₦airaland Forum

nuclearboy:
Meanwhile, another epiphany - I start to wonder if InesQor isn't MavenBox who is also Viaro - where is Maven on this thread? All these over brained people are making me dizzy. Sadly, stout is out of it to help me thru the mental contortions

Oh lawd! Now viaro's dead meat!


_{what can viaro do so I could return to my carbonated horlicks drink, huh?}

Deep Sight:
King of insults, you are one to talk?

^^hehehe . . . I only yap like an idi[color=Black]ot wh[/color]en it comes to OOI. Outside of that, trust me - I'm the nicest fellow going around!

Deep Sight:
Read the foregoing again?

Where does the difference arise - yes - it arises with respect to believing in God's personal intervention.

No, not only that. What about what InesQor pointed out - it went over your head, no?

The definition states that "Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe" . . . . .and it is preposterous to argue that this is not a theistic viewpoint.

Is the 'god' of deism impersonal or . . .? In whatever philosophical language or religious dressing/camouflage, who is that 'god' of deism. . . your deism?

This is in fact the prime theistic thought.

Thank you - we know what is ours. Focus on yours and let's skin it.

Besides note that not all deists even reject the idea of the personal God!

Did I not say you should talk of your own deism? When in the other thread that brought us here, you mooted the idea of the "essentials of deism", I left you a small note that you can only talk about 'your own' deism, no? Whether other deists are not rejecting a personal God is not your or our worry here: you have had trouble with other believers whose convictions do not dovetail with yours - so speak for yourself and let's hear you.

See the words above -

Given this alone the argument that they are not theists is just a joke.

Have you ever referred to yourself on Nairaland as a theist? I know you were here on NL before me, but please let me know why you have not been maintaining referring to yourself as a THEIST.

There are all sorts of Deists. United by the belief in God the Creator. Specific beliefs may vary. There are even so-called Christian-Deists. What would you call those - non-theists? ? ?

'Christian-deists' - what makes them qualify as "Christian"? Again, an affirmation of the rogue-religion that deism is. What about 'Pantheistic Deism', huh? Again, the 'roguest' of all rogue religions!

Please stop this drama and enjoy your faceless OOI in this thread. You're just a piece of amusement!  When the time comes, viaro will open a thread to skin your deism - this shitty business you have up here is appetizer.

Deep Sight:
None of the foregoing is worth my time -

Translation: viaro's piece is too much for DeepSight to handle.

Theism has to do with a belief in God or gods.

Yes, but it does not have anything to do with your own deism running between OOI and singularities collapsing into blackoles.

Deism has to do with a belief in the existence of at least one God who created all things.

I'm particular about your own deism - I said so before, and you should stop waving other people's deism in our face. Please narrow your drama and read your scripts . . . or hurry up to your "driver".

I suppose it missed you that i have pointed out TWICE the fact that both words are actually sourced from the same word - "god"

Sorry, that is a braod appellation. God in theism is not your OOI. Your deism and Christianity did not spring from the same pool! Whatever you want to spew (be it "Source", or "it", or OOI), just be articulate and stop all this mega-drama of appealling to other worldviews on just 'god' as if it is today we know your deism has been stealing from all religions of the world!

One is sourced from the latin for "god" and the other from the greek for "god."

And which one is the "basis" for the other - like you claimed earlier? Dude, please. . . give me your deism - that's all.

What is theism if not a belief in God or gods?

Theism is NOT your deism of OOI.

And what is deism if not a belief in God who created and nothing more?

Which 'God'? Just answer that one - which 'God'? Try rushing to the Bible. . . you don't have a clue what I will do to you summarily. Trust me.

Deism is therefore a subset of Theism - and no amount of grammar in the world can change that fact.

Lie. Informed authors know that deism (especially DeepSight's deism) is NOT a subset of Theism, unless they want to help you confirm that your religion is a rogue philosophy.

unless of course you are willing to claim that Deists do not believe in the existence of God.

Oh, impress yourself! Have you ever stood as a THEIST on this forum? Not that I make any claims thereto - I just want you to please show me, and then I shall wake you up on that. Just please show me.

I hope that such a leap would be beyond even you.

What leap? Did I come here to steal any concept from you on your OOI? Have you ever asked yourself why I could not advance the thread I started about 'singularities' and 'infinities' for your sake? I did it to impress my inlaw, got stuck, and bailed out - because i quickly learnt that there are far too many inconsistencies in that rogue religion that I would be the talk of my village if I dared proceed. Now you're busy talking about 'god' as cosmetics to cover up for your :::::: - you know.

And note that you claimed that Deism does not have even a shadow of THEISM!

I answered that point well. What did you say? I could almost hear your whooping cough in your "None of the foregoing is worth my time" - like you even had anything worthy of consideration in the first place.

Don't write that in your thesis o: you go fail big-time.

Huh?? Hahahaha!!

InesQor:
viaro and Deep Sight:

I think the fundamental difference between Deism and Theism is that Theism believes God plays a very active role in the scheme of things, while Deism believes God's direct role is very passive. Since Deism denies an active role, all supernatural matters are summarily dismissed, while Theism itself hangs upon the supernatural with every breath. can we then say Deism is a form of Theism? I don't think so.

I believe some people group them together because they are both in opposition of atheism (belief that God does not exist) and various forms of pantheism (belief that God is not a discrete singular being).

I would vote that piece an absolute 100% - not because I'm looking to score points here; but because even as simple as it is in practical terms, I don't expect DeepSight to get it. And no, he didn't disappoint on that - afterall, his reply shows he has problems with what you have just highlighted. I should thank you again.

Chrisbenogor:
Viaro stop going round in circles my friend, how can I say it simpler than I already have, the atheist cannot exist without the theist, be like say you like plenty grammar, there has to be a theist before you can have an atheist, an atheist lacks belief in the God of the theist, therfore no theist, no atheist, capisce?

No "caspico" this time, your honour! This accused viaro is not going round in circles, and I'm not one who thinks that there would not be an atheist if there were not a theist. Dude, if you have everyone in the world who are no longer theists, what would you have? You are just . . ehm. .ehm. . ! (Okay, I don't want to risk jail, so let me apply to your court to grant further permission to talk).

thehomer:
Are you claiming that the God concept is a worldview? You should check what is required to make a worldview because the examples I gave are actually postulates made by some people who also believe in a God. They are parts of some Christian worldviews.

Please, thehomer - I don't want to repost that part of my reply. There are serious issues there I crammed together:

~ The question is not about what affects people's worldviews
~ rather, we're talking about worldviews in particular: in themselves.
~ Anything could be either ancillary or peripheral, . .
~ . . but they may also not be germane to the worldview(s) themselves.

Now, . .

~ It is not the ancillary, peripherals or otherwise that form the discussion on
   any particular worldview, but the worldview itself.
~ That is why your examples still do not rise to the point.
~ WHY?
[list] ~ Between theism and atheism, nobody holds a preference one way or another for the teapot: it does not affect anybody's worldview in anyway, not even the worldview of the atheist himself who postulates what he does not believe to be in actual existence.[/list]

I hope that was easy to follow? Whatever worldview one may hold (whether theistic, atheistic or otherwise), the example of Russel's teapot has no bearing at all upon them. Now if you're telling me that the teapot has a place in your life beyond merely mentioning it for the sake of an argument, could you then show me your theology of a teapot, if any? The reason you have none is because it has no particular reference to anything you might consider seriously as central to your worldview! Why is that point so very, very difficult for you guys to grasp?

Russel's teapot is simply an analogy. It is meant to show you that if you are making a positive claim to the positive existence of an improbable object or occurrence, the burden of proof is on whoever is making the claim. It is not about believing the teapot.

Belief systems are worldviews do not rest on whimsical "analogies". You just sum up any number of absurdities, refer to it as an analogy - and woosh, we should now do what . .  "prove" or "disprove" the existence or non-existence of a mere analogy? Are you serious?

A theist does not come asking you to prove or disprove the existence of whatever he considers an "analogy", where at the back of his mind he knows that he already has concluded that what he presents does not exist! You don't expect him to go on and on endless bothering you to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything about the "existence" of that same thing, even if he calls it an "analogy". But, on the other hand, in discussions of this nature, that is precisely the sort of strawman you would expect from an atheist - because after the talks, the person presenting such an "analogy" (say of 'teapot') has nothing to do with it beyond that point - it bears no concrete reference to his worldview, his life, his ethics, or whatever else he considers important in his outcomes! That atheist simply does not take his own "analogy"  seriously for the simple reason that he already concluded in his mind that such a thing he presents does not exist and has nothing to answer for in concrete terms!

I think we would be clearer if you could give examples that can be addressed what you said above is simply too vague.

No, I think you know precisely what I mean; and until you indicate you're ready to discuss from that point, I'm not going to waste my time blowing words around. By "not reducible to physicalist probables", I indicate that my subject is not going to be tending to the naturalism of the atheist's philosophy of physicalism. If you would be interested in such philosophies of realities, then I would oblige.

The fragment thing I mentioned is an example of something that could conceivably be present. Right now, there is a lot of space debris around the earth and some could conceivably have migrated to the asteroid belt. Though it is improbable. The example was also to show that someone making a claim of the existence of such an object needs to have some proof to be taken seriously.

Please tell me: how does that fragment affect your own worldview to add or take away from it as a worldview?

You also feel it is a strawman. You should look up strawman on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
I've already said it's not about the strength of the belief but the evidence behind the claim. I hope you do know that people do believe some absurd things.

And your point is. . .? I'm grateful for that link (which is one I'd already checked up); but I don't see anything there as surprisingly deviating from the way I used it here. Let me quote an excerpt:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man", and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

So, please tell me: when you mention the teapot example, are you not presenting a "misrepresentation" of the theist's position? Does the theist present his theistic convictions in the same sense as Russel's teapot? Very clearly, what you have been arguing is mere strawman, nothing more. I would only consider the teapot as a serious point at par with the way the theist presents his own convictions in his worldview if and only if the teapot is central to your belief system! If it has nothing concrete in your belief system, it is a strawman fallacy, and I don't wish to waste my time any further on that.

You still miss the point. The theist makes a claim that is improbable. The theist making the claim should give some evidence for the claim which is what the topic requests.

No, you are getting it all mixed up. The theist makes a claim for his own worldview. The atheist is too busy trying to concern himself with what does not form part of his own worldview - and that is why the atheist makes strawman arguments and asks the theist to knock them down. That is easy: because you take a lot of things for granted and rather assume that you have the theistic worldview in a nutshell by reducing it to just a matter of "improbable". This is why you make allusions to teapot and show precisely why you just don't get it.

Chrisbenogor:
hehehehe thehomer I meant my bad.

But how you miss the gist still beats me, I understand what you mean when you say it does not make sense to ask you provide evidence that something we both know did not create the earth did so. My point is this, you cannot provide the evidence that your God did anymore than a teacup believer can do.

I tried to follow your reason, but it just doesn't hold substance, my apologies. The one who makes a case for the teapot already knows it does not exist - he is most certain of that, and not even when he claims its existence does he really believe it exists. Whatever the case, that teapot has no bearing upon his worldview or anyone else's.

On the other hand, a theist does not present his case like that: for he does not make claims about what he already knows does not exist (as in the case of the atheist and the teapot). Now, if the atheist knows his teapot does not exist, how does that have any bearing in the short or long run on anyone (whether atheist or theist)??

. . .and when I say capisce, you say capisco, capisce?

Si, capisco! _{this guy seems ready to send me to jail again! help!!}

nuclearboy:
See Divine "begotten" "brothers of Christ" whose only power is found in convincing people to empty their purses in Church.

@Viaro:

Way I see this issue is where there is a Sacrifice, you find 2 parties - the sacrificing party and the one sacrificed to. Maybe its in this respect that these "holy gods" are divine, ergo, - receiving the sacrifices of their gullible acolytes. In return, they offer fear!

^^ @Commander nuclearboy. . . you have come once again to break me with laughter!

Anyhow, I hope your honour is keeping cool these days?

Deep Sight: Thus it is very very strange indeed that you would say that Deism is “not even a form or shadow” of theism.

It is not strange - DeepSight, when was the last time you told anyone on this forum that you are a THEIST? let's just be practical, because all this fluff you're waving is not effective here. Why do deists often stand as deists rather than as THEISTS in general discussions anyday and anytime?

To the extent that Theism is about belief in a Deity, and that Deism connotes acceptance of a Deity, then it is simply preposterous for you to state that Diesm is “not even a form or shadow” of Theism. That is not only eminently false; it is also ridiculous.

Dude, have you ever tried to answer straight questions when your faceless, nameless and ::::::: "Source" or "it" is examined? Do you care to show the specifics of your deism so people get to know whether you can stand to bear being called a theist? I know what I'm talking about here, bro. . . and when you're ready, let's go visit your deism and UnCloth it with epistemic logic - afterall, your deism is defined to be also a philosophical worldview, no?

This is all the more underscored by the following –

The words deism and theism are both derived from the word god:
• The root of the word deism is the Latin word deus, which means "god".

• The root of the word theism is the Greek word theos (θεός), which also means "god".

Indeed the very word “Deist” is indicative of “Diety” – which is the basis of Theism.

Uhm, dude, you're not a clever chap at all. What did you mean by that bold - that deism is supposed to the basis for theism? Are you daft or what? Please learn to distinguish between your tenses, so no one is easily gulled by your drama here. Deism (from which you have "deist" is a belief system developed in the 17th century; and that does not mean that the Greeks did not have a word in their language for deity much earlier.

On the other hand, theism is distinguished from deism; but the [url=http://Finally, it is distinguished from Deism, which denies God's active]concept of theism[/url] is said to be as old as philosophy. Don't try confusing yourself here, please.

Ready to retract that awful gaffe, Viaro?

What gaffe - yours? Impress yourself.

And yet you call ME illiterate!

Plus, you're a fundamentalist one too! Not only do you confuse your onions, your duplicity should have been named the 7th wonder in the world.

Let me just note that whereas the positions I have set out in this thread so far indicate - 
1. Belief in God
2. Belief that the purpose of God is Harmony –
And despite the fact that we all well know you agree with 1 & 2 above, you have barged into this thread declaring that the propositions it sets out are “deep shi.t”, and  “illiterate” and “a farce.”

Dude, please. .  please. .  and please: don't try to register viaro on anything before confirming directly! I do not agree with you on any proposition - those are rogue dee[color=Black]p sh[/color]it;, and if there was any substance to them, you would not have evaded dealing with what exactly you're presenting here - epistemic logic (which was why I adviced you go and read "Fitch's paradox of knowability" before spewing more gutter). I reckon the moment you saw that, your left kidney collapsed - and now you come back like a schmuck to say I agreed with your propositions? What a joke you must be!

I can only conclude that you consider belief in God to be “deep shi.t”, and  “illiterate” and “a farce.”

If you can only consider that, you're only confirming you're a fundy illiterate. Belief in God is not my problem - it is rather your penchant to run from "substance" to "Source" to "oneness of infinity" to your "singularity" that has collapsed into a blackhole! All the thousand and one proses you have tried to hoodwink the public with on this your nameless, faceless, :::::: malady, have not helped, and you are sinking your boat on hopes that I have problem with belief in GOD? Are you for real??

I guess it’s now pretty clear what your motivation is! You have allowed yourself to become so bitter with me that you end up determined to oppose everything I state: even when I simply state that God exists!

Dude, I'm not bitter - I just don't take any crap you spew these days with a tag of "God" for any price! The Devil also claims to be "God", and he also states it "simply". If you don't know what 'god' was behind your fundamentalism to go about the forum bedevilling Christians for what they believe, what is my worry that you're now playing the pity party because viaro is showing you up?

You now wind up declaring that Deism has nothing to do with Theism – and thereby embarrass yourself very seriously ! ! !

Who - me. .  embarrassed? You wish!
YOUR deism has nothing to do with theism - and I stand on that ANYDAY! On what plank of theism does your OOI stand?

This bitterness also leads you to describe a belief in God (which is what this thread espouses) as “deep shi.t”, and  “illiterate” and “a farce.”

I did not describe a belief in God as any of those things - unless you're a dense idiot who can no longer read simple statements and have been reduced to the level of soliciting poor public condolences. Your thread is deep poo - that is why you fear to touch it with its real tool (epistemic logic) and have also inidcated you're not so sure whether to refer to God or "the Source" - what games you're up to is what I stand to point out for its shitty business. You can cement the tag of "God" and cry me a river for all I care, this boohoo you're making is empty talk.

Bitterness is not good for you, son: you need to let it go. See what it’s doing to your credentials?

Please call your medics - viaro is not bitter, he's just not letting you flap your tattered wings in your fusty pyhamas anymore. Did I not warn you that the time will come when I shall peep into your deism? No, that time has not come. . . this is just saluting you before the main course.

I had wanted to leave you to enjoy fooling yourself in this makeshift drama of a thread (yea, it's still deep s[color=Black]hit a[/color]ll the same, but I'd rather you don't go about stinking on the forum when you proceed, hehe). I thought you said you would not like to attend my queries? Epistemic Logic proved too much for your taste buds - and you're still falling all over yourself with your gull here?  Bro, just let me know when you can be man enough to talk real issues, not these cosmetic theatricals you're waving in people's faces, you dig?

@DeepSight,

Deep Sight:
It appears that some people are so far gone in religious sentiment that they exist only to contradict any thing uttered by the non-religious mind – even if such results in very strange statements indeed.

Oh please shat up! Who are you trying to impress by insinuating you're "non-religious"? Even your definition of deism says that it is a "religious and philosophical belief", and you're here trying to impress who with your dense drama? Thing is, not only are you deeply shitty, but you're also a fundamentalist religious goon who's too scared of facing up to the philosophy of his deistic religion! You think waving "non-religion" in our faces would do all the abracadabra for your deep sh[color=Black]it he[/color]re? Please.

Let’s have a look at the statement above from our Christian Knight Viaro –

Relax, I'm no knight nor kibosh nor your average klutz, that's all.

I would never believed you were capable of such unspeakable incongruity.

Please slow down on your hyperventilations - are you cured of your whooping cough yet?

Not even a form or shadow of it, did you say? ? ? Ha ha, I would love to see you defend this one.

I shall bro. . . I shall.

Although I hardly need to, let me just post the definitions of both words here –
There are from wikipedia’s pages on Deism and Theism respectively –

Deism (\ˈdi:iz(ə)m\[1] or \ˈdē-ˌi-zəm\)[2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion.


Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.[1][2]

In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of a God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.

Yeah, I saw that already, and there are others as well from this Wikipedia page. It still misses out on one point - that any resource(s) you cited in your defence has to be considered in light of what context the author is treating his subject, and the target audience of his article. To this end, even the link above noted that "the specific definition of theism given above may exclude deism" - and you repeated that highlight in your next excerpt, no?? Let's see:

And under the Title Types of Theism there is a list and description of different types of Theism, which includes this –

Deism
Main article: Deism
While the specific definition of theism given above may exclude deism, deism is included as a form of theism by the most general definition given above.
• Deism is the belief that at least one deity exists and created the world, but that the creator(s) does/do not alter the original plan for the universe.[9] Deism typically rejects supernatural events (such as prophecies, miracles, and divine revelations) prominent in organized religion. Instead, Deism holds that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of a supreme being as creator.[10]
o Pandeism: The belief that God preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent with it.
o Panendeism combines deism with panentheism, believing the universe is a part (but not the whole) of deity
o Polydeism: The belief that multiple gods existed, but do not intervene with the universe.

Did you suppose that I was oblivious of that article before my initial comments or remarks? Nope, I saw it, and wondered if you miss the very fact that the article stated clearly that the specific definition of theism excludes deism? Inspite of that incontrovertible fact, the author wanted to help you guys fool yourselves all the more by including it under deism - he had his reasons for doing so, but that does not stand as a rule of thumb for all other citations. An example from the Religious Tolerance website:
[list]

Most religions define deity according to one of the following four theological belief systems. In alphabetic order, they are:

Deism - Deity created the universe, started it functioning, but is no longer actively involved in it.
Panentheism - Deity is the inner spiritual essence of everything in the universe, but it exists beyond the universe as well.
Pantheism - Deity is the inner spiritual essence of everything in the universe.
Theism - Deity created the universe and continues to actively participate in the world's activities and in human history.

[/list]

Did you notice that this example did not put deism as a form of theism? One of the reasons why most people include deism under theism is because they are largely unware of the differences between them; nor do they care to about the outcomes in very practical terms of how theism in its particular reference does not feature deism as one of its forms. It is in very practical terms that one knows the difference - such as when you speak particularly to a deist (Anthony Flew, Albert Eisntein, being a few ready examples: would such figures acclaim themselves to be theists or deists? And what would be the reason for such to rather be identified as deists instead of just theists?).

karo93:
Is this deliberate or can't you all get my point??
i didn't say there is no holy spirit and matter of fact according to rev.4:5 and 5:6 God has 7 spirits.
Trinity is the belief that God is 3 in one and that is what i am disproving.

Depends on what you mean by 3 in one - if you meant 3 Gods in One God, that's an example of tritheism, which is not what the Bible teaches. Like I said, the Trinity is a mystery of the Christian faith that not even the best of metaphysics can capture. All analogies simply fail to capture the Trinity; but that does not mean it is not a Biblically sound teaching. This was why I asked you to study the Word of God for yourself and answer a simple question - who was Jesus Christ before the Incarnation?

According to matt 28:19 jesus talked about father,son and holy spirit. All i am saying is that they are not all one person.

He talked about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - but He said in the NAME (not Name[b]s[/b]) - go and read it again. If it was "names", then you would be dealing with tritheism, not Trinity.

However, someone has well said that you should balance your ideas by looking also at those Scriptures that prove that Jesus is God. We notice you mentioned nothing about them. Care to start there?

Annunaki:
The hypocrisy on this nairaland is nauseating when mabell initiated a thread calling kunle a crook for no just cause nobody complained, now kunle insinuates she is a woman of easy virtue and all hell breaks loose

There's a vast difference between calling people names such as 'crook', fraud, etc. But to go as far as calling someone a slut is entirely another thing. No sensible person should be applauding such kinds of extremes - that wasn't cool.

Chrisbenogor:
@viaro
The similarities between your style of debate and that of pilgrim is still too difficult to ignore, you always try to hinge your argument or at least this one on some technicality that I always have this image of you sitting behind your screen laughing your backside out at how you are making poor toneyb in circles.

I know that many people here and outside Nairaland have similar views on certain publicly affecting issues. For this reason, some wonder: is viaro the same person as pilgrim.1? or the same Maven? or same Krayola?. . . and now recently, is viaro the same fellow as 'toneyb' but just taking us round in circles in grandiloquent pretences of arguing against himself?

I've stopped worrying about identities, really. For a few who cared to know, I was willing to communicate offline so they know me better. Should I record my voice in mp3 and post on Nairaland to clear the air? I really don't know what else I could do to help this situation, really.

Your position as a theist is the basis of mine as an a-theist, until you make your claim, I do not have a posiition on the issue, I cannot sit and start disproving the existence of something I did not claim existed, capisce?

Si.

So your argument that because toneyb does not believe in the teacup makes the argument wrong is weak BS and I am sure you know it.

Not toneyb, but rather thehomer (if I remember). In anycase, you may take it as B.S., but it takes nothing away from the plain fact that atheists are more likely to postulate things that they already kknow do not exist, and then ask the theist to attack their strawman. That is grand comedy, my friend - you cannot deny that thehomer himself already noted that "We can be 99.99% positive that it is not present." On the other hand, I don't remember where the theist would be asking you to prove or disprove what he already had concluded "is not there" - that sort of strawman rigmarole is what the atheist champions.

Are you saying I have to believe in zeus before I can have a debate with a christian that God could not have created this earth more than zeus could have?

Not necessarily - but you would have to believe in the existence of any entity before you could ask me to prove or disprove anything about its existence. You don't vroom in from nowhere, make up your own absurdity of a teacup (which you already conclude does not exist), and then proceed to set me up to tackle such a fallacy while you go off laughing your head at a bar somewhere. One way or another, neither belief or non-belief in any teacup affects such worldviews predicated on any number of gods or deities. None.

By all means carry on your debate.

No worries.

^^ don't you think that's taking things a bit too far?

OLAADEGBU:
Are you saying that your knowledge that the Creator comes from intuition and the scriptures of Zoroaster? If yes, do you care to share those scriptures with us, especially where it states that God created the universe and how, so that we can analyse it to details?

No, my knowledge of the Creator does not come from the Zoroastrian writs. My point previously was that many people who speak about a 'Creator' may not necessarily have got that affirmation from the Bible.

As a Christian, one of the things that I understand about the revelation of God is that He has made Himself known to other generations who did not have a canon called 'the Bible' - and I believe the Bible also affirms the same thing nonetheless. This does not take anything away from the fact that my faith as a Christian is founded on the Bible; but it helps me appreciate the fact that God has been revealing Himself to people long before the Bible was written.

In any case, that should not detract from this thread - let's leave Deep Sight to enjoy his world here. I would be glad to discuss this matter further in another thread if you may. God bless you.

Deep Sight:
Viaro- I do not mean that i do not welcome questions - i always do.

But i sense the purpose of your queries is perhaps something akin to t.it for tat - which you have admitted.

I didn't "admit" to anything abo[color=Black]ut ti[/color]t-for-tat; rather, this thread is an absolute de[color=Black]ep s[/color]hit for all its worth. It is not now that you woke up to set up a thread about the "essentials of deism", but you did so in response to previous calls for you to show an outline for your nameless, faceless, illiterate oneness of infinity - which you have indeed tacitly acknowledged as one of the underpinnings of the raison d'etre of this thread:[list]

Deep Sight: In a slew of ceaseless queries and snide comments, persons on this forum have consistently sought either clarification or mockery from the discourses on the Deistic world-view.

[/list]
. . . there! One wonders why "persons" (plural) would be 'mocking' any discourse about Deism if you had not been funny in your previous discussions in displaying your rabid fundamentalism against what others believe.

Look, I'm not here to spoil your farce. Do whatever you like; but stop fooling yourself. It seems that you're never able to stand up for anything and only borrowing speed and leg to run from one thread to another when your views are under spotlight. Carry on, not many people would be pensive about your drama here.

I seek to show that a belief in God without further extended religious doctrines is a cogent and sensible path to tow.

I welcome you to contradict that if you will.

First, you're not sure if you want to maintain a talk about "God" or "The Source"; so setting up a strawman for me to attack is a grand comedy - a farce in the recesses of unexcavated cesspool.

Second, please don't make me laugh with that quip about "extended" religious doctrines - we know that deism does nothing but steal doctrines for its cosmetic worldviews. You want to contradict that also?

Given that quoted above, it is strange to me to see a Theist who has issues with Deism - given that it really is a form of Theism skimmed down to its most bare essential - namely that there is God - and nothing more; except perhaps a further inference that the nature of things in the natural world could be pointers to their Source (God).

Don't be such a toad. Deism is not theism, not even a form or shadow of it. Theism - ah, you find plenty of forms; but deism? - that's a thief of all religions!_{sorry grandma!}

I don't have issues with Deism; it is the deist who is confused with himself in his fundamentalism that viaro has issues with. Anyone can use 'God' to refer to anything - including Spinoza's 'god'; but it has nothing concrete to theistic core beliefs. You have demonstrated once and again that you're not sure whether to call your "it" a God or a Source - for there are gods many and sources aplenty. Get a life and school up - you're just damn too scared of your shadow to venture into the waters of philosophy, that's why you need to change your meds.

Deep Sight:
I am sorry Viaro, but it is not the purpose of this thread to prove or justify anything. I merely wish to share my personal views with those interested.
So regrettably i may not be able to attend your queries.

No worries. You quickly wave this apology because you're quite unable to maintain course with your previous heckling against what others believe? Or do I take it that you're just not man enough to have your deism scrutinized in the same way as you've been damning the beliefs of others (particularly Christians) as b[color=Black]ullsh[/color]it (B.S)?

I don't have a problem with your worldview, trust me - there are people around me that are into that (and for their sakes I'd been slow to deal with yours). I just wanted to see what would be left of your worldview after I'd skinned it through and through. But relax - nothing you say further in this thread matters; but when you heckle Christians in future, look over your shoulders . . . I might be around to smart you up.

OLAADEGBU:
Your definition of Deism to which you subscribe states that "a supreme being created the universe", so my question is how did you deists arrive at the conclusion that a supreme being created the universe if not from what was clearly stated in the Bible?

It could be, or it could not be what was stated in the Bible. Zoroastrianism, for example, holds just about the same tenet Ahura Mazda.

^^ hehe. Nice.

^^
@InesQor, howdy?
No, I wasn't offended at all. I should've been more sensitive earlier.

This thread has kept me busy in deeper thoughts than I ever concerned myself with in the past. My deepest appreciations to all posters, and especially to you for raising th subject.

Hahaha! This thread is de[color=Black]ep shi[/color]t!

Pardon my opening remarks, DeepSight, but I'd expected far much more from you than the piffling in your OP. Your effort in opening the thread is well appreciated, if I take it to be in response to my cudgelling you to have a grip on your deism. But it's remarkable that even before viaro came here, others are asking questions already.

Nothing new in what I already understood about deism in general; but what you outlined in your propositions quite simply and essentially leave far too many holes to be taken seriously.

I shall not go down the ultra-shanky route of responding to each line of your propositions, for that would be rather drab and unfruitful. Instead, we shall be more concerned with the philosophy behind your deism, since it requires reducible probables for its physicalist appraisals. What you have presented is nothing more than deism as a natural religion divorced from indices of any "celestial spiritual" phenomena (since you take these latter to be "largely assumed beliefs".

Consequently, the point at which your most serious problem stands is at proposition #3: 'What can the individual say that he knows for sure?'. Your certainty of "knowables" under the illusion that, as regards what you believe, you may "rationally and intuitively know for certain", quite simply consigns your discourse to the field of epistemic logic. And that again presents you with far more problems than you can handle. I recommend for now that you carefully read up Fitch's paradox of knowability before you proceed any further. You disregard my advice at your peril - and if that be the case, I'd proceed to quickly wrap up your de[color=Black]ep shi[/color]t once and for all.

Dress warm.

justcool:
On Satan, you are also right only to a certain extent. Satan never "always existed," but Lucifer had always existed. Lucifer is not God, he is dependant on the power of God; but his origin lies far above creation. Therefore Lucifer can fall into the utter darkness outside creation, because Lucifer is not part of creation. Lucifer originated in the Divine plane, but not in God himself(Lucifer is not a part of God like Jesus). Lucifer was a powerful angel. When Lucifer strayed from the will of God by setting sneers for mankind, he became Satan. Thus Satan has not always existed; Lucifer became Satan when he disobeyed God. However, Lucifer is eternal, he is not a created being.

I know this may be hard to follow but I can throw in more explanation if need be.

Please show us what you mean by Lucifer, and your source for your conclusions. There are very pertinent questions I wish to set before you on that, which if you cannot answer, then you would simply have to withdraw your assertions about Lucifer being eternal and not a created being.

Howdy justcool,

I shoul not preempt the point I'd wanted to highlight in DeepSight's consideration about 'something' and 'nothing', but reading yours seem to give me the impression that you've got it quite mixed-up:

(a) First, you tried to distinguish between types of the variables considered:

                 _{physical                                          physical}
               Light                                          Darkness 
                 ^{primordial                                       metaphorical}

(b) Yet, in your opening remarks, you seemed to have confused them for almost the same things:

[list]

There are two types of darkness, the darkness that exists within creation and the darkness outside creation.

[/list]
[list]^^^^^^^^[/list]
[list]But one wonders which type of darkness you were discussing consequently: was it physical darkness, or metaphorical darkness? Which one between those are you advancing as being within and outside creation?[/list]
[list]

Here is what I mean: Before God said, "Let there be light," there was nothing but complete darkness. This darkness existed before creation and will continue to exist if creation ceases to exist. This darkness is nothing but void. It is nothingness. It is not relative to any light; thus it is complete darkness, or complete nothingness.

[/list]
[list]^^^^^^^^[/list]
[list]So, when you say "complete darkness" as existing before creation, are you referring to "physical darkness" or "metaphorical darkness"? If it is physical, it could not be "nothingness"; and if metaphorical, it did not exist whether within or outside creation. Which is which?[/list]
[list]

God is the primordial light that has always existed, but before creation came into being; before the words, "Let there be light," the light of God remained within the boundaries of the Divine plane, ie the Light of God remained with God. But with the words, "Let there be Light," God allowed His light to travel beyond His immediate vicinity and into the utter darkness or nothingness that existed outside of the boundary of the Devin plane. Creation has its origin in this Light; this is how creation came into being.

[/list]

Did you consider for a minute that you have just collapse your own premise? Here:

    ~~  complete darkness existed before creation
    ~~  but there was a Light in God's vicinity

Dude, if darkness was absolute and complete, there could not be any light anywhere at all! That is the simple point you guys haven't got up until now. What you have just done is affirmed that there is nothing like 'complete darkness' if Light was in the equation somewhere - whether it was somewhere else (God's vicinity as you say) or elsewhere.

The darkness you postulated is simply an idea, and was not articulated - you did not show us which of the darkness between "physical" and "metaphorical" you were referring to; so how could it be "complete" and yet be "nothingness"? (This was one reason I asked DeepSight to make himself clearer initially, but I shall await his consequent inputs).

Your "complete darkness" is not absolute in itself, other than the fact that it is relative to Light. We have to understand what exactly you mean by "nothingness" between the "physical" and "metaphorical" darkness in your postulations.

You might want to go back and reconsider your points; or better still show us where you're drawing your ideas from (the Bible, presumably) and we shall discuss this to its basics.

InesQor:
Thanks viaro. But I really hope this discussion, to any of us, is not all about "scoring"!

Astute observation there. I concur it should not be about 'scoring' points or otherwise. For want of a better expression, I simply used the word 'score' rather than 'piece' (as 'another brilliant piece'). Sorry about the mix-up.

^^ Another brilliant score.

I now understand Nuclearboy's concerns better:

nuclearboy:
You get it, DeepSight, we know you do.

^^ Thanks so much, my good man!

thehomer:
The examples I gave while not being worldviews, they do seriously affect the way some people live their lives so it affects their worldviews. Just as the concept of God affects people's worldviews while not being a worldview.

I'm sorry you're getting it all mixed up once again. The question is not about what affects people's worldviews - rather, we're talking about worldviews in particular: in themselves. Anything could be either ancillary or peripheral, but they may also not be germane to the worldview(s) themselves. It is not the ancillary, peripherals or otherwise that form the discussion on any particular worldview, but the worldview itself. That is why your examples still do not rise to the point. Between theism and atheism, nobody holds a preference one way or another for the tea pot: it does not affect anybody's worldview in anyway, not even the worldview of the atheist himself who postulates what he does not believe to be in actual existence.

Not so. If the object were say a rocket fragment measuring about 20cm x 20cm x 10cm within the asteroid belt, no one can actually say they know it is absent. But if someone made a claim that he saw or somehow detected such a fragment, the burden of proof is on him to show his evidence not on the other people since it is highly improbable though not impossible that such an object is there. In spite of whoever or how many people believe it is present.

Still the same. As far as any discussion on worldviews are concerned, it is only the atheist who argues for the existence of something he already has concluded about its non-existence. Add any indices to the number of "absurdities" for the atheist's claims and you will still come back to surprise yourself that it still is the atheist making such unfounded postulations, and not the theist. (please note: by 'absurdities', I do not mean to be pejorative, but only use it in reference to the way you used it in post #73).

Ok. What do you consider supernatural?

That which is not reducible to physicalist probables - which is why it is 'super'-natural.

Your request for proof of the absence of a God is why I gave you the Russel's teapot analogy. It is to show you that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim for the existence of God.

Which again is just not a good example and melts down to the fallacy of a strawman argument. If you give me Russel's teapot as something you believe actually exists, then you have an example - for that would be at par with how the theist presents his case. But the moment you begin to apologise with what you already believe does not exist, how does it rise to the index of a 'positive claim'?

The theist does not ask you to disprove something he already knows does not exist - that is rather what the atheist does! If an atheist already believes that the teapot does not exist, why yet does he ask the theist to prove or disprove anything about that same thing that the atheist already concludes does not exist?

^^ No worries.

thehomer:
Russel's teapot analogy does not qualify as a strawman fallacy in this discussion because in all truth, no one can indeed prove that this teapot exists. So I have not in any way exaggerated your claim. We can be 99.99% positive that it is not present. People worshiping this cup will not make it appear or if present, disappear.

Lol, the atheist who asks others to prove or disprove any existence for the tea pot already knows that such a thing does not exist - whereas, that is not at par with the theist's case for his argument about the existence of God. The theist does not ask the atheist to disprove something on the basis of the theist's non-belief; whereas the atheist sets up a strawman about what he himself does not believe in actual existence in the first place.

On the contrary, theists do postulate what they do not accept though some may vary from individual to individual. e.g Evolution, slavery, euthanasia, contraception etc.

That is simply false. First, the theist does not argue for the existence of something he already believes does not exist - that is what the atheist does. Second, neither evolution, nor euthanasia, nor contraception could be regarded as worldviews or belief systems - so they are very untenable examples to present in your defence. For example, I'm not aware that anybody worships "contraception", which is a strawman example to make at par with a belief system.

Well since you've classified me as an atheist, by the very definition of that term, I should not have any theology.

No, I did not classify you - the "you" in that statement is generic and was not used in particular reference to 'thehomer'. I was well aware that you were using Russel's analogy (which if personalised by anyone else for themselves, makes absolutely no substance for their own personalised arguements for what they already have concluded does not exist).

However, if you're self-classified as an atheist, you may not need a theology - which again takes nothing away from the observations I've made: that it is rather the atheist that sets up his own strawman and collapses it all at once.

The existence of an object does not depend on whether or not you believe it does exist no matter how strongly one may wish it to be so.

In just the same way, the existence of any entity does not depend on whether or not you disbelieve its existence, no matter how strongly you may wish it does not.

I only mentioned it as an analogy it can be changed to whatever object that has a similar probability of existing.

Makes no difference all the same. Any other object you may change it into still funnels down to the basic premise: that, it is only the atheist who argues for the existence of something he already has concluded about its non-existence.

What spiritual things do you wish to talk about?

God and the subject of the supernatural.

Besides, I'm still waiting for your evidence of a God.

I'm also still waiting for your non-existence of God.

Krayola:
Arius: "There was when he was not"

http://books.google.ca/books?id=QVYOagUrvcgC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=faith+seeking+understanding+arius+nicea&source=bl&ots=HywRSbQt3z&sig=rEVCn-2mrTTGxQ1FKaJ4F13JE3c&hl=en&ei=-z-FS_OJHMOI8QaA3vHGAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

@Krayo my guy, sorry to trouble you. I don't know when you're going to see this, but could you confirm for me if that link is to Daniel L. Migliore's Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology? I have a worn-out hard copy (Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 2004 edn.) I just fetched from my library, since I could not access that link from my browser. If it is the same resource by said author, could you recommend the chapter or page in particular? Nothing biggy, just curious - and many thanks.

thehomer:
As the above poster noted, you cannot disprove what does not exist. The Russel's teapot analogy fits quite well here. You can add to that any absurd object you can think of. e.g a pink unicorn, magic elves etc. Sure we cannot prove they exist but following the theists reasoning, they do exist.

Russel's (?) teapot and a thousand other indices definitely do not apply here, and that is the most illiterate argument any atheist can banter any day for topics like this (no offence to you directly). The reason why that falls flat on its face is that the person making that statement does not believe anywhere, any day, in what he/she postulates - that is what is called a strawman: you set up a fallacy that is without substance and ask others to attack it! That's a super comedy. Ask the atheist speaking about the teapot or pink unicorn if he actually believes in such things, unlike the theist who only presents what he believes in? Theists do not go about in their worldviews postulating what they do not believe in - only the atheist does precisely that! Tell me as an atheist that you believe in and worship the pink unicorn - mean it and show me your theology for the tea-pot/pink unicorn, and viaro will straighten you out presto.

If you don't believe in the tea pot you proclaim, what has that got to do with the neighbour across the street?

Besides if any of the Gods exist, surely they should still be leaving some evidence that will be detectable by scientific means.

You tell me what type of science you want to use to talk about spiritual things and then I will lead you in that study to discover the supernatural.