dmxqo:

Simply proof. The hierachy of being. Plant > animal > humans > smthing. That something which is greater than human (not withstanding its features and quality) is God. Man cannot be d highest because man can't control smthings e.g nature. Also, it cant be infinite since it is serial.

toba:

Viaro we re saying samething.I mean as a theist i must provide proof for my theism&an atheist must do same simple.

If i said shade is a girl & u say shade is not.The 2 of us must prove our contradictory statements with facts to a logical point

Deep Sight:

^^^ The foregoing would not be useful if the "Shade" referred to is a specific human being.

In the context of this debate the "God" referred to is specific and has certain pre-defined attributes E.g: Omniscience, omnipotence, pre and post existence (Eternal) etc.

This propositional logic would therefore be of no use in terms of this discourse.

Religion has defined God in terms of perceptions historically and culturally passed down.

In my view it is this definition of "God" and particularly the need, if any, to "worship" it, that the atheist validly demands proof of.

Because if God were simply stated to be "The universe" (poor, in my opinion) or "whatever caused things to exist" (such as an impersonal principle of duality spawning outwards in those terms to create positive and negative quantities) - and the requirement to "bow down" and worship was thereby eliminated: then i doubt that any atheist would demand proof for such.

But when you define God as an Old Man sitting in the sky who has a Jewish son called Jesus (who is also God), and who delights in a painful and unjust world or who will send people to hell for not belonging to a particular religion then I stand with the Atheist in stating clearly that no such God exists and that this can only be a contrivance of the imagination or st.upidity of mankind.

In short, Russell's Tea pot is about as likely as such a God; and you darn better produce the proof if you expect people to believe in such tall tales.

Though frankly people have believed worse.

toba:

vivid information is perceived&felt with immediate experience.God gave us wind which is felt with immediate experience

toba:

thehomer.The data provided by God is d wind&air

toba:

Im sure dis questn is a rhetoric,u should av directed it to your self.U would recall my asking u on d previous page if 'information could come from non information' you said yes&gave an eg of data&climate which viaro flawed completly.Your response presumes your knowing what non information is.Asking again will make me assume dat atheists are confused folks dat knows d TRUTH but ignorantly want to avoid it

viaro:

. . . and that is why deism is quite a laugh in serious discourses.

thehomer:

You've still not said anything. Wind is air in motion which is felt due to its impact on the skin.

thehomer:


And you're yet to present your evidence whether by logic or metaphysics or any other means.

toba:

Who do u think is behind d force controlling d wind that is being felt&where do u think it comes from or goes to?

Deep Sight:

Really? What would you consider "serious?"

Let's look at two sets of beliefs; and see which emerges as more "Serious"

SET 1. - Christianity

A. God Exists.

B. He has  Jewish Son

C. The Jewish Son was born by a woman who did not copulate prior to that

D. The Jewish son is God

E. The Jewish son was judicially sentenced and murdered by the Romans

F. That murder results in mankind being redeemed - if they will embrace the Jewish son

G. Those who do not embrace the Jewish son will go to a place of Torment called Hell

SET 2. - Deism

A. God Exists.

B. God is the Supreme Deity and created all that exists.

C. The purposes of God can be discerned from his creation – nature.

D. Reason and rationalism are useful tools in understanding existence

E. The purpose of creation is Harmony.

So! I leave it to the objective reader to determine which worldview looks “Serious!”

thehomer:

Wind is generated by various occurrences e.g difference in temperature, terrain variability, rotation of the earth etc.

thehomer:

@ viaro
So please tell me what "non-information" is with examples.

Since you understand your subject so well, what are your postulates about God other than his being a metaphysical entity.

You're also yet to tell us what your metaphysical God does here on earth.
Before you start speaking of reducing him to the physical, you should remember that he reduced himself to the physical by e.g performing miracles, commissioning people to write his "words" and allowing so many inconsistencies in his "words".

And you're yet to present your evidence whether by logic or metaphysics or any other means.

viaro:

Dude, this thread is not about deism. There is a thread you opened on your deism - you should have posted it there and spew all the garbage you wanted to. Even here, your postulations are quite skewed when it comes to epistemic logic: that was what I wanted you to sort out.

Let me sort a the basic nature of propositional logic by reminding you of what I stated earlier:

         *  You have first to determine the kind of proposition made;
         *  and then determine what type of approach to apply in 'logical proof',
         *  and then see which side of the proposition is saying what
         *  before drawing any inferences or conclusions.

Of course, you did not even consider your laughable comparison - it could hardly stand to make a pass mark in any introductory class for logic. To jumble anything together and make them elements of 'propositional logic' is quite simply the biggest laugh going.

So, with particular examples to show whether or not you have the faintest clue of propositional logic in philosophy, let's outline just two from what you compared:

  A: God Exists.

This is a basic question on 'universals' - so it does not matter which particular worldview questions that proposition as a metaphysical question. Whether deism, theism, pantheism, etc., it is a proposition of a 'universal' rather than a comparison of charts on particular modes of beliefs or systems of beliefs. This is the reason why your bragado about epistemic logic is a fantasy - an absolute laugh indeed. You just don't have a clue about the basics of logic and are just yapping about.


  B:  God is the Supreme Deity and created all that exists.

Is that an "exclusive" of deism? You make me laugh. What propositional logic is being postulated in 'B' above - that deism lays claim to 'B' but Christianity does not? You really need to go see a psychiatrist.

Besides, the question is not between 'deism' and Christianity. Even if we allow for your comparison, you have posited two elementals that are on a logical fallacy. Christianity is one type of theism; and deism is not a 'type' of the deistic worldview (such as DeepSight's deism, luciferan deism, dark deism, or pandeism). . . unless you wnat to deny there are different types of deism.

You actually have no background understanding of logic, dude. It might help if you tried to school up a bit before you display any bragado and become a further laugh.

Deep Sight:

Yep. . .10 pages and running. . . and beyond stating that it's a metaphysical subject, not a single tot has he offered. . .that's his style, bear with him - long talk, big grammar and zero substance. Not so much as ONE SINGLE LOGICAL ARGUMENT for God's existence.

Deep Sight:

Hey, why the long story? Did i tell you i was into propsitional logic? Did i tell you i was using such?

You made a simple statement. You stated that Deism is a laugh in serious discourses.

I set out the essentials of Christianity and the essentials of Deism.

I left it at that for peeps to judge which worldview looked more ridiculous.

Was that too much for you to handle?

toba:

Enough deepsight&viaro pls show some respect&lets maintain d topic of discussion

viaro:

Hello thehomer,

I'm sorry that your discussion has not yielded any fruit and that was why I let you be. Instead of going round in circles between propositions, I would rather discuss with others and grasp some substance from theirs.

If, on the other hand you would oblige me my request, I would be most glad to engage you. I cannot be repeating my request and only coming back to see your non-compliance.

As for the information bit, I can't think of information coming from non-information. Since you were quick to shout a confident "yes" to toba's question, I took you up on that just out of interest to see how you come up with any - ANY - such examples for your affirmation. So far, all the examples you have proffered have not stood for your own arguments, I'm afraid.

So, when and as you may oblige me my request, then I shall be glad to further this discussion with you.

Cheers.

viaro:

I am willing to do so if DeepSight can learn to respect himself. If he cannot, I won't take trash from him. Enough of his idiocy.

thehomer:

You still did not answer any of the questions I asked. I asked what "non-information" was because our definitions may be different. This would have led to some understanding but you just said information could not arise from it. Well what is it?

And you've simply not answered any of my questions despite the fact that I answered several of yours.
So good luck to you and your belief in the belief of a Christian miracle working physical and metaphysical God.

Deep Sight:

Wow. All this just because the essentials of your religion are pointed out -

Viz:


SET 1. - Christianity

A. God Exists.

B. He has Jewish Son

C. The Jewish Son was born by a woman who did not copulate prior to that

D. The Jewish son is God

E. The Jewish son was judicially sentenced and murdered by the Romans

F. That murder results in mankind being redeemed - if they will embrace the Jewish son

G. Those who do not embrace the Jewish son will go to a place of Torment called Hell

Looks silly, don't it?

Deep Sight:

Wow. All this just because the essentials of your religion are pointed out -

Viz:


SET 1. - Christianity

A. God Exists.

B. He has  Jewish Son

C. The Jewish Son was born by a woman who did not copulate prior to that

D. The Jewish son is God

E. The Jewish son was judicially sentenced and murdered by the Romans

F. That murder results in mankind being redeemed - if they will embrace the Jewish son

G. Those who do not embrace the Jewish son will go to a place of Torment called Hell

Looks silly, don't it?  

viaro:

I have addressed so many of your assertions in this thread. It is time you started addressing questions from others. Not once in countless repetitions have you obliged the one request I made; and if you cannot do so, I won't take any notice of your calls to discuss this subject until you do so.

toba:

thats exactly what i told u about d dude&atheists in general.They av no logical proof of their claim of Gods non existence.Chating with atheists makes no sense&thats what d dude has displayed on this thread.He couldnt point out an evidence showing Gods non existence.

noetic16:

where is deepsight?

noetic16:

1. 1 corth 1:18 states that the gospel is silly to those who perish. . . . , the silliness of the above is not a new thing.

2. do u think that man and all that is in existence is in perfect harmony with its creator? if yes. . why?.
if no. . . why not?

3. would I be wrong to trace your position (as to the silliness of the gospel) to your preconceived notions. perhaps u assumed that if the world needed redemption it should be by simple spiritual grace (at the discretion of the creator) without the need for a human sacrifice like Jesus. . .

what ever your preconceived notions are (that serve as a basis for your belief in the silliness of the xtian gospel) would it not totally contradict your ontological belief in God, to assume that u have a better idea than God? since deism accepts the existence of God. . .how then do u explain your ability to have better plans than Him?

4. can u think of a seventh organ necessary for man to survive on this planet. why do u think the creator did not create this organ?

noetic16:

uhmn. . .quite evasive IMO

Deep Sight:

This can equally be used to defend the Hindu idea that cows are divine, no?

That idea sounds silly to the non-Hindu. . . perhaps we can conclude that the Hindu “gospel” is “silly” to you who will perish? ? ? ?

One of such laws is the law of Karma – which Jesus himself affirmed in saying “verily verily I say unto you, whatsoever a man sows, the same shall he reap.”