I, for example am an Anti-theistic Agnostic-Deist, tending towards a type of PanDeism/PanenDeism. My views are allmost identical to what has been erroneously called Scientific PanTHEISM{which I argue is actually a form of deism or PanDeism/PanenDeism to be more precise}.
...For my argument on this visit my blog "The Deuelling Deist" at blogspot, and read my note= '"Scientific Pantheism" contradiction in terms, and a form of PanDeism in actuality". I'm similar to physicists Einstein, Hawking, and Paul Davies essentially, but it's still a form of deism. I'm assuming your only knowledge/understanding of deism is of "classical deism", not of "modern deism(s)"
Sigh...It looks like we just have a disagreement on semantics. I think your definitions of theism and deism are incorrect, and I'm certain you think mine are also. We've both made this very clear. It's a stupid argument, and I suspect that we agree on most everything else. In any case, I don't think I'm a deist by either of our definitions, so I won't be calling myself one. I am an agnostic atheist.
I'm quite tired of this discussion. Would you be willing to agree to disagree?
...Now if theism is the belief in a personal{etc} god(s), how logically is deism=theism? It's no mmore theism base don that then it is atheism base don the fact that deism and atheism are both based in reason, scientific method loving, and reject revelation/superstition/miracle/etc. It can be said to have elements of both atheism and theism and also agnosaticism, but it is it's own unique and seperate category.
@Iconoclastithon Difficult as hell finding the right comment to reply to.
Theism does not necessarily mean one believes in a personal god. Don't confuse it with religion. Here's how I see it: If you believe in a god, or you think it's more likely that a god exists than not, then you fall into the category of theist. Deism is a subcategory of theism. Granted, deists are my favorite kind of theists, but they're still theists. Don't make it more complicated than it is.
\Don't confuse theism and religion, religion does not neccaerily include theism or even deism, it can be atheistic even. I know you want to simpligy things, but things are not so simple, they are more complex. Rational and scientific minde dpeople know this, as do the philosophical.
It seems to me you want to deny nuances and distinctions because they require more thought, if they cna't be simplifuied into a slogan or easy rhetoric...it seems so many want nothing to do with complexity, nuances, diversity and distinctions. sad really.
@Iconoclastithon And if you're going to degrade your argument by insults, I'll have nothing more to do with you. There is belief and non-belief. There are varying degrees of belief and non-belief, but shy of being 50/50 not sure (which I find hard to imagine) you have to go one way or another. Seems like you're just hiding behind vague "nuances" because you have nothing real to add to the conversation.
Strong Atheism is a "belief", it's a faith in fact{certainty about what one cannot be certain about}, just like Strong Deism. Agnostic-Atheism and Agnostic-Deism are both reason0based belief leanings. I don't know exactly which you might be. But belief and unbelief are not a matter of theism{or equating deism with it} vs atheism(visa versa}. They are'nt vague nuances, they are reality rather than simple recitable slogans/rhetoric
Tell me where I'm wrong about this: Deists believe in a god or gods (Think it's more likely...etc.) Theists believe in a god or gods (Think it's more likely...etc.) Atheists do not believe in god or gods (Don't think it's more likely...etc.)
How is deism not a part of theism? It is a positive claim that a god (creative force, whatever) exists. To my knowledge, that's pretty much the definition of theism. Where am I wrong?
In Deism God is for the most part a poetic metaphor, used for conventions sake as a form of subtle reverance for the mysterious first cause and/or whatever it is that causes the laws of the cosmos to be so mathematically precise. Deists have their own individual views on whether this deus force is intelligent{whatever that means precisely,
...Ai's and non-human animals and super computers & infmoration systems are arguably "intelligent"}, some are borderline liberal theists, others have much more in common with atheists and agnostics{such as myself}, Making Deism seperate and distinct from both atheism & theism.
If "Deism" is a subtype of theism{or atheism as some theists will claim} than it is redundant, but this is not the case.
If theism is not neccaserily belief in personal gods and deism a non-personal first cause force, than Deism is redundant and an uneeded term/idea. But obviously it is needed and is VERY distict from theism, in fact deism/deists, though not atheism/atheists, has alot more in common with atheism/atheists than with theists/theism. Yet it is neither theism nor atheism, though containing traces of each, it is distinct, seperate, unique.
Deism is neither theism nor atheism technically. Never was. Theists and atheists have both for centuries accused it of beeing of the others camp, but it is a unique, seperate category. Though DEISTS can be allmost liberally theistic or allmost Atheistic.
...I myself am an Anti-theistic Agnostic-Deist, so I fall onto the side of the latter. I have a scale like Dawkins scale, except it omits theism and has atheism-agnosticism-deism and various degrees of agnostic-atheism and agnostic-deism between. I LEAN towards deism, but am technically agnostic. But I will say this, Deism in itself is a non-theism, like atheism and agnosticism.
No it is not. This is a strawman and base din a flase understabnding of the evolution of words and ideas. Atheism once meant "without god/godless" not "lacking belief in gods" as modern new atheists put it. Classicly todays deists and agnostics and even lapsed theists would fit the classic atheos/atheism.
...As I said before, Deism is a asperate and unique category of belief or opinion/view from both theism and atheism, deists and deism have always been accused of beeing of the others camp by both atheists and theists because they can't grasp these distinctions{or refuse to}. Though a Deist may be a borderline liberal theist or a borderline Atheist{anti-theistic agnostic-deist} in some sense, 'DEISM" is it's own unique category.
@Iconoclastithon sounds liek u have as much of an identiy crisis as atheists :P most definitions i see say a god = theism, and atheism is the lack thereof. Deism is the most likely logical position to me after atheism.
Theism is the belief{faith and requires revelation} in a personal, anthropocentric{often anthropomoprhic}, interfering god(s), deism is the belief{can be in degrees} in a non-personal non-anthropomorphic/centric/intefering "god"{not it;'s name, just metaphor for it}. Deism also has mirror sub-categpries like theism, such as PanDeism and PanenDeism.
...Now if theism is the belief in a personal{etc} god(s), how logically is deism=theism? It's no mmore theism base don that then it is atheism base don the fact that deism and atheism are both based in reason, scientific method loving, and reject revelation/superstition/miracle/etc. It can be said to have elements of both atheism and theism and also agnosaticism, but it is it's own unique and seperate category.
@Iconoclastithon u just fucking confused me man :P i had a nice and simple 2 set dichotomy of a/theism and ag/nostcism and u go n mess it all up :P and dont spam so much :P
This might work for Agman, but most Atheists won't be comfortable with the term Deist. Even if I view the "supreme being" of this Deism, as the abstract idea of the "First Cause" of the Kalam, there is still zero evidence for it's existence.
The Kalam argument itself is full of holes (eg: the uncaused nature of the first cause), and to my knowledge, science hasn't shown any evidence that there was a first cause. We have no knowledge of what was before the big bang...
....and if my understanding's correct, as time was created by the big bang itself, there couldn't possibly be anything before the big bang. There would be no "before".
Time is required for cause and effect to work, so surely it's impossible for anything to have caused it.
Isn't it perfectly conceivable that time itself stretches back towards infinity?
Either way, Deism is not a skeptical position, so I certainly won't be taking it. Not without evidence, because it IS a positive claim.
Time AS WE know it in this universe. But we KNOW there was a big bang, technically our time did'nt even exist at the very moment of it, but milliseconds later. logically There has to be a "before", we just don't understand yet what that 'before" was.
...As for deism not ebeign a skeptical position, that's totally not true. I'm an Agnostic-Deist and am a skeptical person about everything, completely faithless, but OPEN-MINDEDLY skeptical{true skepticism} about that which is as of yet not provable/disprovable by logic/reason and scientific method. Deism encourages skepticism and reason.
Well a skeptic suspends judgement until there is sufficient evidence to support a claim. The claim that there is a First Cause has very little evidence as far as I'm aware.
We can't make any speculations about what happened before the Big Bang, because that is when all the laws of physics were created. What happened before that (if indeed there is a "before"), is totally unknowable.
Is it a skeptical position to make assumptions about things that we could not possibly know?
An agnostic-deist suspends complete judgement, just leans in a certain direction base don reason and evidence, like the agnostic-atheist does. STRONG Deists are skeptical about most things, just not about God. But then the STRONG Atheist is just as faith-based about the non-existance of even a deus. Agnosticism is the de-fault, but a degree of "leaning" does not get rid of skepticism. I am skeptical of gods existance, juist think it "likely' is all.
Ah ok. The word agnostic can be quite ambiguous, but if using the term agnostic to mean "uncertain" but leaning towards Deism, that's a more justified position than I thought you were taking.
I was under the impression you were using the term in the epistemic sense.
The Big Bang doesn't even account for the beginnings of our universe, so it seems a bit of a silly idea to assume that there even is a "before". The Big Bang accounts for the expansion of the universe, and that's it.
I have yet to see concrete evidence that the Big Bang itself had a beginning, and obviously, if it didn't have a beginning, there could be nothing before it.
Maybe there is some evidence that I'm not aware of, if so, I'd love to see it.
@Sykotix1 the universe is still expanding. The big bang is the beginning of that[so far as we know anyhow}. Unless there was a singularity for an infinity/eternity before the expansion, the universe either came from nothing or something else{bubble universe/multiverse, quantum fluctuation maybe, oscillating; because something does not come from a 'literal' nothing}, but logically there had to be a 'before" some time before OUR time/space.
...Deism accounts for the mathematically exact laws of the one universe we know of and even of the laws of whatever was 'before" OUR current time/space. There is a mathematical rationality behind/in it all... "God/deus" is a metaphor for that{as Einstein put it..superior reasoning power"}
I, for example am an Anti-theistic Agnostic-Deist, tending towards a type of PanDeism/PanenDeism. My views are allmost identical to what has been erroneously called Scientific PanTHEISM{which I argue is actually a form of deism or PanDeism/PanenDeism to be more precise}.
CONT...
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
CONT;
...For my argument on this visit my blog "The Deuelling Deist" at blogspot, and read my note= '"Scientific Pantheism" contradiction in terms, and a form of PanDeism in actuality". I'm similar to physicists Einstein, Hawking, and Paul Davies essentially, but it's still a form of deism. I'm assuming your only knowledge/understanding of deism is of "classical deism", not of "modern deism(s)"
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
@Iconoclastithon
Sigh...It looks like we just have a disagreement on semantics. I think your definitions of theism and deism are incorrect, and I'm certain you think mine are also. We've both made this very clear. It's a stupid argument, and I suspect that we agree on most everything else. In any case, I don't think I'm a deist by either of our definitions, so I won't be calling myself one. I am an agnostic atheist.
I'm quite tired of this discussion. Would you be willing to agree to disagree?
nemo3590 1 year ago
@nemo3590
Sure. Agreeing to disagree seems reasonable. "there is no greater weapon against errors of any kind than reason"- Thomas Paine.
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
@Iconoclastithon
And I'll say "Amen" to that.
nemo3590 1 year ago
CONT;
...Now if theism is the belief in a personal{etc} god(s), how logically is deism=theism? It's no mmore theism base don that then it is atheism base don the fact that deism and atheism are both based in reason, scientific method loving, and reject revelation/superstition/miracle/etc. It can be said to have elements of both atheism and theism and also agnosaticism, but it is it's own unique and seperate category.
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
@Iconoclastithon Difficult as hell finding the right comment to reply to.
Theism does not necessarily mean one believes in a personal god. Don't confuse it with religion. Here's how I see it: If you believe in a god, or you think it's more likely that a god exists than not, then you fall into the category of theist. Deism is a subcategory of theism. Granted, deists are my favorite kind of theists, but they're still theists. Don't make it more complicated than it is.
nemo3590 1 year ago
@nemo3590
\Don't confuse theism and religion, religion does not neccaerily include theism or even deism, it can be atheistic even. I know you want to simpligy things, but things are not so simple, they are more complex. Rational and scientific minde dpeople know this, as do the philosophical.
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
It seems to me you want to deny nuances and distinctions because they require more thought, if they cna't be simplifuied into a slogan or easy rhetoric...it seems so many want nothing to do with complexity, nuances, diversity and distinctions. sad really.
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
@Iconoclastithon And if you're going to degrade your argument by insults, I'll have nothing more to do with you. There is belief and non-belief. There are varying degrees of belief and non-belief, but shy of being 50/50 not sure (which I find hard to imagine) you have to go one way or another. Seems like you're just hiding behind vague "nuances" because you have nothing real to add to the conversation.
nemo3590 1 year ago
@nemo3590
Strong Atheism is a "belief", it's a faith in fact{certainty about what one cannot be certain about}, just like Strong Deism. Agnostic-Atheism and Agnostic-Deism are both reason0based belief leanings. I don't know exactly which you might be. But belief and unbelief are not a matter of theism{or equating deism with it} vs atheism(visa versa}. They are'nt vague nuances, they are reality rather than simple recitable slogans/rhetoric
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
@Iconoclastithon You're right. There are atheistic religions.
Tell me where I'm wrong about this: Deists believe in a god or gods (Think it's more likely...etc.) Theists believe in a god or gods (Think it's more likely...etc.) Atheists do not believe in god or gods (Don't think it's more likely...etc.)
How is deism not a part of theism? It is a positive claim that a god (creative force, whatever) exists. To my knowledge, that's pretty much the definition of theism. Where am I wrong?
nemo3590 1 year ago
@nemo3590
In Deism God is for the most part a poetic metaphor, used for conventions sake as a form of subtle reverance for the mysterious first cause and/or whatever it is that causes the laws of the cosmos to be so mathematically precise. Deists have their own individual views on whether this deus force is intelligent{whatever that means precisely,
CONT...
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
CONT;
...Ai's and non-human animals and super computers & infmoration systems are arguably "intelligent"}, some are borderline liberal theists, others have much more in common with atheists and agnostics{such as myself}, Making Deism seperate and distinct from both atheism & theism.
If "Deism" is a subtype of theism{or atheism as some theists will claim} than it is redundant, but this is not the case.
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
@nemo3590
If theism is not neccaserily belief in personal gods and deism a non-personal first cause force, than Deism is redundant and an uneeded term/idea. But obviously it is needed and is VERY distict from theism, in fact deism/deists, though not atheism/atheists, has alot more in common with atheism/atheists than with theists/theism. Yet it is neither theism nor atheism, though containing traces of each, it is distinct, seperate, unique.
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
Deism is neither theism nor atheism technically. Never was. Theists and atheists have both for centuries accused it of beeing of the others camp, but it is a unique, seperate category. Though DEISTS can be allmost liberally theistic or allmost Atheistic.
CONT...
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
CONT;
...I myself am an Anti-theistic Agnostic-Deist, so I fall onto the side of the latter. I have a scale like Dawkins scale, except it omits theism and has atheism-agnosticism-deism and various degrees of agnostic-atheism and agnostic-deism between. I LEAN towards deism, but am technically agnostic. But I will say this, Deism in itself is a non-theism, like atheism and agnosticism.
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
@Iconoclastithon Deism believes in an ultimate being that created the universe, this is theism!
spydrebyte 1 year ago
@spydrebyte
No it is not. This is a strawman and base din a flase understabnding of the evolution of words and ideas. Atheism once meant "without god/godless" not "lacking belief in gods" as modern new atheists put it. Classicly todays deists and agnostics and even lapsed theists would fit the classic atheos/atheism.
CONT...
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
CONT;
...As I said before, Deism is a asperate and unique category of belief or opinion/view from both theism and atheism, deists and deism have always been accused of beeing of the others camp by both atheists and theists because they can't grasp these distinctions{or refuse to}. Though a Deist may be a borderline liberal theist or a borderline Atheist{anti-theistic agnostic-deist} in some sense, 'DEISM" is it's own unique category.
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
@Iconoclastithon sounds liek u have as much of an identiy crisis as atheists :P most definitions i see say a god = theism, and atheism is the lack thereof. Deism is the most likely logical position to me after atheism.
spydrebyte 1 year ago
@spydrebyte
Theism is the belief{faith and requires revelation} in a personal, anthropocentric{often anthropomoprhic}, interfering god(s), deism is the belief{can be in degrees} in a non-personal non-anthropomorphic/centric/intefering "god"{not it;'s name, just metaphor for it}. Deism also has mirror sub-categpries like theism, such as PanDeism and PanenDeism.
CONT...
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
CONT;
...Now if theism is the belief in a personal{etc} god(s), how logically is deism=theism? It's no mmore theism base don that then it is atheism base don the fact that deism and atheism are both based in reason, scientific method loving, and reject revelation/superstition/miracle/etc. It can be said to have elements of both atheism and theism and also agnosaticism, but it is it's own unique and seperate category.
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
@Iconoclastithon u just fucking confused me man :P i had a nice and simple 2 set dichotomy of a/theism and ag/nostcism and u go n mess it all up :P and dont spam so much :P
spydrebyte 1 year ago
I'm with you on this one.
This might work for Agman, but most Atheists won't be comfortable with the term Deist. Even if I view the "supreme being" of this Deism, as the abstract idea of the "First Cause" of the Kalam, there is still zero evidence for it's existence.
The Kalam argument itself is full of holes (eg: the uncaused nature of the first cause), and to my knowledge, science hasn't shown any evidence that there was a first cause. We have no knowledge of what was before the big bang...
Sykotix1 1 year ago
@Sykotix1
....and if my understanding's correct, as time was created by the big bang itself, there couldn't possibly be anything before the big bang. There would be no "before".
Time is required for cause and effect to work, so surely it's impossible for anything to have caused it.
Isn't it perfectly conceivable that time itself stretches back towards infinity?
Either way, Deism is not a skeptical position, so I certainly won't be taking it. Not without evidence, because it IS a positive claim.
Sykotix1 1 year ago
@Sykotix1
Time AS WE know it in this universe. But we KNOW there was a big bang, technically our time did'nt even exist at the very moment of it, but milliseconds later. logically There has to be a "before", we just don't understand yet what that 'before" was.
CONT...
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
CONT;
...As for deism not ebeign a skeptical position, that's totally not true. I'm an Agnostic-Deist and am a skeptical person about everything, completely faithless, but OPEN-MINDEDLY skeptical{true skepticism} about that which is as of yet not provable/disprovable by logic/reason and scientific method. Deism encourages skepticism and reason.
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
Well a skeptic suspends judgement until there is sufficient evidence to support a claim. The claim that there is a First Cause has very little evidence as far as I'm aware.
We can't make any speculations about what happened before the Big Bang, because that is when all the laws of physics were created. What happened before that (if indeed there is a "before"), is totally unknowable.
Is it a skeptical position to make assumptions about things that we could not possibly know?
Sykotix1 1 year ago
@Sykotix1
An agnostic-deist suspends complete judgement, just leans in a certain direction base don reason and evidence, like the agnostic-atheist does. STRONG Deists are skeptical about most things, just not about God. But then the STRONG Atheist is just as faith-based about the non-existance of even a deus. Agnosticism is the de-fault, but a degree of "leaning" does not get rid of skepticism. I am skeptical of gods existance, juist think it "likely' is all.
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
@Iconoclastithon
Ah ok. The word agnostic can be quite ambiguous, but if using the term agnostic to mean "uncertain" but leaning towards Deism, that's a more justified position than I thought you were taking.
I was under the impression you were using the term in the epistemic sense.
Sykotix1 1 year ago
@Iconoclastithon
The Big Bang doesn't even account for the beginnings of our universe, so it seems a bit of a silly idea to assume that there even is a "before". The Big Bang accounts for the expansion of the universe, and that's it.
I have yet to see concrete evidence that the Big Bang itself had a beginning, and obviously, if it didn't have a beginning, there could be nothing before it.
Maybe there is some evidence that I'm not aware of, if so, I'd love to see it.
Sykotix1 1 year ago
@Sykotix1 the universe is still expanding. The big bang is the beginning of that[so far as we know anyhow}. Unless there was a singularity for an infinity/eternity before the expansion, the universe either came from nothing or something else{bubble universe/multiverse, quantum fluctuation maybe, oscillating; because something does not come from a 'literal' nothing}, but logically there had to be a 'before" some time before OUR time/space.
CONT...
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
CONT;
...Deism accounts for the mathematically exact laws of the one universe we know of and even of the laws of whatever was 'before" OUR current time/space. There is a mathematical rationality behind/in it all... "God/deus" is a metaphor for that{as Einstein put it..superior reasoning power"}
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago