I am an Agnostic Deist (note: Not Atheist).

ilosiwaju:

That's really an interesting description DS, agnostic deism. I usually view agnosticism as the trump card for atheists who really appreciate that there is a great mystery with the god thing. Deism in my own view, skipping the big words is a stance that obviously is not a yahweh or allah follower but at the same time not entirely dismissive of the god idea as well as observe the mysteries involved unlike atheism which is sure god is a negative.
While i join you in waiting for sagamite,

i'll like you to refresh me on your own version of deism in a few and clear sentences.

Hope you'll oblige.

Deep Sight:

The above is a quote from Sagamite.

This very much interests me as I describe myself as Deist as well.

@ Sagamite - let's discuss the meaning and implications of agnostic deism?

Do you not feel that there are somethings that may be discerned about God - even while God remains a mystery?

Sagamite:

Hey,

I have just been notified about this thread.

The meaning of my Agnostic Deism is that I observe the world I live in, I can spot the marvelous intricacy of things on Earth from the living things (e.g. ecosystems, immune system etc) and non-living (e.g. weather, natural resources etc) that works in such an intelligent systemic way to suggest their is some intentional intelligence in their design and functionality. Hence my belief that their is at least one God and Deism.

I maintain that my belief is their is at least one God. It could be one or it could be more. I don't know, will never know, cannot know, am not bother to know and could not care less about knowing. Hence I am Agnotistic.

I do not believe anybody in the past, present or future knows anything about God or what it wants, hence I do not believe in any of the so-called scriptures and can pick holes in most in seconds because it is written by medieval people, who despite good intelligence had blatant limited knowledge and display some immense ignorance of their times that betrays their argument that they were writing for God.

I believe there is at least one God but I can not prove it, so I will not force my belief/opinion on anybody about that God or what he wants.

Furthermore, I don't believe in all those rubbish about God interfering in day to day lives or the other famous one of destiny. Most that believe in such are just demonstrating their application of superstition to anything they do not understand and that bothers them and wish there is some kind of influence (be it supernatural) in controlling it. I believe the only force baring on your fate in life is Existentialism.

Deep Sight:

But if there are other gods, then the question will remain - from whence? Surely all things must have one primordial and eternal source?

For me: it is that one ultimate source that i recognise as God. What do you think?

Deep Sight:

I see with this. However do you believe that even if God does not interfere, there are divine laws which guide creation?

For example: the laws of gravity, magnetism, attraction of homogenuous species, karma. etc?

Deep Sight:

Finally I need to ask you a few questions regarding the spiritual aspect of your agnostic deism?

1. Do you believe in a spiritual/ immaterial part to man - the soul?

2. Do you believe in life after physical death?

3. Do you believe in worlds beyond this world?

Thanks so much for your time.

Sagamite:

Bruv,

If we go the route of ultimate source then we risk entering an infinity loop.

How did this ultimate source itself come about?

When you say "Surely all things must have one primordial and eternal source?", I think naturally, our known known is corrupting our attempt to understand this unknown. You are feeding in what you already know to rationalise what you don't know. I do not know if the rules of the known will be the same for the unknown.

There appears to be a framework. There is an intentional and uber-intelligent set of rules that apply.

1. Maybe, I am not too sure. It is really hard to know. The question is that: "Is the soul not just the brain as we see it"? That is, is it not our thinking that creates an out-of-body entity we call "soul"?

2. Nope! I, personally o , did not see life before birth. I am convinced there will be none after death. My philosophy: "No life before birth, no life after death".

Sagamite:

I do not believe anybody in the past, present or future knows anything about God or what it wants, hence I do not believe in any of the so-called scriptures and can pick holes in most in seconds because it is written by medieval people, who despite good intelligence had blatant limited knowledge and display some immense ignorance of their times that betrays their argument that they were writing for God.

Sagamite:

Personally, I don't bother my little brain  with this unknown unknown as I don't think it is possible to know and nobody knows and can ever know.

Deep Sight:

That may or may not be so. Do you not think that somethings are self existent - such that they simply are - simply exist - without requiring a creator. If God is self-existent, then we evade the infinity loop because there would be no need to look beyond God for that which may have caused God. This, I believe is why God is referred to as "the uncaused cause" - namely that God is a cause of all things which is itself self-existent - it does not require a cause.

There are other things which may also be regarded as self-existent - and this may set the tone for a small understanding of God.

One such thing is infinite time or eternity. A state of timelessness.

Such does not require a creator. Such simply is.

As I have said above: it would have to be self-existent: something that does not require a cause - such as infinite time, or eternity. It just is.

Deep Sight:

Do you think there are pieces of knowledge or intuition which humans may have, which is not traceable to the physical brain?

Such as a dream about a future event, which plays out in reality in precise detail. This happens to me all the time, and has been the case since I was a child. I know very well that there is no way my brain could have grasped those pieces of information before they actuallu happened.

Deep Sight:

What do you make of the work of psychics? Do not scoff: psychics across the world are increasingly being deployed by first world police departments and intelligence services. This is a fact.

Deep Sight:

So what then would you say is the purpose of your sojourn on this planet?

MyJoe:

Hi Saga
I see with you on this knowing thing. I know next to nothing, myself. However . . .

How can we know for a fact that nobody knows and can ever know? I understand you have looked at the theses shoved in your face and could rip them apart in seconds. Fine. But what you have had the opportunity of interacting with is probably an infinitesimal part of what is out there. Even your interaction may have been at a superficial level, at best. And that is to say nothing of the biases engendered by the actions and inactions of the pioneers of movements and the salesmen of spiritual goods.

Given the fact of our limited viewpoint, do you find it reasonable to completely dismiss the possibility that God has ever revealed himself, albeit not to you, or in a way you have recognized – yet?

Deep Sight:

^^^ Ilosi, respectfully, I doubt that you are well informed on the subject.

Cold reading/ psycology cannot explain talents such as remote viewing, where psychics have been used (and are still being used) by espionage agencies globally. It similarly cannot explain investigations whereat psychics make determinations without meeting any possible suspects at all. There is much more I can mention, but it will be best to simply refer you to the Crime & Investigation Channel.

You will be shocked just how much supposedly scientific governments are relying on the para-normal.

I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. (, ) if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionize [sic] the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence." Richard Wiseman Daily Mail, January 28, 2008, pp 28–29 [30]

On a lighter note, would you cancel your flight(hmmmm. . . .say to ICJ at the hague ) if a professional psychic has remote-viewed the plane going down? Thats what i mean by validity.

ilosiwaju:

Wow! Remote viewing is still an outlandish claim and the evidence is still inconclusive. Let me quote Wiseman:

Whether science will suffice as a means of measuring its validity is something i wont talk about now. Scientifically(biology/physiology/psychology) a lie detector is a machine that has helped solve crimes, used by PDs and so on. As gadgetry as this stuffs is plus its scientific magana magana(talk talk), its results are still not admissible in many courts in developed countries. Why? Now compare DNA evidence. See?

I'd like you to clearly explain your own version of belief in the paranormal. Ghosts? Visions? Premonitions? I'd love to hear you deepsight.

_{On a lighter note, would you cancel your flight(hmmmm. . . .say to ICJ at the hague ) if a professional psychic has remote-viewed the plane going down? Thats what i mean by validity.}

Over to you bro.

Sagamite:

I cannot know for a fact if anybody knows or have interacted with God.

Sagamite:

Uhmm. I have come across that philosophical argumentation of infinite time before by one of my closest friends, but I have forgotten the premise. I remember it being an intelligent concept sha, as it knocked my argument off balance. Abeg refresh my memory on the premise.

That said, I find it hard to believe of things just existing without a creator. Maybe that is the corruption of my independent thought by my known knowns.

And if there is an uncaused cause, why does it have to be only one? Could it not be multiples?

Ah! This one is the easiest thing you have asked me all day.

I know my purpose in life well well.

I came to Earth to frolic with women.   I came to grab as many ikebes (pear, donkey and submarine size) and bosoms (double D, B, C , D, E, double Gs etc) as I can get.  

Joking! That is what I thought until about 2 and the half years ago when I got bored of all that.  

On a more serious note, I ask: "Is it compulsory we have a purpose on earth rather than just live our lives"? "Is this just not one of the religious ideologies thrown to coerce lay-minds to conform to religous beliefs"? "If we must have a purpose in life, then surely every chicken, fish, tolontolo and other animals must have one too. And I doubt they do, apart from just live their lives"?

MyJoe:

My own views are deistically inclined and I share many of the thoughts you have expressed in this thread. The major difference is that in the above statement I would substitute "do not" for "cannot".

Deep Sight:

Well its as simple as already said really: infinite time is a static reality. It cannot conceivably be caused. Accordingly if we speak of an infinite and eternal entity, such an entity is self-existent and of eternity. Such an entity cannot be said to require a cause as under the cosmological argument it is manifest that only things which begin at a point in time logically require a trigger --  cause.

So this will eliminate the problem of an infinite regress at we are dealing with something that self-exists and requires no precedng cause.

Deep Sight:

Who created Time. Infact, what is time?

Deep Sight:

The uncaused cause is envisaged as the Prime Mover of all existence. The idea of a prime mover is inconsisent with and parallel to the concept of multiple causes.

Nevertheless there are several things that may indeed be said to be uncaused. Eternity is one such. Numbers and infinity are another. My perception is that these uncaused elements are the elements of the Godhead.

Deep Sight:

Indeed every creature does have a unique purpose and function within an ecosystem. Its a grand cycle. The predator ensures control on cattle poulations. The control ensures that the grassy plains are not over-grazed. That allows sufficient greenery to be sustained to maintain the rain cycle. That allows the earth to be watered and that gives fresh life. Just a rough example of the grand cycle of things. So everything has its purpose.

What is your purpose.

Deep Sight:

As a sentient being, can you contemplate or tolerate the prospect of a meaningless existence? Does that not rebel against your most basic nature as a conscious and sentient being?

Sagamite:

[flash=400,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnCK1D9dC3g&p=ADD3FC77CF10DC89&playnext=1&index=11[/flash]

yommyuk:


Nice
I will call it unfortunate, ridiculous and pitiful

The Christian faith is being challenged and u call that nice? Hmm God forgive u!!!
Do u guys know the meaning of faith at all. Surely not. Even witches and wizards acknowledge the existence of God. Even satan your father acknowledges his existence.

As christians, "Faith" to us is having confidence that what we hope for will actually happen. Giving us assurance about things we CANNOT SEE.
This is not a feel good factor. Nay! Instead Faith to us involves CONFIDENT ACTION in RESPONSE to what God has made known to us by the Holy Spirit. Faith comes into play in a variety of life's circumstances. The results of faith are also various. Some people get rescued, acheive success in life, and get some of what GOD has promised in their lifetimes. Multiple instances. Things that happen beyond ones capability and comprehension.

You may ask me "What does it mean to live by faith?" or is this posting relevant to the topic discussed above. But I put it before you ,We live out our belief "that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him" Those who live by faith take confident action based on what God has revealed about his character, seeking to do his will in all things.

Whose will are u lot advocating? The truth lies within you and that is the "Breath of Life" God gave u without no charge.