Your views on this?

What are your views on Deism and Theism?

Historical and modern deism is defined by the view that reason, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject both organized and revealed religion and maintain that reason is the essential element in all knowledge

Theism is the belief in one or more gods or goddesses. More specifically, it may also mean the belief in God, a god, or gods, who is/are actively involved in maintaining the Universe.

Theism (second definition): The doctrine God(s) is immanent in the world, yet transcends it.

These God's do not have to pertain to any set of religion, I beleive the main concept of God has been distorted by religion. Deism and Theism come close to my actualy belief in god. I see myself more as a deist, but i choose to be a meta-ideologist .

 

My thoughts:

Deism = good

Theism = bad

For obvious reasons.

 

cooloner

Depends entirerly on what u mean by 'feel'
And of course u have reason, or you would not be able to make
rational statements. Or employ that wit displayed in your post

Occam

 

Belief in supernatural entities cannot be based on reason since there is no rational argument for the existence of gods, ghosts or spirits. Deism would seem to be a corruption of the human propensity for faith, a superimposed "rational" justification of something which is "believed" by the mind anyway, in a form away from conscious access. I would suggest that Deism cannot be purely rational - it cannot exist without the pre-existing belief it seeks to rationally explain and therefore is something of an unintentionally dishonest fiction.

 

Lithium

But there are rational arguements for the existance of 'natural' beings
that could wield 'godlike powers' [powers theists assign to a god/s]

See occams last post in the 'why are u athiest agnostic' thread

Occam

 

Can something be obvious if you have no reason? I'd say no.

Can you feel something, without reason? Most definitely.

I think deism is more desirable than theism simply because it has its foundations in reason and logic. Without reason and logic, we would still be in the Dark Ages, dying at ages of 35 and being struck with plague, famine, and war.

Just because deism has its root in reason, doesn't mean that it is any less "feeling" than theism. I've felt more supernatural and seen the world as more beautiful, without belief in any kinds of gods. I simply have a better understanding of that supernatural feeling. That doesn't mean that I feel such a feeling any less.

It was said on this board a while ago ... the sunset will forever be beautiful. No matter how, or why.

And to Lithium: I agree that deism cannot be purely rational. Just as theism cannot be purely belief. Nothing in this world is perfect. I just think that deism is a better choice than theism.

 

Hah, I did; now that's an interesting idea No more rational than other more traditional concepts of a creator-god though, since there is no cause to believe such a speculation. Is it possible? Yes, but it cannot be disproved ... a fact which means it is outside of the realms of rational investigation.

Going off the subject of Deism though...

 

Lithium
Actually, far more rational.
No cause to speculate on theistic gods..true
No existant evidence

Cause to speculate on natural beings with [god like]powers.
Existant evidence.
WE exist. EXAMPLE ONE of species that manipulates reality
to own purpose. If ONE exists,, many do.
In this case,[rational manipulating species]

Thus idea of 'evolved god' has existant logical basis
We ourselves in rush to reveal all secrets of reality are
aiming for that very status..

Thats pretty good evidence for rational investigation

Occam

 

there is awairness without knowledge or reason possible. this indeed the uncombined awairness that is our true nature. it lacks however, 'hands', as it were, the means to interact with the physical world in which we must for our tangable form to survive it's alloted span.

all of these words, they are inventing straw hairs to split. what is unknown is unknown. it is well to fantacise, by not so well to forget then with words, applying them to the nontangable, that is speculation.

eminent, transcendent. sometimes these are important concepts to express in some context. but how essential are they alone?

more so then being nice to the little spirit down by the creek, however YOU visualize doing that?

there are rocks and there are trees and then there are things no one knows anything about.

putting words with something that isn't in your hand, you are not telling someone what is, but only what you think. what could be yes, but not ever how, whatever is, 'has' to be.

thus every persuasive belief becomes its own 'anti-belief'

=^^=
.../\...

 

Proposing a being which we cannot detect because it exists outside of the realm of 'our' natural reality (and creates that reality) makes this proposition by definition one of a "supernatural" being. It's an unimportant subtlety whether you regard this godlike entity to be 'real' according to a set of natural principles beyond our access or forever elusive. It violates the principle of falsifiability and is therefore rationally unintelligible.

 

wake up laddy

Occam never proposed such a being.
Supernatural is a meaningless word.
for NOTHING exists outside of reality, if something does exist,, it is real
and part of reality. 'outside reality' is a meaningless phrase.

You know exactly what occam is saying.
That real races and beings can do what the fantasy of religion says a god can do.
We humans already do things that most humans call magic.
98% of human beings have no idea how a jet engine works
is it then 'supernatural'.?
How many know what a fusion torus is?
do you,, without looking it up.?
Do you realise that humans have made computers that can process
280 trillion calculations per second? [blue gene/l]
Most people take 3 seconds to do ONE calculation.

pure magic [supernatural ] to just about all humans...
we are on the path to the power of gods...

Occam suggests that one day, WE will be the 'direction' that a younger species speculates on.

Occam

 

Then I really don't know what you're saying ... that science can appear like magic to those without understanding of its mechnisms ... yes. That there may be other species somewhere in the universe with science more advanced than our own ... possible though entirely speculative. Is that it?

 

I agree Occam, i have seen documentaries where they hook a computer chip into a guys brain and he could move a robotic hand over the internet. Imagine hooking up a computer chip, and creating our reality, basically The Matrix, but without the whole "machines using our body heat for energy" kind of thing and all those tubes in every oraface, RM does not agree with that =p.

But yea, I think as humans our desire to create something (computers) as well as an alternate reality is very well in the midst of our intellect, it's only a matter of time until the material world is no longer and we all exist in a dimension created by a computer chip interacting with the brain. We will be the creators of this so called "Paradise".

 

Lithium

You said in earlier post
"no more rational than other more traditional concepts of a creator god."

Occam suggests that it is, especially as we ourselves have potential to
advance to point where we hold power equal to that held by gods of human theism.

Rational and intelligible.

Occam

 

Well nobody could disagree that it is a possibility that advanced species exist; forgive me if I misunderstood, you seemed to be suggesting that the known universe could be explained as a consequence of the advanced science of such beings:

"Occam sees no barriers to a race with such knowledge, theoretically
they could manipulate reality to result in 'big bangs' with laws to suit."

Like the proverbial teapot orbiting the sun, this is possible but no more reasonable than any traditional creator-god explanation of existence. Just one of the many theories which can never be tested and therefore defy rational study. Precisely because you are talking about something outside the nature of "our" universe and therefore undetectable. This by definition is a "supernatural" explanation and any call to the supernatural as an attempt to explain the natural is of course meaningless.

 

Lithium

Are you suggesting that the observed universe is the sum total of reality?
How absurd

Are u also suggesting that we will not one day be able to leave this
observed universe? Yet we know that mass does just that when a singularity forms.
NOTHING is impossible.. For us it might seem that leaving the observed
universe cannot be done.. but thats because we can't think how it could be done.
Understandable for a species that still burns plant byproducts to get most of it's power. But for a species with a billion year history..well
The analogy is a isolated amazonian tribe being shown a Thermonuclear MIRV warhead [a cone shaped object about 1.2 meters high]
and being told it 'if you push this button. a piece of the sun
will appear' To them,, that might be the power of a god

Occam suggests that our observed universe is no more than a small structure within a FAR larger structure called reality.
As is a single field to a continent.
Respected physicists and thinkers speculate about this sort of thing
all the time..it's call hard sf . and hard sf is based in what is possible

And yes, occam IS suggesting his earlier statment IS a 'possible'
And far more reasonable than any 'religious creation mythos'.
'god' as an evolved entity/race..thats all it is

If we could prove that random chance could not result in the massive
complexity and organisation of life.

Then an evolved direction would be THE rational explanation

Occam

 

I think you meant the opposite, lol.

 

DOH

Thanks hicky..fixed it so it actually says what was meant, instead
of saying 'this' which would be mistaken for he previous sentence.

 

Emotions aren't rational. Feelings aren't rational.

Logic, and physics, are rational.

Life, is a combination of these, and more -- both rational and not.

Life is somewhere in the gray area. Parts of it are rational, and other parts are not.

 

Cooloner

Occam understands using reason that life is a dynamic evolving
structure of massive complexity.
But beyond that he has but beliefs.. not understanding or fact.

One belief he does have is that if the observed universe does
have purpose/direction.
It may well be 1 of 2 things. [or both, thats efficiency for you]

1. To Result in life and self aware beings that can question
and evolve to greater understanding
2. To make singularities [black holes]
As these two results are the only ones that[we think] 'could' have effects beyond
this observed universe. [and huge effects within it]

While most spend their time arguing over US motives and actions in iraq
or how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Occams imagination wanders near the accretion disk of the massive
singularity at the center of our gallaxy.
Or floats along the the twists of the double helix dna string.
muttering A C G T to himself

A dreamer of the worst kind

Occam