallacy of the hidden premise.
Failure to take these steps means that your concept will remain invalidated simply by the evidence of the existence of deists. Continued assertion of your claim will just prove that you are unable to learn from simple errors, can't admit to being wrong, have trouble doing basic logic, and prefer to insult people with stupid remarks based on faulty thinking. Not that that is not your style anyway.
If you have trouble identifying your premises, that might be an indication that you have a logically invalid structure (or that you don't know jack about logic), but it should be simple. Here are some generic examples to get you started:
Premise #1: if A then B Premise #2: if B then C Conclusion: if A then C
Premise #1: all A is B Premise #2: all B is C Conclusion: all A is C
Let me know if you need your hand held.
Why must the questioning of the tenability of a theory equate to fear of it? Can you explain that to me?
You haven't questioned it, nem, you've made a logically invalid conclusion and you refuse to see if you can find where you went wrong. Instead you just keep repeating your invalid assertion.
You complain about your sister in law being "lazy" and yet you can't do the simple work to ground-truth your argument.
I usually agree spot-on with you, but this time I'm not feelin' it.
What difference can it make if an entity exists that we can have no way of being sure about any conclusions about it?
Since when was knowledge necessary for anything? Especially given that "KNOWLEDGE" (proper) doesn't seem to exist (e.g. certainty), then our "knowledge" really counts for very little in what we do. Except in philosophical debates.
I don't believe something until I see evidence for it. It's simple common sense.
With all due respect, this is hoity-toity bull. We all act in ways contrary to evidence. Not always, but we all do it.
But more strongly, to dismiss it as "simple common sense" just reeks of self-assured egoism. I know it's not what you mean to convey, but it's how it comes across to me, and I believe to anyone who has a differing viewpoint.
Individually observable evidence has it's place and time, but it's not the only thing. We make decisions off of other things all the time, such as social convention, the word of an "authority", and straight-up belief. And you know what? Each of those types of decision-making processes are important parts of all of our lives.
Empirical decision-making has a role as well, but to say it's the only thing we do, and that it's "common sense" to think otherwise, is flat-out wrong from my perspective.
I don't follow - I'm just asking what difference it makes about postulating over an entity we can never make any sure conclusions about. I am not saying we can know anything about anything - just the degree of surety at stake, we can be no more sure about the properties or even the existence of a god as we can about angels on a pinhead.
With all due respect, this is hoity-toity bull. We all act in ways contrary to evidence. Not always, but we all do it.
Well of course we do, I'm not making the claim that we are always paragons of common sense or perfect interpreters of evidence on the fly under pressure.
Individually observable evidence has it's place and time, but it's not the only thing. We make decisions off of other things all the time, such as social convention, the word of an "authority", and straight-up belief. And you know what? Each of those types of decision-making processes are important parts of all of our lives.
Of course - but if an authority says something is true, and it is in principle possible for me to examine the evidence of it myself, or trust in many others to do critically examine the evidence - I can be more sure of the conclusions than if someone says they know it is true because it feels right or the voices in their head tell them it is right (revelation).
Often we make decisions without examining all the evidence, but making inductions and generalisations based on a subset of the evidence isn't what I am talking about though, I'm talking about a solid belief, a considered belief about what is true in the world. If someone tells me they are selling a bridge for $10 - I'm going to need some good evidence that he owns that bridge before I believe him. That is to what I am referring to when I say it is simple common sense. Skepticism is a defence against getting conned, and in a world of people that want to con you - skepticism leads to common sense decisions.
Empirical decision-making has a role as well, but to say it's the only thing we do, and that it's "common sense" to think otherwise, is flat-out wrong from my perspective.
Let me assure you - I do not hold the position that empirical decision making is everything. As humans we necessarily make decisions based on rules of thumb, which are generated as much by subjective experience as they are on reflection and experimentation.
However, making decisions and believing something to be true are different things. The only decisions I am talking are about whether to believe something when time is not pressured and we can question some rules of thumb and explore the consequences of various beliefs and so on and so forth.
Not always RAZD. That is why definitions use 'a' and 'any' differently. If it had said a god is any supernatural being... you'd have a point, but it doesn't. It's an ambiguous definition that you have picked to suit your needs.
It's not just me, Mod. We'll take a different tack at it:
Color for emphasis. There's your "any" qualifier. But this is getting off the track of the argument.
This comes up because nemesis argued (Message 30) that it was impossible to consider two or more faiths (and accommodate the different gods) as valid without having an inherent contradiction. Archer made the argument (Message 33) that christianity already does consider multiple gods.
At that point nemesis made the usual christian accommodation (Message 37) of having both one and three gods as if there was no contradiction.
What we see with the issue of devils and angels is just another accommodation to fit other gods into the overall mythos while staunchly pretending to have only one god.
Thus to argue that other people in other cultures cannot make the same kind of mental accommodation is false.
By this rationale Islam is not a monotheistic religion either. It was an angel (Gabriel) that communicated the Qur'an to Muhammed. It is my understanding that Muslims are pretty hard-core about being strictly monotheistic.
I agree, but these are essentially the same faith, founded one after the other, and they share a common ancestor in their evolution.
A major distinction I'd like to draw is that fundamentalist literalist believers (either faith) believe these angels and demons exist, while moderate believers can see them as allegorical elements.
We've been through this before. Everybody lives life depending on what they have internalized from whatever source. Theism claims a special source, but there are so many versions of that special source that it isn't special any more. It's meaningless.
Anything which we internalize can be wrong or petty or useless. Things which are meaningful are those things which can be shown to 'perform'.
A philosophy that doesn't care to dictate how we should live life seems more sound to me.
And yet, it is a contradiction. You will find some philosophy to adhere to in the end, which does care how you live life.
So much the better. Living our lives for reward or punishment doesn't make us better people. Doing what we need to do without hope of reward or fear of punishment is far more noble.
I did not talk about fear or reward, but I do think it is complete human nature to desire justice. Did you not say that a good philosophy should not care how you live life? Why are you now talking about being a 'better person' or 'doing what we need to do'? How can you make any sort of judgement call without a philosophy?
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
By this definition, angels and demons are not gods. Why are you only picking a definition that suits you, and ignoring the fact that these definitions are only reflections of existing uses for the word 'God'? It is just a word! This is too much like Rob and his 'theory'. I suppose it is common knowledge that dictionaries and words came first, and that we have to use one of many English definitions for 'God' if we want to believe?
I suppose it is also common knowledge that every faith has to utilize all of the definitions for God which we can find in the dictionary, even when the word 'angel' appears in there as well?
While the Trinity may be a strange belief, having three aspects of God does not make 3 gods.
Mod says: “I'm just asking what difference it makes about postulating over an entity we can never make any sure conclusions about.”
Not picking on you Mod, this is just the most recent statement, found all through these 16 pages that we can’t know anything about God, or only through revelation and dusty old books. There is another way.
RAZD says: In other words you refuse to review your premises . ..
NJ is not the only one.
Now I’m a Deist. God exists as an actual person, but he is doing absolutely nothing in this universe, and didn’t make it (I believe). So I believe there is no physical evidence you can point to showing God’s existence. I am of course willing to consider that I’m wrong, so just provide some evidence for me to consider.
You might ask how I could have any basis other than blind faith to hold this opinion that God exists.
Well I do, but what everyone here appears to be doing is only looking at this from their viewpoint, culture and particular belief system which they hold to be correct or true.
Try assuming all other belief systems, including mine, are true. Do that and then consider what kind of information should be available here to prove it. What evidence should be available to “prove” Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity . . etc?
Do we see that evidence here? Are there different types of evidence that might be available for the different belief systems? For instance, if some religion says that God is doing things in this universe right now (or in the past, like say a worldwide flood) we should be able to spot evidence of that, right? BTW I would consider all the types of evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law, and perhaps others as well. DO NOT leave out forms or types of evidence you do not believe at present. That would just show your bias (a thing very much in evidence on this board).
I was raised a Roman Catholic and graduated from Catholic grade school and a Jesuit High School. By 16 I was an atheist and remained one until I was 37. I then became a Deist.
A bit later I will post why. Can anyone figure out what I did that made me change my view?
Try assuming all other belief systems, including mine, are true. Do that and then consider what kind of information should be available here to prove it. What evidence should be available to “prove” Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity . . etc?
To a great extent, we can all find evidence for our beliefs. Most beliefs have elements that are not possible to evidence.
It is obvious that God works in the world.
It is obvious that God does not.
It is obvious that people are being reincarnated to another role.
It is obvious that people are not being reincarnated to this world.
It is obvious that God exists.
It is obvious that He does not.
It is obvious that God cares about us.
It is obvious that God is indifferent.
I could give evidence for every position. A belief need not reflect reality, but it should not contradict reality. Then again, a belief in an immortal soul, and a belief in an invisible 6th toe, are not very different. A real belief is nothing more than a gut feeling. It conforms to reality about as much as one could say 'hey, I awoke today with better balance than I have ever had before, I believe I have an extra invisible toe, and no one can convince me otherwise'.
™ Version 4.2
