The deistic God is so poorly defined, it id untestable, unfalsifiable. It is a 'nothing '.

What possible justification could you have for believing that "oh, there is something, but I don't know what it is". Aren't you at that point claiming to detect the undetectable?

I hope deism goes beyond "well, I just can't believe that there is nothing, so there must be something ".

A rather illogical position I must say.

Ranchhoddas:
A rather illogical position I must say.

Yea. But a lot of irreligious people would rather prefer theists to be deists.

Ranchhoddas:
A rather illogical position I must say.

explain why you think so.

MrMontella:

explain why you think so.

How do they know that whoever or whatever made the Universe is non-interventionist.

Your thread is not going to get any serious comment from Deists.... because unlike Christians and Muslims, most of us (Deists) do NOT feel the urgent need to defend our belief in a Creator.... you are better of creating a thread criticizing Theists.

QuietHammer:
The deistic God is so poorly defined, it id untestable, unfalsifiable. It is a 'nothing '.

What possible justification could you have for believing that "oh, there is something, but I don't know what it is". Aren't you at that point claiming to detect the undetectable?

I hope deism goes beyond "well, I just can't believe that there is nothing, so there must be something ".

Ranchhoddas:
How do they know that whoever or whatever made the Universe is non-interventionist.

does he/she/it also intervene for animals in need?'

NubiLove:
Your thread is not going to get any serious comment from Deists.... because unlike Christians and Muslims, most of us (Deists) do NOT feel the urgent need to defend our belief in a Creator.... you are better of creating a thread criticizing Theists.

You are proving my point

Deism provides no answers but further speculations.

It isn't a position backed up with facts either. It fails the same test of provision proofs as other theistical arguments.

Is see nothing wrong in admitting that we do not know anything yet.

WE DONT KNOW!

If there must be an intelligent Designer, is our reality the only universe?
There could also be zillions of parallel reality with their designers. The Designers may also need a supreme designer too who in turn needs a designer.
Where do we end this speculations?
Our mind can keep trying to make sense of the universe no doubt. But until we are certain of our claims, we can make up reasons for the existence of an intelligent Designer. None would count as knowledge.

WE SINCERELY DON'T KNOW!

I'm good with this.

Our self-consciousness is our greatest burden. I've learnt to live with that.

Lol. Maybe, maybe not. You wouldn't know if there was an intervention of behalf of an animal now would you?

MrMontella:


does he/she/it asoo intervene for animals in need?'

Ranchhoddas:
Lol. Maybe, maybe not. You wouldn't know if there was an intervention of behalf of an animal now would you?

lets take starvation..
Animals in the wild starve...

it would boil down to the problem of evil..
And no ''general'' case...and lack of consistency..of this ''intervention''

I used animals..to avoid your ''conditioning'' input

Ranchhoddas:
How do they know that whoever or whatever made the Universe is non-interventionist.

good question my bro, good question

I'm a physicist,so am gonna use a branch of physics to explain this

god is bound by laws of quantum mechanics. why have I said this?
virtually all science students have heard and read bout the uncertainty principle, it happens that there is no amount of prayer one can pray, or amount of ritual one can offer that will make god alter the uncertainty principle. everytime you perform the experiment, it will always agree with theory.

lemme come down a little bit..... according to Newton's first law, it states that "a body will continue to be in it state of rest or under uniform motion until an external force acts on it". it also happens that ritual or prayer can alter this laws.

I can go on and on..


Einstein in relativity said " the laws of physics is a constant " , Galileo said same thing.

that's why most physicist are deist (not talking bout Nigerian physicist oo)


the creator is a noninterventionist

MrMontella:

lets take starvation..
Animals in the wild starve...

it would boil down to the problem of evil..
And no ''general'' case...and lack of consistency..of this ''intervention''

I used animals..to avoid your ''conditioning'' input

Even if there isn't any clear proof of ''animal intervention'', it still doesn't show conclusively that there is no intervention. [s]Maybe animals are not as important in the grand scheme of things[/s]

ScepticalPyrrho:
Deism provides no answers but further speculations.

It isn't a position backed up with facts either. It fails the same test of provision proofs as other theistical arguments.

Is see nothing wrong in admitting that we do not know anything yet.

WE DONT KNOW!

If there must be an intelligent Designer, is our reality the only universe?
There could also be zillions of parallel reality with their designers. The Designers may also need a supreme designer too who in turn needs a designer.
Where do we end this speculations?
Our mind can keep trying to make sense of the universe no doubt. But until we are certain of our claims, we can make up reasons for the existence of an intelligent Designer. None would count as knowledge.

WE SINCERELY DON'T KNOW!

I'm good with this.

Our self-consciousness is our greatest burden. I've learnt to live with that.

lol..

it's is good to say we don't know(that's been humble)

I like the fact that you made mention of other worlds. don't you think that if there are other worlds, why would a god choose to care so much more bout this one(earth), hence our position "a noninterventionist"

we think that there must be a god cos something must have triggered the big bang. there are so much scientific explanation behind the position of a rational deist(I can start typing everything as my hand is hurting me already)

ScepticalPyrrho:
Deism provides no answers but further speculations.

It isn't a position backed up with facts either. It fails the same test of provision proofs as other theistical arguments.

Is see nothing wrong in admitting that we do not know anything yet.

WE DONT KNOW!

If there must be an intelligent Designer, is our reality the only universe?
There could also be zillions of parallel reality with their designers. The Designers may also need a supreme designer too who in turn needs a designer.
Where do we end this speculations?
Our mind can keep trying to make sense of the universe no doubt. But until we are certain of our claims, we can make up reasons for the existence of an intelligent Designer. None would count as knowledge.

WE SINCERELY DON'T KNOW!

I'm good with this.

Our self-consciousness is our greatest burden. I've learnt to live with that.

Exactly. There is no limit to speculation.

Such an intervention does not necessarily have to break the laws of physics.

niyihawking:

good question my bro, good question

I'm a physicist,so am gonna use a branch of physics to explain this

god is bound by laws of quantum mechanics. why have I said this?
virtually all science students have heard and read bout the uncertainty principle, it happens that there is no amount of prayer one can pray, or amount of ritual one can offer that will make god alter the uncertainty principle. everytime you perform the experiment, it will always agree with theory.

lemme come down a little bit..... according to Newton's first law, it states that "a body will continue to be in it state of rest or under uniform motion until an external force acts on it". it also happens that ritual or prayer can alter this laws.

I can go on and on..


Einstein in relativity said " the laws of physics is a constant " , Galileo said same thing.

that's why most physicist are deist (not talking bout Nigerian physicist oo)


the creator is a noninterventionist

Ranchhoddas:
Such an intervention does not necessarily have to break the laws of physics.

lol.....

the laws of physics applies to every faucet of our reality, scientist use physical laws to interpret nature

if god cannot break does laws, what laws are then left for it to break?, None, none my bro

Ranchhoddas:
Even if there isn't any clear proof of ''animal intervention'', it still doesn't show conclusively that there is no intervention.

how do you even rate an event for it to be an ''intervention'' ...

What i'm saying is that...the so-called ''interventions'' are not...but a part of the chain of life...

[s]Maybe animals are not as important in the grand scheme of things[/s]

lol...human ego!

Ranchhoddas:
Exactly. There is no limit to speculation.

i thought you believed in a creator?

MrMontella:

how do you even rate an event for it to be an ''intervention'' ...

What i'm saying is that...the so-called ''interventions'' are not... but a part of the chain of life


lol...human ego!

Exactly my point. The atheist position is more logical than than the Deist one. It's either you say there is a God or there isn't. Saying that there is a God who doesn't interfere is like wanting to ''eat your cake and have it''.

MrMontella:

i thought you believed in a creator?

I do. An interventionist one. This is just an academic discussion.

Ranchhoddas:
Exactly my point. The atheist position is more logical than than the Deist one. It's either you say there is a God or there isn't. Saying that there is a God who doesn't interfere is like wanting to ''eat your cake and have it''.

a creator..would be more appropriate...if the term ''God'' is a problem...


Put aside human ego...and give me a reason why the creator would interfere(miracle) at your point of death..and not interfere at the point of death of a lion cub.

There's no law that says a being must look after what it created...

Even parents do leave their little children alone at home...in duplexes and storey buildings..even though the child can fall..

---

And how do you rate an event for it to be a divine intervention..

Ranchhoddas:
Exactly my point. The atheist position is more logical than than the Deist one. It's either you say there is a God or there isn't. Saying that there is a God who doesn't interfere is like wanting to ''eat your cake and have it''.

I would have agreed with you if you had said that "the agnostic position is more logical than that of the deist"

the atheist position is just as extreme as that of the deist.

I(deist) say there is God
atheist say their is no God

as if we know for sure...lolz

niyihawking:

I would have agreed with you if you had said that "the agnostic position is more logical than that of the deist"

the atheist position is just as extreme as that of the deist.

I(deist) say there is God
atheist say their is no God

as if we know for sure...lolz

An agnostic declares his ignorance. Every other person claims a measure of knowledge.

ScepticalPyrrho:
Deism provides no answers but further speculations.

It isn't a position backed up with facts either. It fails the same test of provision proofs as other theistical arguments.

Is see nothing wrong in admitting that we do not know anything yet.

WE DONT KNOW!

If there must be an intelligent Designer, is our reality the only universe?
There could also be zillions of parallel reality with their designers. The Designers may also need a supreme designer too who in turn needs a designer.
Where do we end this speculations?
Our mind can keep trying to make sense of the universe no doubt. But until we are certain of our claims, we can make up reasons for the existence of an intelligent Designer. None would count as knowledge.

WE SINCERELY DON'T KNOW!

I'm good with this.

Our self-consciousness is our greatest burden. I've learnt to live with that.

Succinct. Do you like the tag atheist or agnostic?

MrMontella:

a creator..would be more appropriate...if the term ''God'' is a problem...


Put aside human ego...and give me a reason why the creator would interfere(miracle) at your point of death..and not interfere at the point of death of a lion cub.

There's no law that says a being must look after what it created...

Even parents do leave their little children alone at home...in duplexes and storey buildings..even though the child can fall..

---

And how do you rate an event for it to be a divine intervention..

I don't believe our minds are equipped to fathom the reasons behind the Creator's interference or lack of it in various scenarios. We can only hope for such interventions when we require them.

---

Something that would ordinarily not be expected to happen. Those things doubters like to call 'coincidence'.

Ranchhoddas:
An agnostic declares his ignorance. Every other person claims a measure of knowledge.

ignorance is what we can truly declare as no one can claim to have absolute knowledge bout the subject .


I am not trying to side with the agnostic, but the atheist position does not make much sense.
why? because they(atheist) fail to tell us the cause of the big bang.

@Ranchhoddas
what belief do you hold?

ScepticalPyrrho:
Deism provides no answers but further speculations.

It isn't a position backed up with facts either. It fails the same test of provision proofs as other theistical arguments.

Is see nothing wrong in admitting that we do not know anything yet.

WE DONT KNOW!

If there must be an intelligent Designer, is our reality the only universe?
There could also be zillions of parallel reality with their designers. The Designers may also need a supreme designer too who in turn needs a designer.
Where do we end this speculations?
Our mind can keep trying to make sense of the universe no doubt. But until we are certain of our claims, we can make up reasons for the existence of an intelligent Designer. None would count as knowledge.

WE SINCERELY DON'T KNOW!

I'm good with this.

Our self-consciousness is our greatest burden. I've learnt to live with that.

this is why I'm cool with agnosticism

niyihawking:

ignorance is what we can truly declare as no one can claim to have absolute knowledge bout the subject .


I am not trying to side with the agnostic, but the atheist position does not make much sense.
why? because they(atheist) fail to tell us the cause of the big bang.

The atheist position is one of logic mixed with a great deal of courage. I admire it. The big bang could have been spontaneous; unless you have DEFINITIVE CONTRARY evidence.

---

The agnostic position is one of cowardice, a reluctance to pick for fear of being wrong. It's usually transitive, as people tend to move on from it.

niyihawking:
@Ranchhoddas

what belief do you hold?

I believe in an interventionist causeless cause. I also believe in Jesus Christ and the power in His name.

---

Freethought is my methodology.

QuietHammer:

Succinct. Do you like the tag atheist or agnostic?

notjonbellion:
this is why I'm cool with agnosticism

Yea, agnosticism best describes my position.