musKeeto:

Ergo, God exists as an idea.

The deist God then becomes a thought/idea, one that didn't need a mind to exist(uncaused cause).

Funny thing though, and I couldn't get my mind round it for the period I explored deism, is why would a thought/idea(if it were a self-existent being) choose to create matter then.. It would serve no purpose whatsoever to its existence.

musKeeto:

Ergo, God exists as an idea.

The deist God then becomes a thought/idea, one that didn't need a mind to exist(uncaused cause).

Funny thing though, and I couldn't get my mind round it for the period I explored deism, is why would a thought/idea(if it were a self-existent being) choose to create matter then.. It would serve no purpose whatsoever to its existence.

Mr Troll: so now you're exloring atheism? What next after this? Join Billionaire?

musKeeto:
Lol. No. I'm atheist.
No exploration needed. Agnosticism was getting boring. How u dey?


Na igbo and wrong physics dey worry Billy..

Logicboy03:


guy, what the hell is your point?

your god is just another idea that has never been verified just like many abstract concepts. whatever point you try to make comes back destroying your whole deist worldview.

Logicboy03:


The contradiction that you and Uyi cant see is that your God too becomes of the mind....a creation of humand minds not an external being existing on its own

Logicboy03:


The contradiction that you and Uyi cant see is that your God too becomes of the mind....a creation of humand minds not an external being existing on its own

musKeeto:

Ergo, God exists as an idea.

musKeeto: The deist God then becomes a thought/idea, one that didn't need a mind to exist(uncaused cause).

musKeeto: Funny thing though, and I couldn't get my mind round it for the period I explored deism, is why would a thought/idea(if it were a self-existent being) choose to create matter then.. It would serve no purpose whatsoever to its existence.

Uyi Iredia:
Gbam ! In fact, were I not low on subscription. I would search out where I argued this 2 years earlier on the thread 'Challenging The Skeptics'. I now think some of what I wrote was either mistaken or wrongly presented but a fair number of statements where IMO correct and constitute core beliefs I still hold.

Uyi Iredia:
You mean one that didn't need a brain or matter to exist.

Uyi Iredia:
Maybe in the event that computers became sentient, they would ask the same of humans.

Uyi Iredia:
One could take your argument to dismiss the need for creators such as philosophers, singers, poets, artists, inventors, sculptors etc but the relationship bears core similarities to that as proposed between God and humans.
One, that creators exist independent of their creations. Two, that creators create as an exertion of their ability, namely to create.

Uyi Iredia:
I would hope you won't argue that man can't exist without phones, paintings, poems, cars, airplanes, paintings etc because man can and has, especially in previous epochs and in jungle tribes in present day.

Uyi Iredia:
The objection that God's purpose has not been stated except from the mouths of men is fully anticipated. The objection that if God doesn't depend on the universe it needn't have been created is also noted. The objection that purpose as we know it only applies to observed living organisms and not outside of that (and the physical world) is fully understood.

musKeeto:
Lol. No. I'm atheist.
No exploration needed. Agnosticism was getting boring. How u dey?


Na igbo and wrong physics dey worry Billy..

Mr Troll: you do know atheism is the complete bore right? Anyhoo. . .
Why u de call am Billy na? Thats what they call male dogs here in 9ja o

Uyi Iredia:

By that logic evolution, airplanes, Higgs boson, atoms, time, speed don't exist since they are creations of human minds and shouldn't exist or have any causal ability, on their own.

Deep Sight:

No, my friend. I did not say that everything is of the human mind.

I said everything is of mind.

In fact, I first drafted it the way I really mean it: I wrote: "everything is mind." I thought about it and added the "of" just to make it simpler to the reader.

I might render it also thus: Mind is everything.

Uyi Iredia:

A pity. If you read my reply to the ooman I explained how an 'non-existent' idea such as a pink unicorn can be materialized. Put very simply, God is Thought (others have used the term Nous) that perforce creates and sustains all matter. If all abstract concepts have never been verified why believe in them.

Why believe in love, justice, calculation, cause, change when they (the concepts) have never been verified. They are used wrt physical objects. When you have sufficiently thought on this you will note that it is thought (immaterial thought mediated via the brain) which gives meaning to the world around. The nagging problem I face with you, thefool, mrwhargarbl, Alfa Seltzer and ooman is as follows:

• To get you to see that causality and existence disprove materialism because they are immaterial ideas are not material objects. It is a certainty you'll ignore this since you are BOUND to a selective judgement of using the well-known ideas of causality, existence and morality to disprove, in particular, God's existence which rests on the notion of ideas.

• To get you to note that the problem with so-called non-extant objects such as fairies, centaurs and leprauchauns is not one of existence but of materialization. For you note, while in this world, that certain things thought of have not been empirically verified and don't want to be decieved so you dismiss their existence. Using that logic, the idea of airplanes and cloning was dismissed. To the extent these haven't materialized you are correct. To the extent they are thought of, and talked of as if they were, you are fully wrong because of the simple fact that what doesn't exist can never be thought of.

That was the essence IMO of Aristotle's law of excluded middle: Either it is (thought of) or not (thought of).

• To provoke you into noting the contradiction involved in the interplay of ideas and matter. Matter (eg kinesins, neurons, stars), in itself doesn't think, believe or observe. Idea (eg causality, attribute, faith) in itself can't be seen, heard or touched. How can a conglomeration of atoms therefore say 'he (as if all the atoms are one thing) believes in that Uyi is wrong about his deism because God isn't verified (when matter doesn't think, know or verify.)

'Nuff said.

As for the deism. I repeat, it is tentative. thefool can testify that I once stated I would be deist at the most and thefool asked why. I won't accept atheism, though I leave a 1% chance (like Dawkins did for Christianity) that I may be atheist. In fact, I have thought like an athiest whilst I was a Christian. My stance will be concluded on a good reading of various religions and philosophies (which I'm doing) and a reappraisal of the entire Bible. Then I will make a choice. For now though, deism best captures my belief.

Logicboy03:


My point exactly.

The only thing that can truly certaintly 100% be said to exist is the mind. This is the point of the matrix movie.


Guess what? That makes god an idea....I still win...Atheism FTW!!!!

Mr Troll: really? This constitutes a win for you? Logic boy

Logicboy03:


Load of BOLLOCKS!


Guy....this is BULLSHYTT!!!

Deep Sight:

I must congratulate you on your scholarly, erudite, balanced, incisive response.

Such a deep, profound and comprehensive approach to logical issues and debates must surely be emulated by all.

I will be putting in a recommendation at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge to have your approach listed as a compulsory course for all students.

More grease to your elbows, professor.

Logicboy03:

Guy, troll someone else...

Logicboy03:


Humor is not your strong point....

That was really dry