Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,143,498 members, 7,781,501 topics. Date: Friday, 29 March 2024 at 03:37 PM

Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) - Religion - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) (11783 Views)

The Great Debate- Is God Alive?..atheism Vs Religion / The Sum Of All Arguments on Theism and Atheism - 2013 / Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (Reply) (Go Down)

Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by ea7(m): 5:45pm On Apr 20, 2012
Let's discuss atheism vs deism. Merits and logic of both sides . If some theists would like to chip in their own two cents, they are free, however buzugee, rastamouse and snthesis(for a different reason than the other two) can watch from the sidelines. If Davidylan wants to join in, he'd better be civil. Okay 3,2,1, let the games begin!!!
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by rastamouse: 9:46pm On Apr 20, 2012
ea7: Let's discuss atheism vs deism. Merits and logic of both sides . If some theists would like to chip in their own two cents, they are free, however buzugee, rastamouse and snthesis(for a different reason than the other two) can watch from the sidelines. If Davidylan wants to join in, he'd better be civil. Okay 3,2,1, let the games begin!!!

Why do you want me out? I thought I was ur friend grin
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by Kay17: 9:29am On Sep 11, 2012
Deism still borrows heavily from Christian theology, the Nature of their God is anthropomorphic, nonphysical and uncaused. And doesn't still explain the paradox of the intelligent Creator.

1 Like

Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by Callotti: 9:46am On Sep 11, 2012
Atheism. . .freedom
Theism. . . mental slavery kiss

Atheism. . . progress
Theism. . . retro-progressive kiss

Atheism. . .peace
Theism. . .war-mongering kiss

Atheism. . .informative
Theism. . .STUPEFYING kiss

Atheism. . .live and let live
Theism. . .live and let DIE kiss

Atheism. . . free from BIGOTRY
Theism. . .full of BIGOTRYkiss

Atheism. . .super-human intelligence
Theism. . .divine ijjiocy kiss

Atheism. . . HAPPY life without regret
Theism. . . SAD life full of misery kiss

Atheism. . . realists
Theism. . . HYPOCRITES kiss

Bottom line? Everything good about Atheism.
Nothing POSITIVE about THEISM! kiss


I endorse this message! Chief Mrs Callotti "THE PROUD CHOP AND CLEAN BETTER MOUTH AND NYANSH ADULTERER". . . AND STILL THE OSINACHI#1 OF MY DARLING HUSBAND'S VILLAGE! cool

16 Likes

Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by MyJoe: 10:06am On Sep 11, 2012
Kay 17: Deism still borrows heavily from Christian theology, the Nature of their God is anthropomorphic, nonphysical and uncaused. And doesn't still explain the paradox of the intelligent Creator.

How does deism borrow from Christian theology? How is "the nature of their God" - whatever that is - anthropomorphic? What "paradox" do you mean exactly?
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by Nobody: 10:45am On Sep 11, 2012
Watching from sidelines...
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by Kay17: 11:20am On Sep 11, 2012
MyJoe:

How does deism borrow from Christian theology? How is "the nature of their God" - whatever that is - anthropomorphic? What "paradox" do you mean exactly?

First, the Christian concept of God was developed earlier than Deist one, just like the Christian God is a person largely with characteristics and personality of a human. Given that intelligence is a complex attribute, the goal of causality is to trace the complex down to the simplest which a Creator solves the universe's complexity, however the Creator's complexity is left unanswered.
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by thehomer: 11:51am On Sep 11, 2012
Deism is theism for scared or closeted atheists. It can also serve as a transition to atheism.
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by Kay17: 11:59am On Sep 11, 2012
^^
Or probably rational people with a rational God.

1 Like

Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by MyJoe: 12:45pm On Sep 11, 2012
Kay 17:
First, the Christian concept of God was developed earlier than Deist one, just like the Christian God is a person largely with characteristics and personality of a human. Given that intelligence is a complex attribute, the goal of causality is to trace the complex down to the simplest which a Creator solves the universe's complexity, however the Creator's complexity is left unanswered.
If I were your teacher, you would get a very low score for the above. In fact, that^^^ is an F grade write-up. Assuming, without conceding, that the Christian concept of God is older than the deist one, how does that mean that deism is derived from Christianity or that it borrows from the it? That is the point you have not addressed – how deism borrows from Christianity. But maybe your position is based on the view that Christianity taught us about God ab initio, which is not the case.

“Deist” is a label that does not refer to a group of people with a uniform set of beliefs. It loosely refers to anyone who believes God exists but repudiates or doubts the reality of the interventionist God with all his human traits described in the lore of most religions as well as the necessity of formal religion. Different deists explain their deism differently. There are agnostic deists and there are Christian deists. There are deists who believe firmly in “afterlife” and there are deists who say “we don’t know” when asked about that. There are deists who dismiss every possibility of prophetic inventions and miracles and there are deists who don’t.

That said, I don’t think there is any deists who claim to have answers to the “creator’s complexity”. But, of course. That is why I am a deist. So, yeah, that is left unanswered. Deism has never been about solving any paradox. It is not about explaining the First Cause. It is about recognizing the necessity of a First Cause. I don’t claim to understand God. In fact, God is incomprehensible and unknowable. “The sum total of all that exists”. “The uncased cause”. “The eternal sovereign lord”. These are all definitions that find earth with me because they don’t limit God. And I don’t think most deists see God in human form – at least, not in the same manner as the popular religions do. You are yet to provide any backing for your claims that they do.

Your assertions that deism borrows from Christianity or that it has an anthropomorphic concept of God, therefore, have no merit. Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with having ideas similar to Christianity. You, like many others, need to jettison this idea that ideas are defined relative to Christianity. And the idea of Us versus Them.

9 Likes 1 Share

Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by MyJoe: 12:51pm On Sep 11, 2012
Kay 17: ^^
Or probably rational people with a rational God.
Right.

The existence of God is well attested to. I have no evidence to support anything else – Noah, talking donkeys, virgin birth, walking on water in its non-solid state, Mohammed jumping up and splitting the moon with a karate chop. These may well have happened, but there is no evidence that they did. The existence of God makes absolute sense - to me. The opposite argument does not. The existence of God is a necessity I can’t get past. Miracles and prophecies aren’t. Formal worship of God isn't. There is nothing scared or closeted about this position. Deism is not atheism. Deism is theism.
**Edited**

4 Likes

Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by Kay17: 3:32pm On Sep 11, 2012
MyJoe:
If I were your teacher, you would get a very low score for the above. In fact, that^^^ is an F grade write-up. Assuming, without conceding, that the Christian concept of God is older than the deist one, how does that mean that deism is derived from Christianity or that it borrows from the it? That is the point you have not addressed – how deism borrows from Christianity. But maybe your position is based on the view that Christianity taught us about God ab initio, which is not the case.

“Deist” is a label that does not refer to a group of people with a uniform set of beliefs. It loosely refers to anyone who believes God exists but repudiates or doubts the reality of the interventionist God with all his human traits described in the lore of most religions as well as the necessity of formal religion. Different deists explain their deism differently. There are agnostic deists and there are Christian deists. There are deists who believe firmly in “afterlife” and there are deists who say “we don’t know” when asked about that. There are deists who dismiss every possibility of prophetic inventions and miracles and there are deists who don’t.

That said, I don’t think there is any deists who claim to have answers to the “creator’s complexity”. But, of course. That is why I am a deist. So, yeah, that is left unanswered. Deism has never been about solving any paradox. It is not about explaining the First Cause. It is about recognizing the necessity of a First Cause. I don’t claim to understand God. In fact, God is incomprehensible and unknowable. “The sum total of all that exists”. “The uncased cause”. “The eternal sovereign lord”. These are all definitions that find earth with me because they don’t limit God. And I don’t think most deists see God in human form – at least, not in the same manner as the popular religions do. You are yet to provide any backing for your claims that they do.

Your assertions that deism borrows from Christianity or that it has an anthropomorphic concept of God, therefore, have no merit. Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with having ideas similar to Christianity. You, like many others, need to jettison this idea that ideas are defined relative to Christianity. And the idea of Us versus Them.

I did explain sufficiently and you went on further. Apart from being the non interventioning God and probably natural, all the attributes have been developed by christian theology already, namely his incomprehensible nature, uncaused, intelligent, conscious creator in essence a person.
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by MyJoe: 4:04pm On Sep 11, 2012
^^^ So to you describing God as incomprehensible and uncaused and a conscious creator is the property of Christian theology. That is where your error lies. My paternal grandmother never set foot in a church till she passed on. She was not lettered so the Bible meant nothing to her. She believed all the above and more about God. I suggest you travel to your ancestral village, find an old fellow who never went to church all through their life and ask them to tell you about God.

Kay 17:
(a)incomprehensible nature, uncaused, intelligent, conscious creator (b)in essence a person.
Can you kindly explain how a leads to b? Thank you.
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by Kay17: 9:25pm On Sep 11, 2012
MyJoe: ^^^ So to you describing God as incomprehensible and uncaused and a conscious creator is the property of Christian theology. That is where your error lies. My paternal grandmother never set foot in a church till she passed on. She was not lettered so the Bible meant nothing to her. She believed all the above and more about God. I suggest you travel to your ancestral village, find an old fellow who never went to church all through their life and ask them to tell you about God.

Not that it is the exclusive property of Christianity, but the Christians laid the foundation for the concept of the incomprehensible God and almighty which we commonly associate Gods to via Aquinas and the negatively defined being centuries before the first deists came. Its a borrowed idea.

Can you kindly explain how a leads to b? Thank you.

I'm not saying a leads b, just that a complements b.
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by MrAnony1(m): 5:47am On Sep 12, 2012
Kay 17: (a)incomprehensible nature, uncaused, intelligent, conscious creator (b)in essence a person.
MyJoe:
Can you kindly explain how a leads to b? Thank you.

@MyJoe, may I butt in here.

If you hold that God is an intelligent and conscious creator, then you are basically saying that there is an intelligent purpose behind God's act of creation. This in turn implies that God has a will and intentions in other words a mind. The logical conclusion from this is that God must have a personality.

Secondly, if you hold that man is also an intelligent and conscious being and able to make choices, then it follows that man can make choices that oppose the will of God.
If it is true that man's will can be at loggerheads with God's, then you have a God that has to be able to intervene and it is necessary that He intervenes.

Your insisting that God is strictly non-interventionist will run you into many logical problems. Because now it is either God is incapable of intervening or God does not have a specific will, therefore no intelligence behind his design and finally we are back to the absurdity of order emanating from absolute disorder.

2 Likes

Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by cyrexx: 6:47am On Sep 12, 2012
And the religious confusion begins. If religion's God (particulary Yahweh and Allah) has a personality, then he can behave as irrational as possible and we cant question him simply because we believe he created the world. Any religion's God can lay claim to be the true creator of the universe and confuse humanity the more while vowing to torture humans excessively if he happens to worship a wrong God other than himself. He can force us (by punishment threats) to believe he is good despite what we observe about his flawed universe and unkind treatment of mankind. He can cause or allow untold human suffering and man is supposed to convince himself that he is a good God.

The Deist's God however has no such paradox. He is only used to explain the origin of the universe because man has not figured it out yet.
He does not claim to be good or bad. Infact other than creating the world, he does not claim any other thing. So there is little or no paradox here.
But what if the day comes when our descendants are able to offer perfect explanation to this world's complexities, and it can be logically demonstrated that this universe was not created by any being at all, then he too will be gone in a wisp of smoke, like the Gods of the religions. By the way, humans have invented so many dead Gods and i'm sure Yahweh and Allah will join their ranks many many years from now.
Thats my 2 cents as an atheist.

5 Likes

Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by Nobody: 6:56am On Sep 12, 2012
cyrexx: And the religious confusion begins. If religion's God (particulary Yahweh and Allah) has a personality, then he can behave as irrational as possible and we cant question him simply because we believe he created the world. Any religion's God can lay claim to be the true creator of the universe and confuse humanity the more while vowing to torture humans excessively if he happens to worship a wrong God other than himself. He can force us (by punishment threats) to believe he is good despite what we observe about his flawed universe and unkind treatment of mankind. He can cause or allow untold human suffering and man is supposed to convince himself that he is a good God.

The Deist's God however has no such paradox. He is only used to explain the origin of the universe because man has not figured it out yet.
He does not claim to be good or bad. Infact other than creating the world, he does not claim any other thing. So there is little or no paradox here.
But what if the day comes when our descendants are able to offer perfect explanation to this world's complexities, and it can be logically demonstrated that this universe was not created by any being at all, then he too will be gone in a wisp of smoke, like the Gods of the religions. By the way, humans have invented so many dead Gods and i'm sure Yahweh and Allah will join their ranks many many years from now.
Thats my 2 cents as an atheist.
Oga Cyrexx, been a while.. Hope you're good...
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by cyrexx: 7:01am On Sep 12, 2012
musKeeto:
Oga Cyrexx, been a while.. Hope you're good...


i'm fine o, my bros.

It feels good to know that you have someone asking after you.

Thanxx a lot.

1 Like

Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by thehomer: 8:54am On Sep 12, 2012
Kay 17: ^^
Or probably rational people with a rational God.

Not really. One way to find out is by simply asking them what they believe about this God and why they believe it. The reasons they give are often fallacious, nebulous or they give no reasons at all.

1 Like

Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by thehomer: 8:58am On Sep 12, 2012
MyJoe:
Right.

The existence of God is well attested to. I have no evidence to support anything else – Noah, talking donkeys, virgin birth, walking on water in its non-solid state, Mohammed jumping up and splitting the moon with a karate chop. These may well have happened, but there is no evidence that they did. The existence of God makes absolute sense - to me. The opposite argument does not. The existence of God is a necessity I can’t get past. Miracles and prophecies aren’t. Formal worship of God isn't. There is nothing scared or closeted about this position. Deism is not atheism. Deism is theism.
**Edited**

The existence of which God is well attested to by who? Sure you have no evidence supporting anything else so what is the reason why you say the existence of this unknown God is a necessity?

What about atheism doesn't make sense? It is a reasonable conclusion given what we know about the world.
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by MyJoe: 4:34pm On Sep 12, 2012
Welcome to the discussion, Mr_Anony.

Mr_Anony:
@MyJoe, may I butt in here.

If you hold that God is an intelligent and conscious creator, then you are basically saying that there is an intelligent purpose behind God's act of creation. This in turn implies that God has a will and intentions in other words a mind. The logical conclusion from this is that God must have a personality.

Secondly, if you hold that man is also an intelligent and conscious being and able to make choices, then it follows that man can make choices that oppose the will of God.
If it is true that man's will can be at loggerheads with God's, then you have a God that has to be able to intervene and it is necessary that He intervenes.

Your insisting that God is strictly non-interventionist will run you into many logical problems. Because now it is either God is incapable of intervening or God does not have a specific will, therefore no intelligence behind his design and finally we are back to the absurdity of order emanating from absolute disorder.

Lots of assumptions there^^^. I do not normally discuss the nature of God because, like I explained to Martian in another thread, when I think about the nature of God, I recoil. The only thing I have said with certainty here is that there is a first cause – God. I have said nothing else with certainty. Ok, actually there is something else I am quite certain about - that God does not intervene in our lives individually. There is no evidence that he does. Note that that is different from saying that God is incapable of intervening or that he does not intervene on behalf of humanity – for example by sending prophets or even sons. My response to whether God intervenes on behalf of humanity and sends prophets or sons would be I don’t know, since I have not come into knowledge that he does. It is a possibility. Nowhere have I said, much less “insisted”, that “God is strictly non-interventionist”.

Besides, bear in mind that when it comes to belief, what makes sense to the individual is usually important in forming them.

Let me comment briefly on the question of “intelligent purpose” behind creation. Anything I tell you about that is my subjective belief. And it is not deism or an essential of it – unless you want to follow K17 and trace deism to Lord Herbert or some other particular Enlightenment or Reformation writer - but it rhymes perfectly with my deism. For example, I subscribe to Eastern thought on the matter of life and death being the nature of all living things, the purpose being to attain perfection. I believe that we are born. Then we die. Then we are born again. And on and on. What you get from fate is determined, not by grace or other similar quixotic concept, but by the machinery that has been put in place to run the universe. You reap what you sow. The system is scrupulously fair so grace does not come in because everything you do, good or bad, is recorded automatically and never gets lost. The logical conclusion is that you are not accountable to God, but to his laws. That is why a life spent solely in the pursuit of fame and personal enrichment is a wasted and wretched one.

Let me tell you why this makes sense. On the 29th of this month, Nigerians, including the president and senate president, will gather at Ibadan to be led by Adeboye and co on a Christian National Day of Prayers. There is nothing wrong with people praying of itself. But the tragedy here is that when Nigerians do this sort of thing, they believe they are actually doing something productive, whereas they are wasting time. How do we know? Because they have been praying and nada has been wrought. We all know where China was 20 years ago and where they are today. That is an atheist country. They don’t even acknowledge the existence of God, much less hold national day of prayers, yet they are tremendous making progress. The least corrupt countries and the best countries to live, according to the indexes, are the Scandinavian countries, yet they are atheist countries. Why are their societies better than religious ones? Because they obey the laws of God more than the religious societies - the religious societies merely rate high in traditions and mantra that create an illusion of godliness. These atheistic societies have created an ordered and humane system. While they may be selfish as human beings, they also think of and work for the common good. For these “the grace of God” which abounds in the universe and does not know Christian, Mohamedan or atheist abides with them. It is simply laws at work.

If you plant your seed yams in the dry season you have disobeyed the law of God which says you should plant them in the wet season. You will get a terrible harvest. Prayers won’t change anything, except, perhaps, make you feel better. Now, why would anyone think that as it is in the physical world is not how it is in the spiritual? To obey the laws of God – that is what matters. That is the “intelligent purpose” behind creation.

And you can see why God does not intervene. He doesn’t need to.

On the rest of what you wrote, God may well be a personality – maybe some kind of superpersonality, I don’t know. I don’t dwell much on it. But no, it doesn’t follow logically for me that God is a personality just because intelligence and intentions are among the things he manifests. Note that I am not objecting to your reference to God as a personality since that is the only way we puny humans can conceive of God. I was objecting to K17’s “anthropomorphic” God tag on deism.


Secondly, if you hold that man is also an intelligent and conscious being and able to make choices, then it follows that man can make choices that oppose the will of God.
Yes.


If it is true that man's will can be at loggerheads with God's, then you have a God that has to be able to intervene and it is necessary that He intervenes.
Not when there are perfect and immutable laws in place. You know how your MS Word runs, making phone calls to Bill Gates unnecessary. A very inadequate illustration, but I’m sure you get what I’m saying. If you are rich and powerful and you kill an innocent person, for instance, and it’s in a country like Nigeria where the institutions of state are weak, what can happen? You may get away with it. What usually follows? Prayers. Prayers. Prayers. By the victim’s family, I mean. The praying people will hope for some lightening of retribution to strike down the evil man. They expect God to intervene quickly. Usually nothing happens. By why should God listen to them when he already has laws in place to deal with the situation? Now, the above makes sense because it’s, in fact, what we see everyday – sincere and godly people praying sincerely and nothing happening. Recall, please, that I am talking here about intervention in our day to day lives, not intervention on behalf of the whole of humanity.

**Edited**
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by MyJoe: 4:51pm On Sep 12, 2012
thehomer:
The existence of which God is well attested to by who?
Any inconsistencies and illogicalities you point out in my position may be discussed, and cleared up, if possible. Beyond that, I have no desire to convince anyone about God – or, in fact, anything else.

The existence of God is attested to by (1) everything around us and the order about them (2) spiritual things. Point 2 is subjective. Even where it is not, it is almost impossible to discuss in a forum such as things. So you can skip it. But I was telling you what attests to the existence of God – to me. I have no shred of doubt about it.


Sure you have no evidence supporting anything else so what is the reason why you say the existence of this unknown God is a necessity?
“Necessity” is so simple that I wouldn’t have thought any further explanation of it is necessary. What are you putting on now? Someone made it – that is, its maker is a necessity. The existence of time is a necessity – I don’t think time began. The existence of God, too, is a necessity.


What about atheism doesn't make sense? It is a reasonable conclusion given what we know about the world.
Atheism makes no sense because no better explanation than God has been found for the reality we are in. Mazaje would counter that we cannot on that basis conclude that God must be responsible. That is not an unreasonable thing to say. Anyway, I don’t dispute that atheism is a reasonable conclusion to some people. In fact, I have discussed that matter with Deep Sight in a thread and stated that I recognize that what convinces me might not convince someone else. What about atheism doesn’t make sense to me? Its presumptuousness. The rejection of a first cause does not follow any known canon of logic. Given what we currently know about the world, atheism is not a reasonable conclusion.

thehomer:
Not really. One way to find out is by simply asking them what they believe about this God and why they believe it. The reasons they give are often fallacious, nebulous or they give no reasons at all.
So what reason did they give you that was fallacious or nebulous?
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by wiegraf: 4:55pm On Sep 12, 2012
@myjoe
If I may, do you have a logical reason for concluding there is some sort of consciousness behind creation? You could just post a link if you've described it before


Edit: never mind, I see you just responded to thehomer
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by MyJoe: 4:59pm On Sep 12, 2012
Kay 17:
Not that it is the exclusive property of Christianity, but the Christians laid the foundation for the concept of the incomprehensible God and almighty which we commonly associate Gods to via Aquinas and the negatively defined being centuries before the first deists came. Its a borrowed idea.
You are merely shifting base, remixing things and making blank assertions without bothering to argue them logically. Now you make it sound like deism is defined by the incomprehensibility of God. It isn’t, the fact I am repeating it here that God is incomprehensible notwithstanding. Different deists see things differently. The views held by some is just a remixing of Christian theology without the Christ. Others are radically differently. These are not necessarily what deism is all about. A creator exists, but he does not look over our shoulders individually – anyone thinking along these lines is usually classified as a deist.

I honestly don’t know how you can say that Christians laid the foundation for the concept of the incomprehensible God. To take you up on what you just wrote, Aquinas may have said something like that, but Christianity does not hold that God is incomprehensible as its core ontology of God. It teaches that the ways of God are incomprehensible to man but nowhere does Christianity tell us that God is unknowable. In fact, it claims to know a lot about God, including that the facts that he loves Israel and has a son. It claims to comprehend a lot about God, for example, telling us that God relates with us by grace through which you can get “salvation” and even the good things of this life by simply “giving your life” and praying hard.

Besides, I don’t agree that the people you call “the first deists” were the first deists. I think you are stuck on textbook deism, seeing it as another religion, one that is traceable to some founder or founders in the Enlightenment era rather than the simple acknowledgement of God that it is. Personally, I had deistic views long before I came across the term or read about classical deism. I have read very little on the subject compared to Christianity or atheism.


I'm not saying a leads b, just that a complements b.
I don’t understand.
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by Kay17: 6:46pm On Sep 12, 2012
^^^
The first problem is you presume the Universality of God in that everyone has a common perception/definition of what God is and not as a unique individual idea. As seen below.

I think you are stuck on textbook deism, seeing it as another religion, one that is traceable to some founder or founders in the Enlightenment era rather than the simple acknowledgement of God that it is

The Christians have stressed so many times that God's nature itself is what incomprehensible, consequentially his actions. The fact that they manage to say so many things about him despite that itchy attribute is the irony. Which you are committed to.

Different deists see things differently. The views held by some is just a remixing of Christian theology without the Christ. Others are radically differently. These are not necessarily what deism is all about. A creator exists, but he does not look over our shoulders individually – anyone thinking along these lines is usually classified as a deist.

In view of the above, the so called deists agree on certain and common grounds: that there is a single creator and that God is a person: in that he is conscious, sentient/wilful and intelligent and holds a non interventionist policy. Apart from being interventionist, this is remarkably similar to the Christian God!
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by thehomer: 7:20pm On Sep 12, 2012
MyJoe:
Any inconsistencies and illogicalities you point out in my position may be discussed, and cleared up, if possible. Beyond that, I have no desire to convince anyone about God – or, in fact, anything else.

Since you're willing to discuss any problems pointed out, I'll go ahead and show them to you.

MyJoe:
The existence of God is attested to by (1) everything around us and the order about them (2) spiritual things. Point 2 is subjective. Even where it is not, it is almost impossible to discuss in a forum such as things. So you can skip it. But I was telling you what attests to the existence of God – to me. I have no shred of doubt about it.

How does everything around us tell us that there is a God? I mean why should the fact that I'm looking at a computer, a phone or an elephant tell me that there is a God?

Actually, we can discuss subjective things on a forum the problem is whether you have any evidence for what you're claiming. If you have no doubt about it, then surely there must be something that you can point at that has convinced you so strongly.

MyJoe:
“Necessity” is so simple that I wouldn’t have thought any further explanation of it is necessary. What are you putting on now? Someone made it – that is, its maker is a necessity. The existence of time is a necessity – I don’t think time began. The existence of God, too, is a necessity.

Obviously a further explanation is necessary. So according to you, someone made time? But no one made God? Why should it be that it is time that was made and not God? Can it not be that neither time nor God were made?

MyJoe:
Atheism makes no sense because no better explanation than God has been found for the reality we are in. Mazaje would counter that we cannot on that basis conclude that God must be responsible. That is not an unreasonable thing to say. Anyway, I don’t dispute that atheism is a reasonable conclusion to some people. In fact, I have discussed that matter with Deep Sight in a thread and stated that I recognize that what convinces me might not convince someone else. What about atheism doesn’t make sense to me? Its presumptuousness. The rejection of a first cause does not follow any known canon of logic. Given what we currently know about the world, atheism is not a reasonable conclusion.

God doesn't explain the reality that we're in. I don't see how atheism is presumptive. In fact, I think theism in its multiple forms are presumptive in thinking that there must be someone out there who - like humans - likes making things. A first cause doesn't have to be from someone and your talk about some canon of logic would need to be defended and shown to work with our modern knowledge of the universe. Actually, given what we know about the world, atheism is the best conclusion.

MyJoe:
So what reason did they give you that was fallacious or nebulous?

Reasons like the first cause you posited above and the design argument are generally fallacious while the claims of spirits are nebulous.
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by Kay17: 8:35pm On Sep 12, 2012
I think the first cause argument is too suggestive. A better question is why is there something rather nothing.

1 Like

Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by ea7(m): 10:34pm On Sep 12, 2012
https://www.nairaland.com/919499/atheism-vs-deism-vs-theism Contintuing the debate on this threadis bette than starting a fresh one on this and rehashing points...just saying
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by MyJoe: 11:54am On Sep 14, 2012
Kay 17: ^^^
The first problem is you presume the Universality of God in that everyone has a common perception/definition of what God is and not as a unique individual idea. As seen below.

You say I “presume. . . that everyone has a common perception/definition of what God is” yet you then go on to quote a post I said “Different deists see things differently.” Your argument is not holding together. No, you are the one forcing your narrow ideas on deism, probably because you read of someone whose deism was a reaction to, and a rejection of, Christianity. And no, I don’t assume a common perception of God. There is a universality about God, but once you move beyond one or two basic points, there are differences in perception. Even one individual's perception changes from time to time.


The Christians have stressed so many times that God's nature itself is what incomprehensible, consequentially his actions. The fact that they manage to say so many things about him despite that itchy attribute is the irony. Which you are committed to.
I’m not sure what it is you say I am committed to. Where, for example, have I said “so many things about him” despite ironies? On the question of God or his ways being incomprehensible that you go on about and are strangely projecting as the core ontology of God in Christianity and deism, most faiths hold somewhat similar views. Did they get it from Christianity, too?


In view of the above, the so called deists agree on certain and common grounds: that there is a single creator and that God is a person: in that he is conscious, sentient/wilful and intelligent and holds a non interventionist policy. Apart from being interventionist, this is remarkably similar to the Christian God!
Deists don’t all agree that (1) there is a single creator, (2) he is a person; my reference to “a creator” and use of “he” notwithstanding. Not all deists even agree on the “non-interventionist policy” or what exactly it means – read my response to Mr_Anony. What you wrote is like staying that theists agree that there is a single creator and that he is a person. In fact, you don’t know what you are talking about. I think you need a basic education on deism and much as I hate to suggest Wikipedia since it can further confuse you, I think it will be a good place to start from. I haven’t read the article but I have glanced at it and am sure you can pick up a thing or two from it. At least, you can learn about diversity in deism.

Even if deists all agree that (1) there is a single creator, (2) he is a person - which they don't - you are still a long way from proving that these are borrowed from Christianity. Is Doondari, the creator God of Fulani mythology, borrowed from Christianity? Doondari is "a single creator" and "a person". So are Aondo, Oghene and Chukwu.
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by MyJoe: 12:10pm On Sep 14, 2012
thehomer:
Since you're willing to discuss any problems pointed out, I'll go ahead and show them to you.

How does everything around us tell us that there is a God? I mean why should the fact that I'm looking at a computer, a phone or an elephant tell me that there is a God?
Simples. Looking at a computer and a phone tells you they have a maker, right?


Actually, we can discuss subjective things on a forum the problem is whether you have any evidence for what you're claiming. If you have no doubt about it, then surely there must be something that you can point at that has convinced you so strongly.
Evidence I think will persuade you? No. Not that I have a mandate or desire to convince you. Besides, like I was explaining to Mr_Anony, I don’t believe God cares whether you believe he exists or not so it’s not a priority for me. You are answerable to his laws – that doesn’t require any “beliefs”. There are things that have convinced me strongly. I already pointed them out, thehomer. What I have not done is “prove” things, convince you, a project I already explained I have no serious commitment to.
smiley


Obviously a further explanation is necessary. So according to you, someone made time? But no one made God? Why should it be that it is time that was made and not God? Can it not be that neither time nor God were made?

Nowhere have I said someone made time. I said the maker of your shirt is a necessity for the shirt to be on your back. I did not say the shirt is a necessity – its maker is. Similarly, God, the maker of everything, is a necessity for everything to exist. Just as time is a necessity – it doesn’t come into being. I hope it’s clearer.


God doesn't explain the reality that we're in. I don't see how atheism is presumptive. In fact, I think theism in its multiple forms are presumptive in thinking that there must be someone out there who - like humans - likes making things. A first cause doesn't have to be from someone and your talk about some canon of logic would need to be defended and shown to work with our modern knowledge of the universe. Actually, given what we know about the world, atheism is the best conclusion.
I think it has to be a conscious being. There is no value in getting bogged down by “someone” or other definitions of God. Referring to God as “he” or other someonish descriptions is merely the easiest way for me to comprehend things and express them. The point is that there is some consciousness behind creation.


Reasons like the first cause you posited above and the design argument are generally fallacious while the claims of spirits are nebulous.
I recognize that we have been in different places and so would understand if spirits are mere “claims” to you and such claims are “nebulous”. The first cause and the design argument are not fallacious at all. I said a maker is a necessity for a shirt to be on your back. Is that fallacious?
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by thehomer: 12:55pm On Sep 14, 2012
MyJoe:
Simples. Looking at a computer and a phone tells you they have a maker, right?

Computers and phones have groups of makers so are you proposing multiple Gods or just one? Then the fatal flaw of that claim is that humans are nothing like computers or phones.

MyJoe:
Evidence I think will persuade you? No. Not that I have a mandate or desire to convince you. Besides, like I was explaining to Mr_Anony, I don’t believe God cares whether you believe he exists or not so it’s not a priority for me. You are answerable to his laws – that doesn’t require any “beliefs”. There are things that have convinced me strongly. I already pointed them out, thehomer. What I have not done is “prove” things, convince you, a project I already explained I have no serious commitment to.
smiley

If the evidence is good, I expect that I will be persuaded and I understand that it isn't your aim neither is my persuasion what I'm asking for. All I'm asking for is that the evidence be non-fallacious and assessable. By laws are you talking about physical laws or do you have something else in mind? I've not asked you to prove anything to convince me, what I've asked for are those things that convinced you strongly. I'll address them as you bring them up.

MyJoe:

Nowhere have I said someone made time. I said the maker of your shirt is a necessity for the shirt to be on your back. I did not say the shirt is a necessity – it’s maker is. Similarly, God, the maker of everything, is a necessity for everything to exist. Just as time is a necessity – it doesn’t come into being. I hope it’s clearer.

Just to be clear, are you saying God and time are necessities? Is there anything else that is a necessity?

MyJoe:
I think it has to be a conscious being. There is no value in getting bogged down by “someone” or other definitions of God. Referring to God as “he” or other someonish descriptions is merely the easiest way for me to comprehend things and express them. The point is that there is some consciousness behind creation.

Based on what we know about the only sort of consciousness available (human consciousness), I don't see how the consciousness you're proposing will work. How will it even be able to do something? Since as humans show, you need some sort of body to have consciousness and do some creating with it.

MyJoe:
I recognize that we have been in different places and so would understand if spirits are mere “claims” to you and such claims are “nebulous”. The first cause and the design argument are not fallacious at all. I said a maker is a necessity for a shirt to be on your back. Is that fallacious?

The first cause argument depending on how you state it is fallacious. You can state the one you wish to use for me to point out why it is fallacious. The design argument that you're using above is fallacious because you're making a weak analogy since a shirt is not similar enough to a person to make such a comparison.
Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by Kay17: 8:06pm On Sep 14, 2012
@mrjoe

I think you are stuck on textbook deism, seeing it as another religion, one that is traceable to some founder or founders in the Enlightenment era rather than the simple acknowledgement of God that it is
You in the bolded suggested some objectivity in God, taking him away from some definition by probable peeps in the Enlightenment Era!!

What exactly binds all deists together?!

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (Reply)

RCCG 2013 Prophecies By Pastor E.A ADEBOYE / Please Stop Farting In Church / Spotting The Difference Between The Holy Spirit And Evil Spirit

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 108
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.